Comparative Essay on MLK's letter and Thoreau's Civil Disobidience - feedback

HI, Im supposed to write a comparitive analysis essay on Martin Luther King's letter from jail and Thoreau's essay. I need to evalutae the effectiveness of the two essays. Is this a good intro?

Governments are created to keep society safe and secure. However, the government of a nation can sometimes pass civil laws or create statutes that can be considered "unjust". While encountering this injustice, it is not difficult for one to speak out against it. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau did just that and were both thrown in jail for disobeying certain civil laws. Both men wrote essays in which they condemned certain aspects of this social injustice. Thoreau, in his essay "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience", conjures the notion that society must overcome the strong "hold" of government to realize their own principles and morals and not follow the conscience of government. Martin Luther, in his piece "Letter from Birmingham Jail", fights against the injustice brought to blacks in a period of racial segregation and against the unfair treatment of blacks throughout America. Though both essays are effectively written, Martin Luther King's letter is more effective. Martin's letter has a patient, pacifistic tone that he uses in accordance with strong emotional and logical appeals to construct an overall more effective, and organized essay than Thoreau's; furthermore, King's letter is more practical in the ideas that he is trying to convey.

evaluate the effectiveness----This is interesting already... how can one evaluate effectiveness? First, you need to know the purpose each writer is trying to achieve.

Just write "King" instead of repeating the first name a lot... be consistent, and type King each time.

After you wrote that King's was more effective, you substantiated the claim by referring to the tone, logical appeal, organization, and practicality. However, I would counter that Thoreau's essay is more widely read and therefore is more effective. Nevertheless, your argument is just as valid as the one I would make.

So this intro seems pretty strong, though I don't really feel so good about trying to compare two profound works of writing and assess one as simply "more effective" than the other. But if the teacher wants this to be about which is "more effective," that is what you have to do, I guess!

:-)