What exactly did Ralph Abernathy claim about Martin Luther King Jr. in And the Walls Came Tumbling Down?
Executive summary
Ralph Abernathy’s 1989 autobiography And the Walls Came Tumbling Down alleges that Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in extramarital sexual activity on the night of April 3–4, 1968, the night before his assassination—specifically that King spent parts of that night alone with two different women and physically struggled with a third, an episode Abernathy wrote about in grisly detail and which he said he included because such claims were already public knowledge; Abernathy’s account provoked immediate condemnation from civil-rights leaders, a libel suit by a woman he was perceived to implicate, and fierce debate about motive and judgment [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What Abernathy actually wrote: two women, a scuffle, and suggested infidelity
Abernathy recounts waking from a nap after a late dinner in Memphis to see King and a woman leave a bedroom, and elsewhere in the book says King spent parts of that night alone with two different women and at one point “knocked [a woman] across the bed” during a confrontation when a third woman came looking for him—language that reads as an explicit allegation of extramarital sexual encounters the night before King was killed [5] [1] [2].
2. How Abernathy defended including the material
Abernathy told reporters and readers he only addressed King’s alleged sexual conduct because it had already circulated publicly—in other books, in congressional hearings and in forums—and that omitting it would make his autobiography less credible to those aware of the rumors; he framed the book’s purpose as both personal record and political exhortation, arguing the movement’s urgency justified candid disclosure [2] [5].
3. Immediate backlash from the civil‑rights establishment
Prominent black leaders, including NAACP figures and trustees of the King legacy, publicly demanded Abernathy retract the passages and condemned him for “desecrat[ing]” King’s memory, saying a man who had been King’s closest confidant should not have published such intimate allegations; opponents portrayed the disclosures as a betrayal and as gratuitous fodder that served no constructive purpose [3] [6] [7].
4. Legal response and disputes over identification
A Memphis civil‑rights worker, Adjua Naantaanbuu, sued for $10 million claiming Abernathy’s text implied she slept with King the night before his death and that the implication harmed her reputation; Abernathy’s defenders noted he did not print names in the passages, while critics said implication alone was damaging and reckless [4].
5. Context: FBI tapes, prior rumors, and later corroboration claims
Abernathy acknowledged knowledge of earlier efforts to discredit King—including FBI investigations and leaked tapes of alleged sexual encounters—and presented his account as consistent with those circulating records, a point critics used to argue he merely amplified hostile material; years later, Georgia Davis Powers would claim in her autobiography that she had been intimate with King and spent part of that final night with him, a claim some saw as corroboration though it arrived after the initial controversy [6] [1].
6. Explanations offered for Abernathy’s judgment and possible motives
Commentators and fellow activists suggested multiple motives for Abernathy’s decision: a desire to set his own record straight about his role in the movement, an attempt to bolster book sales, personal grievances or diminished judgment following health problems—charges that range from financial incentive to perceived jealousy or failing health—but sources disagree on which, if any, dominated his intent [6] [8].
7. What this means for King’s public legacy and the record
The episode exposed a fault line between historical disclosure and protective stewardship of a revered leader’s image: Abernathy’s narrative forced a public reckoning with long‑circulating allegations while prompting civil‑rights institutions to insist on restraint and to question whether private failings—if true—should be aired by a friend whose voice carries institutional weight [9] [7].