Afterwards hose actions will be evaluated for their responsibility by seeing how they affected the boycotts success. Additionally, this investigation will study other witness accounts to provide information about how other people reacted to King’s speeches, and how action taken by the public was responsible for the success of the boycott. Finally, the investigation will take into account historian’s analysis about Kings actions. The scope of this investigation will focus on how the public was moved by King’s actions. How they reacted will then be used to evaluate how king caused the success of the boycott.
Summary of Evidence, Word count 502 ; Martin Luther King was the president and chairman Of a “negotiating committee” that was set up and composed of about a dozen people, delegated to represent the Montgomery Improvement Association (AIM) in the viewpoint discussions with white officials. He devoted much of his time to this role and was the spokesman authorized to deliver the African American opinions at conferences. AIM had two other committees including the financial and transportation committees, these played a large role in coordinating the boycotts and were all largely led by King (Sorrow). On DCE. 7, 1 956, King was asked to appeal for volunteer drivers at a mass meeting, he accepted the offer and the crowd’s response was better than expected since about 20 people donated their services and cars for the project (Newman). ; The finance committee branch of AIM requested them to setup a speakers bureau to get additional funds, King was chosen as one of the main people to speak before groups such as civil rights groups and organizations outside Montgomery and after his speeches the amount of donations contributed to the grand total always increased (Jackson). King introduced the idea of raptors to avoid riding buses and decided to organize the boycott, if someone wanted to donate money it would go straight to the AIM who would in turn help subsidize the costs of the carpools (King). ; On DCE 8 1955, king negotiated with Jack Cesareans, the bus company lawyer who rejected the demand that the bus hire Negro drivers for predominantly Negro routes. On December 17 another meeting took place and King opened with concession: that the company accepted applications from qualified African Americans and hire them when positions became available (Furlough). On December 7, 955 the white people were expecting the boycott to collapse on the first rainy day but King realized that the way to avoid this was through skillful organization (Brusquely). ; He was an able representative of the AIM with the African American public, he had a firm commitment to nonviolence and to the cause of civil rights, and he presented the program in a warm and convincing manner which in return won the allegiance of African American masses at Montgomery. This confidence and support allowed the AIM to help them.
They also wanted King to speak for them because he did not make them feel manipulated (Sims, The Walking City: The Montgomery Bus Boycott). ; The homes of King and E. D Nixon were bombed in early 1956. There were injunctions obtained by city officials against the boycott in February 1956 that indicted over 80 boycott leaders under a law made in 1921 prohibiting conspiracies that interfered with lawful business. King was convicted after he was tried and ordered to either pay $500 or serve 386 days in jail but despite this resistance the boycott continued (Coleman). Most of King’s trials throughout 1955-56 resulted in even more support from people outside Montgomery. The tactics used both by King and the AIM became the model for challenging segregation in the south in the way they combined mass nonviolent protest and Christian ethics (Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63). Evaluation of Sources, Word count: 350 The walking City: The Montgomery us Boycott, 1955-1956 (Martin Luther King, Jar. And the Civil Rights Movement, Volvo. ) edited by David J. Sorrow is an in-depth depiction of the boycott itself. It is a tertiary source that provides primary’ and secondary sources as well as some analysis made by the author. Sorrow is Presidential Distinguished Professor at Emory University school of law. Since he received the Pulitzer price and the Robert F. Kennedy award for his biography of Martin Luther King Jar. , Bearing the Cross (1986), he is more qualified as a source of information.
The book was written in 1989, 33 years after the boycotts SUccess with the purpose to describe the events that led up to it, the leaders who contributed, and the African American programs and associations supporting it. The volume’s values lies in the fact that it explains the programs and actions of King, as well as provides second-hand accounts y members of African American programs and close friends which will assist in evaluating the extent he was responsible for the success of the boycott.
Its limitations include that the information given is from a professor tied to a school of law which may have influenced his decision on omitting unilateralist actions. Although tertiary sources provide useful perspectives on Kings actions and their influence on the movement, a primary source from someone who was actually there while he was making the decisions is valuable as well. My Life with Martin Luther King, Jar. Correct King, his wife, is written with the purpose of describing her experiences and what it was like supporting her husband throughout the civil rights movement era. The values of this book lays in the fact the Montgomery Bus boycott was one of the included movements and therefore she describes why he chose to make the decisions he made and she goes in-depth with his actions, providing many details. The limitations of this book are that since this book is in her point of view, it might not be fully reliable since she could not have known all of Kings thoughts.
Research Analysis, Word count: 508 Though Martin Luther King was one of the main coordinators of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and he cooperated in its initiation, there were several underlying factors which also led up to the event. 1 955, the year the boycott started, Calculate Calvin, Mary Louise Smith and Rosa Parks were all arrested for violating bus segregation laws . A proposal was then submitted regarding fair bus seat policies, but since seats were still segregated, the Montgomery Improvement Association (AIM) was formed, appointing King as the president.
The AIM proceeded in making 3 committees, including financial, negotiation, and transportation. After king spoke for the financial committee and gathered support as well as many contributions, carpooling was able to take place, moving the boycott forward. Afterward, King was convicted of taking part in the boycott and tried, however, the boycott moved forward and even gained more support from people outside Montgomery. This investigation is significant because it considers whether or not King played an important role in the boycott. Even though Randall Kennedy, a
Yale historian may suggest the boycott was not necessarily what desegregated the buses but the successful litigation constituting the action, one still may think the boycott itself was what achieved the results wanted because when King talked to the bus company lawyer, their association was granted a concession of at least considering African American drivers. Since this concession was given, it proposes that not everything was achieved only through the process of taking legal action. One of the main sources, Correct Scott King, provided important information regarding the actions taken by
King. She especially described King’s role in the AIM, and the way crowds reacted after hearing his speeches. This was significant in providing information on what the crowds thought of King and what he said, using her information, it became clear since everyone was always cheerful and motivated after King talked, that they responded well to his messages and us ported what he said. Additionally, most African Americans kept choosing King as their representative because he made their voices heard, and he was passive, most of his traits displayed good leadership.
Overall, King resulted in taking many actions and playing active roles in this boycott. Conclusion, Word count: 150 Overall, since Martin Luther King Jar. Played an active and participating role as well as displaying strong leadership and becoming a significant symbol for the boycott and movement, he was to a large extent responsible for the success of the boycott. Crowds follow a strong leader and King led almost the whole city of Montgomery and represented them along with their beliefs. Since he mostly represented the boycott as a whole, he became greatly responsible for TTS success.