Literary comparison between Henry Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and Martin Luther King's "Letters from Birmingham Jail."

Martin King and Henry Thoreau both write persuasive expositions that oppose majority ideals and justify their own causes. While this similarity is clear, the two essays, "Letters from Birmingham Jail" by King and "Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau, do have their fair share of differences. Primarily in the causes themselves, as King persuades white, southern clergy men that segregation is an evil, unjust law that should be defeated through the agitation of direct protesting, and Thoreau, …

…disobedience. I feel that King does succeed farther with his inclusion of more passionate emotion and easier to understand, heartfelt metaphors. Though it is debatable that the scientific and matter of fact tone Thoreau uses ultimately make his case more credible by establishing his work as not only a great personal exposition, but also a considerable scientific exposition that could be considered among the ranks of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" or even Machiavelli's "The Prince."