Primary Sources: Everything You Know About the Montgomery Bus Boycott Is Wrong

You probably learned the kinder, gentler version of the economic protest that defined the Civil Rights Movement. Here is the real story.

Feb 11, 2025

Instead of untold stories from Black history, ContrabandCamp’s Primary Sources series shares pure, uncut and rarely told stories from the past straight from the primary source.

Some stories don’t need whitewashing.

In 1955, a brave, nonviolent protester named Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to sit on the back of a Montgomery, Ala. bus. Fortunately, a brave civil rights leader named Martin Luther King Jr. organized a boycott that economically crippled the city, eventually forcing the city of Montgomery to desegregate public transportation. It’s a great story. There’s just one problem:

None of that actually happened.

While the story of one community uniting to stop segregation is beautiful, the actual story of the Montgomery bus boycott is about individual acts of resistance that sparked a collective effort. The iconic civil rights protest that ended segregation on public transportation did not begin with the Montgomery Improvement Association, Rosa Parks or even Claudette Colvin. In fact, the origin story of the Montgomery bus boycott isn’t even set in Alabama.

There are a few more facts about the Montgomery bus boycott you probably didn’t know:

The Montgomery bus boycott was not a nonviolent protest; white Montgomerians committed plenty of violence.
Segregation in Montgomery ended because of a lawsuit filed by four Black women who refused to give up their seats, not a boycott.
Rosa Parks was not a part of the lawsuit.
The Montgomery bus boycott had absolutely nothing to do with segregation.
Martin Luther King Jr., the NAACP or the Montgomery Improvement Association never asked the city to end segregation on buses.
A group of Black women came up with the idea of a boycott, not the Montgomery Improvement Association.
White bus drivers actually fought to end segregation.
Black residents had no choice but to participate in the boycott after city buses stopped going to Black neighborhoods.

Here is how it all went down:

The woman pictured above is Sarah Mae Flemming, the protester who actually did everything you think Rosa Parks did.

The true story begins in Columbia, S.C., more than a year before Rosa Parks’ historic stand. On June 22, 1954 five days before her 21st birthday, Flemming boarded a city bus operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas.

From the July 31, 1954 edition of The Afro-American:

Woman Seeks $25,000 From Driver Who Punched Her

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A $25,000 actual and punitive damage suit against the S.C. Electric and Gas Company was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court Wednesday by a woman who alleges a company bus driver struck her in the stomach.

Mrs. Sarah Mae Flemming of 1107 Page Street alleges that on June 22, 1954, she boarded a crowded bus at Taylor and Main Streets, a considerable distance from her destination.

Aisle Was Crowded

She was unable to reach the rear of the bus, her complaint says, because passengers crowded the aisle, almost to the driver’s seat.

She signaled for a stop after riding just two blocks, she alleges, after the driver insisted that she make her way to the rear.

When the bus stopped, she says she exited through the front door and was struck a painful blow in the abdominal region by the driver.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff suffered great mental and physical anguish and was unable to work for about a week.

By then, a group of Black women led by Alabama State University professor Jo Ann Robinson had already asked Montgomery, Ala., Mayor William A. Gayle to address issues of racism on the city’s buses.

Nothing happened.

On March 9, 1955, United Press International reported the story of 15-year-old Claudette Colvin.

NEGRO GIRL REFUSES TO TAKE BACK SEAT

Montgomery, Ala., March 9 (UP) — A 15-year-old Negro girl will be tried Friday on charges that she refused to move to the Negro section in the rear of a city bus.

Police records showed the girl, Claudette Colvin, was arrested last Wednesday while on the way home from school and charged with assault and battery and disorderly conduct. She also was charged with violating the city ordinance that makes it "unlawful for any passenger to refuse or fail to take those seats assigned to the race to which he belongs."

Bus driver Robert W. Cleere said the girl was seated near the front of his bus with a Negro woman when a group of white persons boarded the bus. He asked both the girl and the woman to move to the rear, he said, and the woman moved but the girl remained. He then called police.

The girl could be sentenced to six months in jail or fined $100 or both.

On April 29, 1955, an Alabama State University student who was being mentored by Jo Ann Robinson decided to stand up for herself.

Excerpts from the Testimony of Aurelia Browder questioned by her attorney, Fred Gray:

MR. GRAY: State your name, Miss Browder?

BROWDER: Aurelia Browder.

GRAY: Prior to December 5, 1955, did you live here in Montgomery?

BROWDER: Yes

GRAY: Prior to December 5, 1955, did you ride the City buses?

BROWDER: Yes. Two to four times a day.

GRAY: Have you personally experienced any difficulty on the bus in connection with the seating arrangement?

BROWDER: Yes, several times.

GRAY: Will you please tell the Court what happened?

BROWDER: April 29 of last year I was on the Day Street Bus, I got a transfer from Oak Park Bus in front of Price Drug Store. After I rode up by the Alabama Gas Company bus driver had three of us to get up and stand to let a white man and a white lady to sit down. I did not.

GRAY: When you say three of you, do you mean yourself along with two other Negroes?

BROWDER: Myself and two other Negroes. I was sitting in a seat and another lady beside me. And the seat just across from me there was just one colored person in there. And he made all three of us get up because he said we was in the white section of the bus.

I did not [move].

GRAY: If you were permitted to sit any place you wanted on the bus, would you be willing to ride again?

BROWDER: Yes, I would.

GRAY: That is all.

On October 21, 1955, 73-year-old Susie “Miss Sue” McDonald was arrested for not giving up her seat. That same day, 18-year-old Mary Louise Smith was arrested for sitting in the whites-only section. Jeanetta Reese was arrested for the same offense.

Then came Rosa Parks.

Montgomery Alabama Police Dept. via National Archives

When Jo Ann Robinson heard about Parks’ arrest, she typed up a flyer calling for a one-day boycott and recruited students to distribute the flyers to local churchgoers.

This is where the Montgomery bus boycott began.

That same evening, 18 community leaders met at the Mt. Zion A.M.E. Zion Church while Uriah J. Fields took notes:

AGENDA

Opening Hymn: Onward Christian Soldier
Prayer: Rev. Alford
Scripture: Rev. Fields
Occassion: Rev. King
Presentation of Mrs. Parks: Rev. French, Fred Daniels
Resolutions: Rev. Abernathy
Vote on Recommendations
Offering: Rev Bonner
Closing Hymn: My Country Tis of Thee
Benediction: Rev. Roy Bennett

Officers:

Chairman—Rev. M. L. King
Vice Chairman—Rev. Roy Bennett
Recording Sec.—Rev. U. J. Fields
Corresponding Sec.—Rev. E. N. French
Financial Sec.—Mrs. Erna Dungee
Treasurer—E. D. Nixon

NAME: The Montgomery Improvement Association

… It was agreed that the protest be continued until conditions are improved.

The Dec 9, 1955 Montgomery Advertiser recorded the city’s reaction to the boycott:

Bus Company To Halt Service On Two Routes

City bus service in most Negro areas will be halted completely tomorrow at 6 p.m.

The two routes serving predominantly Negro sections, Washington Park and South Jackson Street, will be discontinued altogether, while six other routes will be revised to greatly exclude Negro communities.

Mayor W. A. Gayle announced the changes this morning after the City Commission met with Montgomery City Lines manager J. H. Bagley as the Negro boycott of buses was in its fifth day.

Bricks Hit Buses

Bricks struck two buses in Negro communities on Hall Street and Lower Wetumpka Road last night, Bagley said. The police department had no report of these incidents.

"There’s nothing new at all," said Chief G. J. Ruppenthal.

Demands for “First Come, First Served” Seating

A four-hour meeting was arranged by the Alabama Council on Human Relations, headed by Rev. Thomas R. Thrasher of Montgomery.

Negro spokesmen requested “first come, first served” seating arrangements and the employment of Negro drivers on buses mainly serving Negro districts.

Jack Crenshaw, attorney for the bus company, rejected both requests.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, explained the proposed seating arrangement would allow Negroes to continue taking seats from the rear toward the front of the bus. However, they would not be required to give up front seats if none were available in the rear.

Crenshaw argued that such a system would still violate state law, which requires separate seating facilities for whites and Negroes.

When Negro attorney Fred D. Gray argued that the state law does not apply to cities, the bus company’s attorney suggested obtaining a court ruling to decide whether cities are exempt.

Negro Driver Employment Denied

As for hiring Negro drivers, Crenshaw stated that the company has no intention of doing so now. He added, “But who can say what will happen?”…

These developments followed a meeting of boycotters and bus officials yesterday at City Hall, which ended in a stalemate. Afterward, a Negro spokesman said the boycott will continue until a “satisfactory” seating arrangement is provided.

On Dec. 19, NAACP Field Secretary W.C. Patton arrived in Montgomery and King delivered this letter to the mayor:

The Honorable Mayor W. A. Gayle
City Hall
Montgomery, Alabama
Dear Mayor Gayle:
We greatly appreciate all efforts which you have previously made to maintain the peace and to keep violence at a minimum, through your public statements and otherwise. And we are hopefully looking forward to your continued efforts along these lines.
We understand that the Supreme Court’s mandate concerning bus segregation has been mailed to the Federal District Court. As soon as the District Court issues the formal decree, we shall be returning to the busses.
Although we are hopeful that no violent incidents will occur, we must recognize that possibility. There is that element of violent-minded people, of both races, of which we must be mindful.
Past experience reveals that the only places where violence has occurred in connection with the busses has been at the end of lines and on very dark streets. And the hours after dark are potentially more dangerous than the daytime.
We, therefore, request that you use every precaution to prevent possible violence, and that you will insure that the above-mentioned danger zones will be patrolled with extra caution.
We reaffirm our basic conviction that violence is both impractical and immoral. We have been training our people to remain non-violent in word and deed, and not to return hate for hate. We believe that violence in our city will lead to a long and desolate night of bitterness, which will bring shame to generations yet unborn.
Thanking you for your cooperation, we remain
Yours truly,
The Executive Board of
The Montgomery Improvement
Association, by
(Rev.) Martin L. King, Jr.

On December 25, the Montgomery Advertiser and Alabama Journal printed this half-page advertisement:

We, the Negro citizens of Montgomery, feel that the public has a right to know our complaints and grievances which have resulted in the protest against the Montgomery City Lines and our refusal to ride city busses. We, therefore, set forth here some of the many bitter experiences of our people, who have, at various times, been pushed around, embarrassed, threatened, intimidated and abused in a manner that has caused the meekest to rise in resentment:
COMPLAINTS:
1. Courtesy:
The use of abusive language, name calling and threats have been the common practices among many of the bus operators. We are ordered to move from seats to standing space under the threat of arrest, or other serious consequences. No regard for sex or age is considered in exercising this authority by the bus operator.
2. Seating:
The bus operators have not been fair in this respect. Negroes, old, young, men and women, mothers with babes in their arms, sick, afflicted, pregnant women, must relinquish their seats, even to school children, if the bus is crowded. On lines serving predominantly Negro sections, the ten front seats must remain vacant, even though no white passenger boards the bus. At all times the Negro is asked to give up his seat, though there is not standing room in the back. One white person, desiring a seat, will cause nine Negroes to relinquish their seats for the accommodation of this one person.
3. Arrests:
Numerous arrests have been made even though the person arrested is observing the policy as given us. This year the following persons have been arrested and convicted, although they were seated according to the policy given us by the bus company. They are Claudette Colvin, Alberta "Coote" Smith, and Mrs. Rosa Parks. Among others arrested at other times are Mrs. Viola White, Miss Mary Wingfield, two children from New Jersey, and a Mr. Brooks, who was killed by the policeman.

4. Two Fares:
Many house-servants are required to pay an additional fare if the bus is late getting to town, causing them to miss a bus going to Cloverdale or other distant points. Some of these have complained that on returning from work similar incidents have occurred necessitating the payment of double fares.
5. Making Change:
We understand that correct change should be given the operator, but there are times that such is not possible. Several bus operators have refused to make change for passengers and threatened to put them off for not having the exact amount. On one occasion a fellow-passenger paid the fare of one such passenger to prevent her from being put off.
6. Passing Up Passengers:
In many instances the bus operators have passed up passengers standing at the stop to board the bus. They have also collected fares at the front door and, after commanding Negro passengers to enter from the back door, they have driven off, leaving them standing.
7. Physical Torture:
One Negro mother, with two small children in her arm, put them on the front seat while she opened her purse for her fare. The driver ordered her to take the children from the seat, and without giving her the chance to place the children elsewhere, lunged the vehicle forward, causing the small children to be thrown into the aisle of the bus.
8. Acknowledgement:
Not all operators are guilty of these accusations. There are some who are most cordial and tolerant. They will go to the extent of their authority to see that justice and fair play prevail. To those we are grateful and sympathetic.
9. Adjudication:
Every effort has been used to get the bus company to remove the causes of these complaints. Time and time again complaints have been registered with the bus company, the City Commission and the manager of the bus company. Committees of both sexes have been conferred but to no avail. Protests have been filed with the mayor, but no improvement has been made….
The bus protest is not merely in protest of the arrest of Mrs. Rosa Parks, but is the culmination of a series of unpleasant incidents over a period of years. It is an upsurging of a ground swell which has been going on for a long time. Our cup of tolerance has run over. Thousands of our people, who have had unhappy experiences, prefer to walk rather than endure more. No better evidence can be given that the fact that a large percent of the Negro bus riders are now walking or getting a ride whenever and wherever they can.
Our Proposal:
The duly elected representatives of the people have the approval of the bus riders to present three proposals:
That assurance of more courtesy be extended the bus-riders. That the bus operators refrain from name calling, abusive language and threats.
That the seating of passengers will be on a "First-come, First-Served" basis. This means that the Negro passengers will begin seating from the rear of the bus toward the front and white passengers from the front toward the rear, until all seats are taken. Once seated, no passenger will be compelled to relinquish his seat to a member of another race when there is no available seat. When seats become vacant in the rear Negro passengers will voluntarily move to these vacant seats and by the same token white passengers will move to vacant seats in the front of the bus. This will eliminate the problem of passengers being compelled to stand when there are unoccupied seats. At no time, on the basis of this proposal, will both races occupy the same seat. We are convinced by the opinions of competent legal authorities that this proposal does not necessitate a change in the city, or state laws. This proposal is not new in Alabama, for it has worked for a number of years in Mobile and many other Southern cities.
That Negro bus drivers be employed on the bus lines serving predominately Negro areas. This is a fair request and we believe that men of good will, will readily accept it and admit that it is fair…
The Negro Ministers of Montgomery and Their Congregations

As the boycott continued, on April 25, 1956, the Supreme Court refused to hear Flemming v. SCE&G.

The Anniston Star News didn’t know what the decision meant.

Bus Segregation Litigation Goes Back To Districts

WASHINGTON, April 25 (AP) — Government lawyers were divided today on what the Supreme Court meant by its cryptic action Monday in a case challenging race segregation on intrastate buses.

The court’s brief order refusing to review a lower court decision was widely interpreted at the time as ending segregation in any form of public transportation. However, some lawyers reviewing the case said that the high court could have acted on narrow, technical grounds.

In any event, the court left standing the decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled:

"We do not think the separate but equal doctrine can any longer be regarded as a correct statement of the law."

The Supreme Court almost never elaborates on its orders. No explanation could be obtained today regarding its meaning …

The question involved was whether Sarah Mae Flemming, a Negro, could collect damages from the South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., operating Columbia buses.

She sued for $25,000 in civil rights damages, charging that she was mistreated when she boarded a bus in 1954, found the section reserved for Negroes to be filled, and attempted to occupy a seat in the section reserved for whites.

Her suit specifically attacked the constitutionality of the state laws requiring segregation on buses. The case was initially dismissed by the district court, which ruled that these laws, providing for “separate but equal” facilities, were valid.

On appeal, the circuit court reversed the district court and ordered the case back for trial.

In Feb., Fred Gray filed a lawsuit on behalf of the women who refused to give up their seats. But after Flemming won her case on appeal, Gray amended the suit to make it about segregation.

Rosa Parks was not part of the lawsuit.

From the May 11 edition of The Montgomery Advertiser:

Four Women Wage Attack On Race Law

A federal court case to determine the constitutionality of Alabama and Montgomery segregation laws on its intrastate and city transportation media will open today before a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court here.

The plaintiffs are four Negro women, and the defendants are the three members of the Montgomery City Commission, the chief of the Montgomery Police Department, Montgomery City Lines Inc., two of its drivers, and the president and two members of the Alabama Public Service Commission.

The suit was filed on Feb. 1 by two Negro attorneys, Fred D. Gray and Charles D. Langford, on behalf of Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, Claudette Colvin, Mary Louise Smith, and Jeanetta Reese …

The suit originally stated that the defendants were conspiring among themselves and others to prevent Negro citizens from refusing to use bus facilities and were seeking to compel Negro citizens to use said facilities by force, threats, violence, intimidation, and harassment. This was the boldest accusation in the lawsuit but was stricken on March 8, along with the name of Jeanetta Reese as a plaintiff.

Remaining in the suit, however, was the charge that the defendants harassed Negroes by stopping cars containing Negroes who participated in the carpool and Negro taxi cabs to obtain information for the purpose of bringing pressure upon employers to discharge Negro employees providing transportation to fellow Negro citizens.

The suit stated that "Negroes desire and intend to resume the use of buses ... as soon as they can do so on a non-segregated basis without fear of arrest."

Temporary Injunction

The plaintiffs are asking for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing segregation laws on transportation and a final judgment that will denounce the laws as unconstitutional.

After the suit was filed, the defendants filed several answers, most of which were generally common except for Montgomery City Lines Inc., which stated they were merely obeying the law.

The other defendants claimed that segregation tends to prevent violence and possible bloodshed and that the suit should first be argued in a state court.

…Montgomery City Lines Inc., a subsidiary of National City Lines Inc. (Chicago), abolished its segregation practices on April 23, when J. H. Bagley, local superintendent, ordered drivers not to enforce segregation on buses.

The city threatened arrests of both passengers and bus drivers who did not comply with segregation laws. However, Negroes voted to continue their boycott, facing possible arrests for desegregating themselves on buses.

To counter this, the city obtained an injunction from Circuit Court against the bus company, forcing them to comply with existing segregation laws.

The bus company stated it would comply.

On November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively said: We don’t have to decide this case because Fleming v. SCE&G already settled this issue.

The Afro-American reported end of the Montgomery Bus Boycott on November 25, 1956:

Bus Boycott Comes to Joyful End

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. told the AFRO Thursday that the colored citizens of Montgomery have decided to end the 11-month-old boycott of the Montgomery Bus Company…

The COLORED citizens of Montgomery voted to end the boycott at two mass meetings held at Hutchinson Street and Holt Street Baptist Churches on Wednesday night. Some 8,000 were in attendance.The Rev. Mr. King spoke to the capacity audience at the Hutchinson Street Church. They greeted the board’s recommendation with a cheering, standing ovation.

"IT HAS BEEN recommended that no one ride the buses until the Supreme Court mandate has been turned over to States with laws enforcing segregation on such public facilities.”

As the result of the ruling, street car segregation can be knocked out in Atlanta, Savannah, Birmingham, Mobile, New Orleans, Miami, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Charleston, and many U.S. District judges are now duty bound to automatically issue an injunction against the enforcement of segregation laws as quickly as petitions can be filed.

This means city bus and trolley segregation in Columbia, S.C., is ready to fall in a petition to Federal court for an injunction…

In their ruling, Judges Rives and Johnson observed that… “We CANNOT in good conscience perform our duty as judges by blindly following precedent of Plessy vs. Ferguson supra, when our study leaves us in complete agreement with the Fourth Circuit opinion in Fleming vs. South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.

And that’s how one individual act of resistance in South Carolina sparked a movement that desegregated buses everywhere.

The plaintiffs involved in Browder v. Gayle acted individually before the bus boycott began. Neither the plaintiffs, King nor the Montgomery Improvement Association ever demanded that the city desegregate its buses. It was only after Flemming won her appeal that the topic of segregation became part of the MIA legal strategy.

The unwhitewashed version of this pivotal moment in civil rights history proved that changing the world doesn’t require a legendary act of unity and collective sacrifice. Sometimes, just refusing to relinquish your personal humanity is enough to spark a revolution.

You are a revolution.

That’s the true story of the Montgomery bus boycott.