David J. Garrow

Quite often, I’ve reviewed books that I enjoyed and wanted to pass along, but before I was even finished with this one, I knew that I’d be compelled to write a lengthier review than usual. It’s personal, as I’ve come to realize that I am 39 years old, having grown and lived predominantly in a place that King once referred to as the most segregated city in America, and yet I have never before read the history of Bull Connor’s dogs and firehoses, Fred Shuttlesworth, lunch counter show more sit-ins, George Wallace and the University of Alabama, and so forth. My birthplace certainly must carry the scars of this war, yet this was my first time reading intently about how those scars got there. I have the feeling that I’m not alone in this, and I would highly encourage anyone in this same position to take the time and learn about where we’ve come from with regards to civil rights in our nation. Of course, one book will hardly bring us up to speed, but I can say this book has gone a long way in helping me to see some of my roots better.

The book is simply a detailed piece of journalism, following Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from the moment he was thrust into the civil rights battle in Montgomery in 1955 to his death in Memphis nearly 13 years later. Author David Garrow has obviously done his homework, backing up his 625 page story with another 90 pages of endnotes and 47 pages of bibliography. The New York Review of Books refers to it as “likely to remain for a long time the most informative life of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the most thorough study of the civil rights movement.” I don’t intend here to review the book in great detail, but I do want to share certain aspects of it that impacted me profoundly.

First of all, it is incredible to me to learn that King was only 26 years of age when he was elected president of the newly formed Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), which was organized in response to the arrest of Rosa Parks. King had recently declined an invitation to be considered for president of the local NAACP chapter and reluctantly joined the bus boycott efforts, being a fairly new pastor in the city with his first newborn at home. He’d just received his Ph.D. a few months earlier from Boston University. And, so begins a theme that would run throughout King’s life story, as he often felt under qualified, undesiring of, or unprepared for the burdens that were laid upon him, but he knew that he could not refuse the calling of his God. He very much felt the call of Esther, “Who knows whether you have not come for such a time as this?” In actuality, King was quite introverted and uncomfortable with personal fame (though he was often accused of seeking his own glory), as he even refused to accept the Nobel Prize reward of $54,000 for himself (more than $500K in today’s market), insisting it belonged to the movement. He would have loved a much calmer life teaching theology in the classroom. But, he took each successive step in the fight for civil rights because he absolutely had to. He could not say no to God.

Of course, King was unprepared for much of the job he was called to do. As King’s scope extended beyond Montgomery into the entire Deep South, and eventually beyond, his MIA presidency gave way to presidency over the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which he headed until his death. But, King had no experience organizing large budgets and staffs, and the demands on his time and energy were enormous. The inner workings of the SCLC read like a constant mess, year after year, as offices are poorly managed, funds are mismanaged, and both staff and programs run crossways against one another. The organization would often run into situations with little or conflicted vision for how it planned to make a difference, and it would leave communities in a lurch when it moved on to the next locale. It’s abundantly clear that King and the SCLC championed a noble cause and were instrumental in achieving great successes, but it is also clear that such successes were no result of organizational genius. Certainly, they learned things about managing a movement along the way, and I in no way want to detract from what they were able to achieve. But, I believe they stand as a testament to the fact that God uses people to do great things who step into deep waters and get in way over their heads. To a large extent, the movement consisted of folks that didn’t exactly know what they were doing, but they knew what was right and they threw their lives into doing what they could. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t, but God used it in the end to accomplish great things.

On top of the challenges of simply managing the movement, there was another more fundamental and frustrating challenge that plagued King throughout the years – EGO. King himself was a very calming presence within the movement, but infighting abounded all around. There was infighting within the SCLC. There was infighting between the younger activists and the older generation. There was infighting between national organizations like SCLC and the local residents where they worked. And, there was infighting between organizations. In particular, the NAACP didn’t come out looking very good at all, as they constantly begrudged and butted heads with King and his SCLC. At the end of the day, they were all on the same team, but you have to wonder how much more they might have achieved had they avoided all the jealousy and ego-centric infighting.

On top of all these challenges, King carried daily the burden of his own mortality. He knew beyond a doubt that we would die. He watched with the entire nation as President Kennedy was assassinated. He heard the news when Malcolm X was cut down by gunfire. His home was bombed. He was stabbed. He knew – he absolutely knew – that he was going to die young. He talked about it often, even to the point of joking about it, though he certainly struggled with his “come to Jesus” moments as he worked to accept it. But, he did accept it, and it emboldened him to know that he was doing God’s work on God’s time.

Of course, King was just a man, and a man under extreme pressure. He often suffered bouts of depression and fell ill from the exhaustion of his hectic schedule. On top of his activity organizing communities, King’s speeches were also a vital source of fund-raising for the SCLC, and he traveled away from home upwards of 25 days out of each month. One of the ways King dealt with all the stress was with women. He knew it was wrong, as he would say in his own sermons, but it was a demon he never shook. From his early college days, King was something of a quiet Casanova, and he admitted to close friends that his womanizing was a form of anxiety reduction that he fell back on. Of course, the cognitive dissonance this caused for the Baptist pastor surely added to the anxiety he carried.

With regards to the Civil Rights Movement itself, its absolutely astounding to see the intense magnitude of the racism that has gripped our country, and the Deep South in particular. Thank God we’ve made great strides in the past 60 years, but it really is no wonder at all that our nation has still not recovered from the dehumanizing hatred that ran so rampant so recently. Of course, hatred is ultimately a great weakness, and I was fascinated with several particularly hateful characters that advanced civil rights far more than they ever meant to. For a contrasting context, I would first say that the movement largely failed in Albany, Georgia in the early 1960’s because of the savvy racism of chief Laurie Pritchett, who calmly arrested activists and played his politics well. Fast forward to Birmingham in 1963, however, and commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor had far less control over his hatred. As he turned his dogs and firehoses on the protestors (including school age children), he turned the conscience of the nation in favor of the people he hated. So it was also at Selma in 1965, when sheriff Jim Clark led his men (which included members of the KKK) in a violent charge against a crowd of marchers, which has come to be known as Bloody Sunday. Unwittingly, hateful and violent men such as Connor and Clark demonstrated for the nation just how weak and despicable their racist worldview was, as their actions spurred the nation to denounce racism even faster. Men like Connor and Clark illustrate the truth so well that when you invite Satan to root in your heart, you just become a pawn and ultimately lose control.

Looking back, some have criticized King and his SCLC for provoking men like Connor and Clark. After all, the reason young students were treated so brutally in Birmingham was because civil rights activists kept organizing wave after wave of them and sending them up against Connor, knowing the violence he was capable of. In private conversation, organizers even admitted that they were hoping for the exact response that they got. So, is it not the activists’ fault for provoking violence? And, here we have to get real with nature of racism, because racism can thrive and plague a community for quite a long while when it’s allowed to lay low in the shadows. As long as nobody talks about it out loud and as long as it’s relegated to certain understandings concerning the unspoken boundary lines we keep in place, racism can go unchecked for year after year. Forget the notion that racism will eventually peter out of its own accord. It’s a dark ideology that will never give up without a fight. Yes, the movement provoked Connor in Birmingham, and they provoked him in order that they might bring a sickness into the light that Birmingham had been struggling with for quite some time. The racism was there. The hatred was there. The dehumanizing policies were there. The movement didn’t manufacture any of these things; it simply exposed them. Too often times, activists are cast as trouble makers and loud mouths (and sometimes they are) because they bring things to light that we’d be much more comfortable keeping in the shadows. But, if a thing can’t exist in the light, why should we be content living with darkness? As King so eloquently pointed out, peace is not measured negatively, as though it is simply the absence of demonstrations. Peace is the positive presence of justice.

One more thing that I have found particularly troubling – I often found my “side” in the Civil Rights story to be the wrong side. As a conservative Christian with conservative, capitalist political and economic values, I was amused almost to the point of frustration that King prescribed to a more liberal theology, found support from the more liberal politicians, and flirted with communism. He certainly believed in what he called “democratic socialism.” I came away from the book saying, “This should have been our movement!” And, it should have, if conservative Christians had actually lived up to the best of their values. I can understand why minorities and social activists lean towards liberal ideals to this day, and in part I don’t blame them. We conservatives failed them. We cared more about our power and our traditions and our comfortable way of life more than we cared about making the radical changes that needed to be made in order to do what was right. We undermined the case for our own values. Case in point: I absolutely believe in a government of the people – very limited federal power with robust states’ rights. At least, I believe this conceptually. But, if I were given the choice between a nation with small federal government and abundant racism, or a nation with overreaching federal government that was effective in curtailing racism, I would have to admit that states’ rights aren’t always worth it. I’ll continue to applaud decisions like Dobbs that shrink federal overreach and give power back to the people, but I also recognize the fact that we the people created the beast we have today. If we want a conservative way of life, let’s work for a conservative way of life that values everyone and refuses to trample on the weak in order to benefit the strong.

One last word on King – I think it’s important to honor those things which made King a truly great leader: principles and faithful self-sacrifice. King certainly made his fair share of mistakes, and I wouldn’t agree with everything he preached. But, it’s a lot easier to criticize the man than it is to be the man. King held onto his principles even when he knew they’d cost him funding, publicity, rest, votes, security, or anything else. He paid whatever cost necessary to keep a clean conscience. And, he volunteered his life for a role that few would want. He was criticized from all sides. He was certainly criticized by those who opposed civil rights. He was criticized by those who fought for civil rights and then were disappointed when King “couldn’t deliver” (as though it was up to him to deliver). He was accused of making agreements and settlements that “sold out” his constituency. Truth is, it’s a tough business leading change, and concessions must be made. And, when they are, the disappointed masses look for someone the vent their frustrations upon. King was vastly under-appreciated for his work during his lifetime, but he poured himself into it because of his principled commitment, not for the publicity. King today is a beloved and respected leader because he wasn’t driven by the love and respect of the masses. That was certainly a strength to him when he had it, and he battled harsh depression when it waned, but it didn’t drive him. He was driven by an unrelenting passion to do what he knew he’d been called to do, and he laid down his life for it.

As I read through the final chapter of this biography, detailing King’s last six months, the sheer weight of the hectic reality of King’s life came home. He was terribly depressed towards the end, hanging on by a thin thread. Still, he moved forward. I’ll conclude as Garrow concludes, with the words of Charles Willie, “By idolizing those whom we honor, we do a disservice both to them and to ourselves. By exalting the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr., to a legendary tale that is annually told, we fail to recognize his humanity – his personal and public struggles – that are similar to yours and mine. By idolizing those whom we honor, we fail to realize that we could go and do likewise.” show less

Martin Luther King Jr. is as close to a secular saint as America has. Every child learns the outlines of the story, the non-violent activist with a dream who was martyred for the sins of a racist nation. Garrow has written a deeply researched account of King's career with the SCLC, but in an effort to avoid drama or grandiosity, I think this book misses the forest for the trees.

King was thrust into leadership when he just 25, with the Montgomery bus boycott prompted by Rosa Park's refusal to show more give up her seat to a white person. Parks was selected as a test case for Brown v Board of education by the local NAACP, and King as a newcomer to the city was thought to be less influenced by city fathers. The boycott, a combination of non-violent activism and organizing, proved effective over more than a year of effort, bringing King to national attention, and leading to his calling as a civil rights leader.

King and the SCLC was at the center of the civil rights movement, a central front between the more conservative NAACP and firebrands of the SNCC. And King showed energy, fortitude, and moral courage. Yet its interesting that the account of the book reveals a much more desperate and hardscrabble movement popular history. Civil rights was always unpopular, always fighting uphill. King's moral center worked best against overt brutal segregationists like Birmingham Police Chief 'Bull' Connor, who could be counted on to do something stupid in front of the cameras. Yet the SCLC had perennial organizational problems and conflicts with local activists, rarely building something new. Garrow skims lightly over King's personal problems, his serial infidelity, exhaustion, and likely abuse of prescription stimulants, the last being common in the 1960s. The man was a man, not an angel, and had human appetites, though Garrow does not dive into salacious detail.

King had a reputation as moderate, and compared to the rising Black Power activists he was, but he also had a keen sense of universal justice that drew him to take unpopular stances against the Vietnam War in 1967, at immense cost to political alliances with President Johnson and much of the Democratic establishment. His last effort was a multiracial Poor Person's March, to demand a much more robust social safety net, including what in 2020 would be called universal basic income, before he was assassinated.

So about that forest, it's a counter-intuitive judgement, but King wasn't actually much of an organizer or politician. What he had was an absolute moral clarity about the fundamental injustice of America, and about the possibility for national redemption. I think that's the real story of King, not where he traveled and when he gave a speech. The book is at it's best when Garrow quotes King at length, or reveals a personal anecdote; King was a talented mimic and enjoyed teasing impressions of close friends, contentious late night meetings devolving into pillow fights, the perennially late King pausing on his way to a board meeting to ask a church janitor about his wife's back.

This is a key reference for the facts, or at least one interpretation of the facts, given the fallibility of human memory, but Bearing the Cross is a door stopper of a book, and I'm still looking for a volume on King I love. show less

I do admit I would not have finished if it wasn’t an audiobook (62 hours of audiobook!), but I’m so glad I listened to it. More focus and attention to detail than virtually anyone wants, this is still an astoundingly great biography. I highly recommend it if you want to understand Illinois and Chicago politics, the self-making of Barack Obama, and some of the facts that were mired in hype and headlines as they happened.

I’d love to see a second volume really unpacking the years once show more inside Senate and White House, as those are basically all epilogue in this book. I think part of that might have been the very carefully manicured image that Obama had once he reached those high offices (Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko notwithstanding). show less

Incredibly well-researched and moving, this book both humanizes King for his fans and shows his tremendous courage and dedication to the betterment of the lives of African Americans to his detractors. I found the documented details skillfully employed by the author, chosen wisely to paint the portrait of this man in multiple dimensions. A lot of information, complexities of the human person, and often depressing realities of our world - it's not for entertainment. But I've re-read this book show more multiple times for what it gives to us. Great biography. We're lucky to have it. show less