The Montgomery Bus Boycott

1. - Introduction

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was one of the first large and organized protests of African-Americans of the 20th century. It happened in Montgomery, Alabama, which overt racism was something common in their society. The black women of Montgomery were of relevant importance for the eruption and development of the movement. Also the tactic of non-violent resistance was one of the key factors which lead the blacks of Montgomery towards the victory. All these combined with an strategically well organized structural planning gave it the strength to persist for 381 days. It is significant to point to the opposition that the whites of Montgomery played during the boycott, but it is important to mention that a great part of them were supporters of the black movement.

2. -Black Women Relevance in the Boycott

Since the very beginning African-American women have been involved in the struggle to guide themselves from slavery to freedom. In doing so, they had to fight against a triple barrier: sex, race and social class. These barriers had given them the persistence, ability to adapt, and bravery to succeed in their professions.
According to Bethune, African-American women had promoted the civil rights struggle and participated actively in it for getting social improvements for their race, their families and themselves. In the history of the civil rights movement there were not only a few women involved. Research shows that there were a large number of women that participated in it. According to Baker “The movement of the fifties and sixties was carried largely by women, since it came out of church……The number of women who carried the movement was much larger that of men.” [1]
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was the first direct action against racial segregation after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education was approved. They wanted to go further and get the status of first-class citizens. On the 1st of December of 1955, Mrs. Rosa Parks, an African-American seamstress, was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for not standing and letting a white take her seat. It was an "established rule" in the American south that African-American riders had to sit at the back of the bus. They were also expected to yield their seat to a white passenger if it was needed. When asked to move to let a white bus rider be seated Mrs. Parks refused. She did not argue and she did not move. The police were called and Mrs. Parks was arrested.
Mrs. Parks was not the first African-American to be arrested for his disobedience to the law, nor the last one. She was only one of several hundred African-American women who played relevant roles in the boycotts, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. The relevance of that woman and that day is that it is recognized as the beginning of the civil rights movement. For this boycott to succeed it was necessary the help of another woman, JoAnn Robinson the leader of the Women´s Political Council (WPC), who was in charge to organize the protest and to print 52.000 leaflets asking Montgomery blacks to stay off public busses on December 5th, the day of the trial of Rosa Parks. According to Martin Luther King Jr., she “perhaps more than any other person, was active on every level of the protest.” [2]
As we already stated, they were just the representatives of a whole Afro-American community aiming social change. The reasons that lead them to join the protest so decisively were from different grounds.

2.1. - Reasons
One of the reasons for their involvement was that they were highly motivated. Moreover, they were highly motivated because they enjoyed an inner and outer freedom. In comparison to white women and their black husbands, they felt their spirits free, and because of that freedom, they felt compelled to do things, to change things in their society. They had the energy to do so and first of all because they did not want their husbands and children to be humiliated.
These women came from different backgrounds, “middle class, rural, professional women, educated and uneducated –all were involved in the civil rights movement.” They shared their experiences in different fields to apply it for a common purpose of equality. “They formed a strong sisterhood network that crossed all barriers and classes.” [3]
Many women said they were highly motivated to participate in the struggle to fight for better civil rights for the African-American community since very early stages of their lives. They experienced how their mothers and grandmothers had to fight against everyday oppression and racism. They grow up with that feeling of resentment which encouraged them to give a step forward.
Another reason that made them play a part in the protest was their faith in God and in the religious teachings. There, they got all the strength necessary to be able to deal with discrimination, racism and classicism. Moreover, the church was a kind of sanctuary for them. It was a place where they could share the troubles they found in their working day. They also started singing old spirituals together with new freedom songs. They found the message and the means to appeal for a movement mixing “spiritual and earthly forms of salvation.” [4]
Another factor which contributed to their motivation was racial injustices. Afro-American women were aware of the injustices of racism. They were “sick and tired of being sick and tired.” [5] For some women, their involvement was something natural; they knew things were not working properly and that they were not treated right. They just reacted automatically to that inner resentment fossilized since they were children.

3. -Theology of the Movement

According to Martin Luther King Jr., non-violent resistance was the only practical and moral method to use in their struggle against social oppression. He, as a preacher, wanted to infuse his activism through biblical images of bondage and liberation, their own black “liberation theology.” [6] He increased this imagery with other ideologies fomented in India, Africa, Europe and in the U.S.. Examples of these borrowings are found in King’s application of the Gandhian philosophy of satyagraha, the use of the “sit-in”, and others applied to African liberation activities.
The concept of non-violence, ahimsa, and non-resistance had a long history in India’s religious doctrine. Its first mention in Indian philosophy is found in the Hindu scriptures called the Upanishads, the oldest of which date about 800 BCE. In The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Gandhi explains his philosophy based on the respect for all life and his rejection to apply any injure to his enemy. Ahimsa means non-killing but implies as well entire abstinence from causing any pain or harm to any living creature either by thought, word, or deed.
King’s first approaches to the concept of non-violent resistance were after reading Henry David Thoreau’s Essay of Civil Disobedience. He was really fascinated with the idea of refusing to cooperate with the system, but had doubts about its practical use. In 1950 King went to Philadelphia to hear a conference given by the president of Howard University, Dr. Mordecai Johnson, about the life and teachings of Gandhi. King became deeply impacted by what he heard and started reading everything related to him. His incredulous attitude concerning non-violence was progressively disappearing.
It was the Montgomery Bus Boycott what demonstrated King the success of non-violence in the struggle against social segregation in the public transports. This movement allowed King to join Gandhian tactics with the Christian doctrine. King stated “. . . my mind, consciously or unconsciously, was driven back to the Sermon on the Mount and the Gandhian method of non-violent resistance. This principle became the guiding light of our movement. Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method.” [7]
King published his principles in Christian Century in 1957. In that article he exposed that non-violence could only be practiced by the strongest of men, it was not an act of cowardice. He also appointed their doctrine’s aim is not to destroy the enemy, but to make him aware of reality. That is why they used the boycott as a means to make the other reflect on the situation and feel guilty and shamed of his actions. He pointed they were not attacking certain “‘evil’ people, but only evil ideas, practices and laws.” [8] In order to be a member of this ideology one had to be able to suffer without taking reprisals against the adversary. Another prerequisite to be a practicing non-violent promoter is the ability not only to resist physical distress but an inner one as well. They should love their foe. The last but not least belief of this non-violent basis calls upon the idea that they must keep faith and hope of a rewarding future to realize that all their suffering is not worthless.
King’s philosophy was not only based on Gandhian non-violent principle, but also took roots from African-American history of spirituality and slavery. Because of all these things combined together, the movement gained great respect worldwide. It even inspired many people to believe they could triumph over any obstacle they could find in their lives by means of peaceful tactics. That was the magnificence of the Montgomery Bus Boycott; and its non-violent protest was an important political move because it attracted many whites and also national and international leaders due to its revolutionary way to attain political change. Eleanor Roosevelt stated: “I think December 5th is an important date for all of us in the U.S. to remember. The bus protest carried on by the colored people of Montgomery, Alabama, without violence, has been one of the most remarkable achievements of people fighting for their own rights but doing so without bloodshed and with the most remarkable restraint and discipline, that we have ever witnessed in this country. It is something all of us should be extremely proud of for its achievement by Americans which was rarely before been seen.” [9]

4. -The Mechanics of the Boycott

“Organization, resources and planning are essential to the success of a social movement.” [10] Even though spontaneous events have a great probability of precipitating social movements, they need to be organized to get the structure to sustain the activity. This is what happened to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The initial protest emerged after the arrest of Rosa Parks on December 1st, but the triumph of the 381-days boycott was due to well-organized composition that worked for its victory.
The actual strength that propelled the boycott was the Women´s Political Council (WPC) whose president, Jo Ann Robinson, drafted and spread 52.000 fliers to call for all blacks to stay off the buses on December 5th, the day of Park´s trial. They worked together with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), leaded by the activist E.D. Nixon, which were focused on litigation and lobbying. After Parks lost her case and was convicted of violating the segregated seating laws, and following the success of the one-day boycott, a mass meeting was held at Holt Street Baptist Church. After deciding to continue with the boycott, about a group of 50 local black leaders and one white minister, Robert S. Graetz, formed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) and elected King Jr. as their chairman. The MIA objectives were not only to continue the boycott but to “improve the general status of Montgomery, to improve race relations, and to uplift the general tenor of the community.” [11]
MIA officials met with officials and lawyers from the bus company to present a desegregation plan, but the bus company refused to consider it. Before, black cab companies would charge 10 cents a ride, the same as the bus, but now the city law stated that cabs had to charge a minimum of 45 cents a passenger. So, the MIA first mission was to come up with an organized system of transportation for blacks. This system consisted mainly of labourers, ministers, businessmen and educators with cars that picked up other boycotters and took them to work. The plan took a great deal of planning, that is why the Transportation Committee was appointed to supervise it.
Crucial relevance played those hundreds of black and white foot soldiers that made the boycott work. Robert S. Graetz, the only white who made no secret of his activities, and many other liberal whites became active participants in the protest. He, as a member of the Transportation Committee helped to organize a pool of 250 to 350 private cars and established dispatch stations in all predominantly Negro areas to cover transportation between 6 a.m. and noon each day. Ministers urged their congregations to make donations to buy gasoline for the car pool; something which cost about $200 a day. The service worked so quickly and so well that even the White Citizens Council had to admit it had run with high precision.


5. -White and Opposition Reaction

“You are indebted to the white people of Montgomery for life itself .” [12] Hill Lindsay stated this which was published in the Montgomery Advertiser, January 13th 1956, considered as being the general attitude of Montgomery whites towards the blacks of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
At the beginning white people thought the boycott was not going to last for so long. When they realized this was not the case, they started several tactics to end up with the black peaceful revolt. They tried to reach a consensus with the black leaders, but this was not possible. The black leaders wanted a complete integration whereas the white ones were not willing to accept it. As they saw the move was not coming to an end they decided to augment their methods to frustrate it.
The opposition -this is how the whites who were anti-boycott were known- tried to turn the black people against their leaders, they also tried to dismember the MIA organization by making them to plot against each other and they also spread fake rumours about the movement. One example of the latter occurred when the Montgomery City Council announced that the end of the boycott was established to be on January 22, 1956. However, a black reporter who read the article doubt about the veracity of what was published, so he could inform the leaders in advance and the movement was not finished on that date.
With a feeling of frustration again, the whites started to use new tactics. Even the Mayor of Montgomery went on television to criticise the development of the boycott. As none of these resulted, they recurred to violence to end up with the move. They started menacing notorious leaders by means of death threats and phone calls. They frequently intimidated black boycotters in the street. On January 30th 1956 they bombed King’s house and one week later Nixon’s. But the boycotters were not going to be hindered because of these strikes of violence. King called for calm and they continued their peaceful protest.
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to abolish the Negro race, proper methods should be used. Among these are guns, bows and arrows, sling shots and knives. We hold these truths to be self evident that all whites are created equal with certain human rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of niggers…” [13] This corresponds to the preview of the book Declaration of Segregation published in the Montgomery Advertiser, February 11th, 1956. As the violent tactic did not have the desired effect for the white citizens, they recurred to the law. There started police harassments against black drivers who committed minor or even false driving infractions. Even blacks were jailed for hitchhiking for a ride to their works or houses. Black people were starting to feel frustrated about the movement. The algid point arrived when King Jr. was jailed for a minor driving violation. Black people were very irritated.
The opposition found an old law to support their inquiries against the boycott. So, 90 people including King were arrested and put into jail for boycotting. Nevertheless, the method was unsuccessful because people arrived volunteer to the police station to be arrested as well. King was tried for this and was convicted to pay the sum of $500; but this was not considered a defeat for the defendants, it was a way to make the opposition aware of the seriousness of their demand. “…And so every move they made proved to be a mistake. It could not be otherwise, because their methods were geared to the ‘old Negro’, and they were dealing with the ‘new Negro’.” [14] (Martin Luther King Jr.)
However it must be outlined there were plenty of sympathizers to the boycott who were not blacks. Some of them were even relevant for the successful development of the movement such as, the Clifford, Virginia Durr and Glenn Smiley. A generalized position towards the support of the boycotters can be appreciated in this fragment from the Montgomery Advertiser on January 4th 1956: “….there are white bus riders in Montgomery who are honouring the request of our colored friends by refraining from patronizing the city lines in an effort to express our sympathy.” [15]
The opposition continued opposing resistance towards the boycott even though this was already finished. They still attempted to establish a white-only bus line, which produced a revival of violence and the emergence of KKK groups; but thanks to other whites cooperation and their denounces of the facts this came to an end. The opposition had to accept the reality and recognize the integration was a real legal fact in Montgomery.

6. - Leadership Analysis

The new Negro leadership that emerged at that time had been one of the significant factors effecting new forms of social interaction in the field of human relations. This new Negro leadership, a protesting type, not an accommodating one, was presented to be the winner of the Negro rights. Hereby we are going to analyse “the continuities and discontinuities of leadership surrounding the social crisis” [16] of the Montgomery Bus Boycott during three periods: the pre-protest, the protest and the post-protest.
The pre-protest community lived according to the racial separatism imposed by law. In a first analysis in this period about the occupations of the leaders that could be recognized as prominent figures were 22 people. The most prominent were railroad employees and college teachers, followed by officials and businessmen and lastly ministers and public school teachers. As we can see, the positions that could stand out of our leadership analysis are the public school teacher and the minister. Even though non highly prominent in this period, the minister played a relevant role in the life of the community. He was a natural leader to the people who had a minimum access to social, political and economical opportunities. This pre-protest community was characterized by a lack of group solidarity. The role of the Negro leader was accommodative in the sense that he did not “inspire courage and faith in himself among the people, though he may claim their respect and sympathy.” [17] He tended to be acquiescent and obedient to the rule of interracial custom.
Initially, during the Montgomery bus protest, the leader’s approach was ameliorative rather than punitive. Their primary mild demands were leading in progress to a boycott. A new caste was needed and consequently it appeared into scene 35 individuals who could be labelled as leaders. This time the analysis shows that the most prominent leaders were the ministers, followed by the lawyers, businessmen and school teachers -among others- in order of prominence. Martin Luther King Jr., a minister, stood at the top of an unprecedented leadership structure never seen before in the Negro community. King’s charismatic authority and his non-violence tactic was something unexpected for the white population. Thanks to that new leadership it was generalized a total community involvement and a sense of social solidarity which lead to the success of the boycott. King’s departure after the protest left a vacuum in that leadership structure.
Once the boycott was over, the spirit of protest was still latent. The remaining Negro leaders after King felt compelled to go on towards a complete desegregation. But the leadership structure was altered in the post-protest community. It lacked the based which was so efficient during the protest. There was a drastic diminution of leaders after the protest –only 3, one minister, one lawyer and one school teacher and not being considered as the most prominent figures. This decline in leadership coincided with the decline of the Negro participation to take part in the civil action. This explains why parks, schools and other public facilities remained segregated until 1965.
In view of the above, the termination of the boycott and the reduction of leaders were an unavoidable consequence of the social situation. The protest was successful because it has an attainable target. After the boycott, there had been little alteration in their way of life. Mainly because the white population was reluctant to change. The leadership structure changed radically because it followed a course in which accommodation rather than protest was the line of social action.

7. - Conclusions

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was the first step towards the Afro-Americans civil rights struggle. It was the first time a so well organized plan was put into action. It involved every single member of the Negro community, from every occupation and gender, to accomplish the success of the movement. It was remarkable black women’s role in the boycott and the reasons that lead them to intervene so enthusiastically in it. They all, black men and women, worked together to reach an attainable goal, although they had a strong white opposition that hindered their progress towards social desegregation.


8.- Literature, Sources


Cozzens, Lisa. The Civil Rights Movement 1955-1956. African American History. A detailed description about the movement and its role in the struggle for civil rights in America. 1998. http://fledge.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html

Gyant, LaVerne. Journal of Black Studies. Passing the Torch: African American Women in the Civil Rights Movement. Vol. 26, Nº. 5. Sage Publications, Inc.. 1996.

Hines, Ralph H.; Pierce, James E. Phylon (1960-). Negro Leadership after the Social Crisis: An Analysis of Leadership Changes in Montgomery, Alabama. Vol. 26, Nº. 2. Clark Atlanta University, 1965.

Killian, Lewis M. American Sociological Review. Organization, Rationality and Spontaneity in the Civil Rights Movement. Vol. 49, Nº. 6. American Sociological Association, 1984.

McNair Barnett, Bernice. Gender and Society. Invisible Southern Black Women Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement: The Triple Constraints of Gender, Race and Class. Vol. 7, Nº. 2. Sage Publications, Inc.. 1993.

Omi, Michael. Racial Formation in the United States. 1960-1990. Routledge, 1994.

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. The Footsoldiers of the Montgomery bus Boycott. Nº. 26. CH II Publishers, 1999-2000.

http://www.africanaonline.com/montgomery.htm

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/bus_boycott.html

http://www.montgomeryboycott.com
http://home.att.net/~reniqua
[1] Gyant, LaVerne. Journal of Black Studies. Passing the Torch: African American Women in the
Civil Rights Movement. Vol. 26, Nº. 5. Pg 630. Sage Publications, Inc.. 1996.

[2] http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html ;27/10/2006.

[3] Gyant, LaVerne. Journal of Black Studies. Passing the Torch: African American Women in the Civil Rights Movement. Vol. 26, Nº. 5. Pg 633. Sage Publications, Inc.. 1996.

[4] Gyant, LaVerne. Journal of Black Studies. Passing the Torch: African American Women in the
Civil Rights Movement. Vol. 26, Nº. 5. Pg 638. Sage Publications, Inc.. 1996.

[5] Gyant, LaVerne. Journal of Black Studies. Passing the Torch: African American Women in the
Civil Rights Movement. Vol. 26, Nº. 5. Pg 638. Sage Publications, Inc.. 1996.

[6] Omi, Michael. Racial Formation in the United States 1960-1990. Pgs 99-100. Routledge,
1994.

[7] http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/nonviolent.resist.html ;
27/10/2006.

[8] http://home.att.net/~reniqua/theology.htm ; 27/10/2006.

[9] http://home.att.net/~reniqua/what.html ; 27/10/2006.

[10] Killian, Lewis M. American Sociological Review. Organization, Rationality and Spontaneity
in the Civil Rights Movement. Vol. 49, Nº. 6. Pg 782. American Sociological Association, 1984.
[11] http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/MIA.html ; 22/12/2006.

[12] http://home.att.net/~reniqua/whiteandopposition.html ; 27/10/2006.
[13] http://home.att.net/~reniqua/whiteandopposition.html ; 27/10/2006.
[14] http://home.att.net/~reniqua/whiteandopposition.html ; 27/10/2006.
[15] http://home.att.net/~reniqua/whiteandopposition.html ; 27/10/2006.
[16] Hines, Ralph H.; Pierce, James E. Phylon (1960-). Negro Leadership after the Social Crisis:
An Analysis of Leadership Changes in Montgomery, Alabama. Vol. 26, Nº. 2. Pg 163. Clark
Atlanta University, 1965.

[17] Hines, Ralph H.; Pierce, James E. Phylon (1960-). Negro Leadership after the Social Crisis:
An Analysis of Leadership Changes in Montgomery, Alabama. Vol. 26, Nº. 2. Pg 165. Clark
Atlanta University, 1965.