freedom ride essay

Freedom Riders

Written by: bill of rights institute, by the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain how and why various groups responded to calls for the expansion of civil rights from 1960 to 1980

Suggested Sequencing

Use this narrative with The March on Birmingham Narrative; the Black Power Narrative; the Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” 1963 Primary Source; the Martin Luther King Jr., “I Have a Dream,” August 28, 1963 Primary Source; the Civil Disobedience across Time Lesson; the The Music of the Civil Rights Movement Lesson; and the Civil Rights DBQ Lesson to discuss the different aspects of the civil rights movement during the 1960s.

After World War II, the civil rights movement sought equal rights and integration for African Americans through a combination of federal action and local activism. One specific area the movement attempted to change was the segregation of interstate travel. In Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1946), the Supreme Court had ruled that segregated seating on interstate buses was unconstitutional, but the ruling was largely ignored in southern states.

In 1960, the Supreme Court followed up on its earlier decision and ordered the integration of interstate buses and terminals. In 1961, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), which had been formed in 1942, appointed a new national director, James Farmer. Farmer’s idea for a freedom ride to desegregate interstate buses was inspired by the college students who had launched the recent spontaneous and nonviolent sit-ins to desegregate lunch counters, starting in Greensboro, North Carolina. These sit-ins had soon spread to 100 cities across the South. Farmer decided to have an interracial group ride the buses from Washington, DC, to New Orleans to commemorate the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education case.

James Farmer was a leader in the civil rights movement and, in 1961, helped organize the first freedom ride.

Members of CORE sent letters to President Kennedy, his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director J. Edgar Hoover, the chair of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the president of the Greyhound Corporation announcing their intentions to make the ride and hoping for protection. CORE decided to move forward despite receiving no response.

The 13 recruits underwent three days of intensive training in the philosophy of nonviolence, role playing the difficult situations they could expect to encounter. On May 4, 1961, six of the riders boarded a Greyhound bus and seven took a Trailways bus, planning to ride to New Orleans. The riders knew they would face racial epithets, violence, and possibly death. They hoped they had the courage to face the trial nonviolently in their fight for equality.

The riders challenged the segregated bus seating, with black participants riding in the “white” sections and riders of both races using segregated lunch counters and restrooms in the Virginia cities of Fredericksburg, Richmond, Farmville, and Lynchburg, but no one seemed to care. After they crossed into North Carolina, one of the black riders was arrested trying to get a shoeshine at a whites-only chair in Charlotte but was soon released. The group faced physical violence for the first time in Rock Hill, South Carolina: John Lewis, a black college student; Albert Bigelow, an older white activist; and Genevieve Hughes, a young white woman, were all assaulted before they were rushed to safety by a local black pastor. Two more riders were arrested and released in Winnsboro, and two riders had to interrupt the ride for other commitments, but four new riders joined.

On May 6, while the rides continued, the attorney general delivered a major civil rights address promising that the Kennedy administration would enforce civil rights laws. Though he seemed more concerned with America’s image abroad during the Cold War, he stated that the administration “will not stand by and be aloof.” The freedom rides presented an opportunity for the attorney general to fulfill that promise.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy was a supporter of enforcing federal civil rights laws. He spoke to CORE in 1963, outside the Justice Department in Washington, DC.

In Augusta and Atlanta, Georgia, the riders ate at desegregated lunch counters and sat in desegregated waiting rooms. They were discovering that different communities throughout several southern states had different racial mores. They met with Martin Luther King Jr., who shared intelligence he had about impending violence in Alabama. A Birmingham police sergeant, Tom Cook, and the public safety commissioner, Bull Connor, were in league with the local Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which was planning a violent reception for the riders in that city. Cook and Connor had agreed that the mob could beat the riders for about 15 minutes before they would send the police and make a show of restoring order. The FBI had informed the attorney general, but neither acted to protect the riders or even to inform them of what awaited them.

The Greyhound bus departed Atlanta on the morning of May 14. The first group reached a stop in Anniston, Alabama, where an angry mob of whites armed with guns, bats, and brass knuckles surrounded the bus. Two undercover Alabama Highway Patrol officers on the bus quickly locked the doors, but members of the crowd smashed its windows. The Anniston police temporarily restored order and the bus left, trailed by 30 to 40 cars that then surrounded it and forced it to stop. Suddenly, a member of the crowd hurled flaming rags into the bus, and it exploded into flames. The riders climbed out through windows and the doors, barely escaping with their lives. The mob assaulted them and used a baseball bat on the skull of a young black male, Hank Thomas, before an undercover officer fired his gun into the air and a fuel tank exploded, dispersing the crowd. The riders went to the hospital, where they were refused care and were driven in activists’ cars to Birmingham.

A Greyhound bus carrying freedom riders was firebombed by an angry mob while in Anniston, Alabama, in 1961. Forced to evacuate, the passengers were then assaulted. (credit: “Freedom Riders Bus Attack” by Federal Bureau of Investigation)

The riders on the Trailways bus were terrorized by KKK hoodlums who boarded in Atlanta. At first, the white supremacists merely taunted the riders with warnings about the violence that awaited them in Birmingham, but when the riders sat in the white section of the bus, horrific violence erupted. Two riders were punched in the face and knocked to the floor where they were repeatedly kicked and beaten into unconsciousness. Two other riders tried to intervene peacefully and suffered the same fate. They were dragged to the back of the bus and dumped there.

Bull Connor carried out his plan not to post officers at the Birmingham bus station, with the excuse that it was Mother’s Day. Consequently, another large mob awaited the riders and forced them off the bus and assaulted them. Riders Ike Reynolds and Charles Person were knocked down and bloodied by a series of vicious blows. An older white rider, Jim Peck, was struck in the head several times, opening a wound that required 53 stitches. Peck later told a reporter that he endured the violence courageously to “show that nonviolence can prevail over violence.” The police finally showed up after the allotted 15 minutes but made no arrests. Other riders escaped, and they all met at Reverend Fred Shuttleworth’s church.

Americans across the country learned about the violence as the images of burning buses and beaten riders were broadcast on television and printed in newspapers. President Kennedy was preparing for a foreign summit and wanted the freedom riders to stop causing controversy. Attorney General Kennedy tried to persuade the Alabama governor, John Patterson, to protect the riders but was frustrated in the attempt. Also exasperated by Greyhound’s unwillingness to provide a new bus for the riders, the attorney general sent one federal official, John Seigenthaler, to the riders in Birmingham.

The riders planned to go to Montgomery and continue to New Orleans but could not find a bus. They reluctantly settled on flying to their final destination but had to wait out bomb threats before quietly boarding a flight. Although the CORE freedom ride was over, Diane Nash, a black student at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, was inspired by their example. She coordinated additional freedom rides to desegregate interstate travel, which immediately proceeded from Nashville to Birmingham to finish the ride.

On Wednesday, the new group of riders were met at the Birmingham terminal by the police, who quickly arrested them. The riders went on a hunger strike in jail and were dumped on the side of the road more than 100 miles away in Tennessee before sunrise on Friday. However, they simply drove back to Birmingham, where they attempted to board a bus for Montgomery, but the terrified driver refused to let them on. The Kennedy administration negotiated a settlement in which the state police were to protect the bus bound for Montgomery.

The bus pulled into the Birmingham station, but the police cars disappeared. The freedom riders faced another horrendous scene: a crowd armed with bricks, pipes, baseball bats, and sticks yelling death threats. A young white man, Jim Zwerg, stepped off the bus first and was dragged down into the mob and knocked unconscious. Two female riders were pummeled, one by a woman swinging a purse and repeatedly hitting her in the head, the other by a man punching her repeatedly in the face.

Seigenthaler attempted to rescue the women by putting them into his car and driving away, but he was dragged from the car and knocked unconscious with a pipe and kicked in the ribs. A young black rider, William Barbee, was beaten into submission with a baseball bat and suffered permanent brain damage. A black bystander was even set afire after having kerosene thrown on him. The mayhem ended when a state police officer fired warning shots into the ceiling of the station. All the riders needed medical attention and were rushed to a local hospital.

That night, Martin Luther King Jr. came to Montgomery. Protected by a ring of federal marshals, King addressed a mass rally at First Baptist Church. He told the assembly, “Alabama will have to face the fact that we are determined to be free. The main thing I want to say to you is fear not, we’ve come too far to turn back . . . We are not afraid and we shall overcome.” Meanwhile, a white riot had erupted outside the church, and congregants spent the night inside.

A compromise was worked out two days later to get the riders out of Alabama and send them to Mississippi. A total of 27 freedom riders boarded the buses safely, accompanied by the Alabama National Guard, which, to the riders, defeated the purpose of challenging segregated seating on the bus. They were all arrested in Jackson in the bus depot for violating segregation statutes and were taken to jail. In the coming weeks, additional rides were made, but all suffered the same fate and more than 80 riders landed in jail under deplorable conditions.

Freedom riders Priscilla Stephens, from CORE, and Reverend Petty D. McKinney, from Nyack, New York, are shown after their arrest by the police in Tallahassee, Florida, in June 1961.

During the summer, the national media and many Americans lost interest in the freedom rides. A Gallup Poll in mid-June showed that a majority of Americans supported desegregated interstate travel and the use of federal marshals to enforce it. However, 64 percent of Americans disapproved of the rides after initial expressions of sympathy, and 61 percent thought civil rights should be achieved gradually instead of through direct action.

The civil rights movement was undeterred by such popular opinion. The 1960 Greensboro sit-ins and the 1961 freedom rides created a new momentum in the struggle for equal rights and freedom. Over the next few years, civil rights activists directly confronted segregation through nonviolent tactics at places like Birmingham and Selma to arouse the national conscience and to pressure the federal government for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Review Questions

1. The freedom rides in 1961 were most directly inspired by

• the lunch counter sit-ins started in Greensboro, North Carolina
• the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education
• the Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Commonwealth
• the formation of the Congress of Racial Equality

2. Freedom riders from the early 1960s were best known for

• inciting violent protests against urban policing policies
• providing transportation to those participating in the Montgomery bus boycott
• boycotting travel on segregated buses across the South
• challenging segregated seating on interstate bus routes

3. Response to the freedom riders as they travelled throughout the South illustrated

• uniformly violent opposition to their actions
• varied racial attitudes and reactions on the part of southerners
• widespread indifference
• local support and public mobilization of the black community

4. The freedom riders encountered the most violent reactions to their methods in

• Lynchburg, Virginia
• Charlotte, North Carolina
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Birmingham, Alabama

5. The federal government’s response to the freedom rides was characterized generally by

• overwhelming support, including federal protection of the riders
• the full support of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy, but not of Congress
• observation and information gathering but limited actual support
• official training in nonviolent tactics but little overt support

6. Compared with earlier tactics in the movement, in the early 1960s, new civil rights groups advocated greater emphasis on

• taking direct action
• working through the federal court system
• inciting violent revolution
• electing local officials sympathetic to their cause

7. The actions of the freedom riders most directly contributed to the

• Brown v. Board of Education decision
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• election of President John F. Kennedy

Free Response Questions

• Explain how the freedom riders of the early 1960s drew upon the U.S. Constitution to justify their actions.
• Explain how the freedom rides of the early 1960s represented an evolution in the methods of the civil rights movement.

AP Practice Questions

1. The events in the image most directly led to

• a Supreme Court decision declaring segregation unconstitutional
• increased support for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• the development of the counterculture
• Martin Luther King Jr.’s becoming a civil rights leader

2. The event in the photograph contributed to which of the following?

• Debates over the role of government in American life
• An increase in public confidence in political institutions
• Domestic opposition to containment
• The abandonment of direct-action techniques to achieve civil rights

3. The event in the image was most directly shaped by

• the techniques and strategies of the anti-war movement
• desegregation of the armed forces
• a desire to achieve the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment
• Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program

Primary Sources

James Farmer: letters to President John Kennedy. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum . 1961. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/students/leaders-in-the-struggle-for-civil-rights/james-farmer

Suggested Resources

Arsenault, Raymond. Freedom Rides: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-1963 . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.

Chafe, William. Civilities and Civil Rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Dudziak, Mary L. Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Graham, Hugh Davis. The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Lawson, Stephen F., and Charles Payne. Debating the Civil Rights Movement, 1945-1968 . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998.

Salmond, John A. “My Mind Set on Freedom:” A History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968 . Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1997.

Stern, Mark. Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1992.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

Freedom Rides

May 4, 1961 to December 16, 1961

During the spring of 1961, student activists from the  Congress of Racial Equality  (CORE) launched the Freedom Rides to challenge segregation on interstate buses and bus terminals. Traveling on buses from Washington, D.C., to Jackson, Mississippi, the riders met violent opposition in the Deep South, garnering extensive media attention and eventually forcing federal intervention from John F.  Kennedy ’s administration. Although the campaign succeeded in securing an Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) ban on segregation in all facilities under their jurisdiction, the Freedom Rides fueled existing tensions between student activists and Martin Luther King, Jr., who publicly supported the riders, but did not participate in the campaign. 

The Freedom Rides were first conceived in 1947 when CORE and the  Fellowship of Reconciliation  organized an interracial bus ride across state lines to test a Supreme Court decision that declared segregation on interstate buses unconstitutional. Called the Journey of Reconciliation, the ride challenged bus segregation in the upper parts of the South, avoiding the more dangerous Deep South. The lack of confrontation, however, resulted in little media attention and failed to realize CORE’s goals for the rides. Fourteen years later, in a new national context of  sit-ins , boycotts, and the emergence of the  Southern Christian Leadership Conference  and the  Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee  (SNCC), the Freedom Rides were able to harness enough national attention to force federal enforcement and policy changes. 

Following an earlier ruling,  Morgan v. Virginia  (1946), that made segregation in interstate transportation illegal, in 1960 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in  Boynton v. Virginia  that segregation in the facilities provided for interstate travelers, such as bus terminals, restaurants, and restrooms, was also unconstitutional. Prior to the 1960 decision, two students, John  Lewis  and Bernard  Lafayette , integrated their bus ride home from college in Nashville, Tennessee, by sitting at the front of a bus and refusing to move. After this first ride, they saw CORE’s announcement recruiting volunteers to participate in a Freedom Ride, a longer bus trip through the South to test the enforcement of  Boynton . Lafayette’s parents would not permit him to participate, but Lewis joined 12 other activists to form an interracial group that underwent extensive training in nonviolent direct action before launching the ride. 

On 4 May 1961, the freedom riders left Washington, D.C., in two buses and headed to New Orleans. Although they faced resistance and arrests in Virginia, it was not until the riders arrived in Rock Hill, South Carolina, that they encountered violence. The beating of Lewis and another rider, coupled with the arrest of one participant for using a whites-only restroom, attracted widespread media coverage. In the days following the incident, the riders met King and other civil rights leaders in Atlanta for dinner. During this meeting, King whispered prophetically to  Jet  reporter Simeon Booker, who was covering the story, “You will never make it through Alabama” (Lewis, 140). 

The ride continued to Anniston, Alabama, where, on 14 May, riders were met by a violent mob of over 100 people. Before the buses’ arrival, Anniston local authorities had given permission to the Ku Klux Klan to strike against the freedom riders without fear of arrest. As the first bus pulled up, the driver yelled outside, “Well, boys, here they are. I brought you some niggers and nigger-lovers” (Arsenault, 143). One of the buses was firebombed, and its fleeing passengers were forced into the angry white mob. The violence continued at the Birmingham terminal where Eugene “Bull”  Connor ’s police force offered no protection. Although the violence garnered national media attention, the series of attacks prompted James  Farmer  of CORE to end the campaign. The riders flew to New Orleans, bringing to an end the first Freedom Ride of the 1960s. 

The decision to end the ride frustrated student activists, such as Diane  Nash , who argued in a phone conversation with Farmer: “We can’t let them stop us with violence. If we do, the movement is dead” (Ross, 177). Under the auspices and organizational support of SNCC, the Freedom Rides continued. SNCC mentors were wary of this decision, including King, who had declined to join the rides when asked by Nash and Rodney Powell. Farmer continued to express his reservations, questioning whether continuing the trip was “suicide” (Lewis, 144). With fractured support, the organizers had a difficult time securing financial resources. Nevertheless, on 17 May 1961, seven men and three women rode from Nashville to Birmingham to resume the Freedom Rides. Just before reaching Birmingham, the bus was pulled over and directed to the Birmingham station, where all of the riders were arrested for defying segregation laws. The arrests, coupled with the difficulty of finding a bus driver and other logistical challenges, left the riders stranded in the city for several days. 

Federal intervention began to take place behind the scenes as Attorney General Robert  Kennedy  called the Greyhound Company and demanded that it find a driver. Seeking to diffuse the dangerous situation, John Seigenthaler, a Department of Justice representative accompanying the freedom riders, met with a reluctant Alabama Governor John  Patterson . Seigenthaler’s maneuver resulted in the bus’s departure for Montgomery with a full police escort the next morning. 

At the Montgomery city line, as agreed, the state troopers left the buses, but the local police that had been ordered to meet the freedom riders in Montgomery never appeared. Unprotected when they entered the terminal, riders were beaten so severely by a white mob that some sustained permanent injuries. When the police finally arrived, they served the riders with an injunction barring them from continuing the Freedom Ride in Alabama. 

During this time, King was on a speaking tour in Chicago. Upon learning of the violence, he returned to Montgomery, where he staged a rally at Ralph  Abernathy ’s First Baptist Church. In his speech, King blamed Governor Patterson for “aiding and abetting the forces of violence” and called for federal intervention, declaring that “the federal government must not stand idly by while bloodthirsty mobs beat nonviolent students with impunity” (King, 21 May 1961). As King spoke, a threatening white mob gathered outside. From inside the church, King called Attorney General Kennedy, who assured him that the federal government would protect those inside the church. Kennedy swiftly mobilized federal marshals who used tear gas to keep the mob at bay. Federal marshals were later replaced by the Alabama National Guard, who escorted people out of the church at dawn. 

As the violence and federal intervention propelled the freedom riders to national prominence, King became one of the major spokesmen for the rides. Some activists, however, began to criticize King for his willingness to offer only moral and financial support but not his physical presence on the rides. In a telegram to King the president of the Union County  National Association for the Advancement of Colored People  branch in North Carolina, Robert F.  Williams , urged him to “lead the way by example.… If you lack the courage, remove yourself from the vanguard” ( Papers  7:241–242 ). In response to Nash’s direct request that King join the rides, King replied that he was on probation and could not afford another arrest, a response many of the students found unacceptable. 

On 29 May 1961, the Kennedy administration announced that it had directed the ICC to ban segregation in all facilities under its jurisdiction, but the rides continued. Students from all over the country purchased bus tickets to the South and crowded into jails in Jackson, Mississippi. With the participation of northern students came even more press coverage. On 1 November 1961, the ICC ruling that segregation on interstate buses and facilities was illegal took effect. 

Although King’s involvement in the Freedom Rides waned after the federal intervention, the legacy of the rides remained with him. He, and all others involved in the campaign, saw how provoking white southern violence through nonviolent confrontations could attract national attention and force federal action. The Freedom Rides also exposed tactical and leadership rifts between King and more militant student activists, which continued until King’s death in 1968. 

Arsenault,  Freedom Riders , 2006.

“Bi-Racial Group Cancels Bus Trip,”  New York Times , 16 May 1961.

Carson,  In Struggle , 1981.

Garrow,  Bearing the Cross , 1986.

King, Statement Delivered at Freedom Riders Rally at First Baptist Church, 21 May 1961,  MMFR .

Lewis,  Walking with the Wind , 1998.

Peck,  Freedom Ride , 1962.

Ross,  Witnessing and Testifying , 2003.

Williams to King, 31 May 1961, in  Papers  7:241–242 .

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom Riders

By: History.com Editors

Updated: January 20, 2022 | Original: February 2, 2010

Freedom Riders were groups of white and African American civil rights activists who participated in Freedom Rides, bus trips through the American South in 1961 to protest segregated bus terminals. Freedom Riders tried to use “whites-only” restrooms and lunch counters at bus stations in Alabama, South Carolina and other Southern states. The groups were confronted by arresting police officers—as well as horrific violence from white protestors—along their routes, but also drew international attention to the civil rights movement.

Civil Rights Activists Test Supreme Court Decision

The 1961 Freedom Rides, organized by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) , were modeled after the organization’s 1947 Journey of Reconciliation. During the 1947 action, African American and white bus riders tested the 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Virginia that found segregated bus seating was unconstitutional.

The 1961 Freedom Rides sought to test a 1960 decision by the Supreme Court in Boynton v. Virginia that segregation of interstate transportation facilities, including bus terminals, was unconstitutional as well. A big difference between the 1947 Journey of Reconciliation and the 1961 Freedom Rides was the inclusion of women in the later initiative.

In both actions, Black riders traveled to the Jim Crow South—where segregation continued to occur—and attempted to use whites-only restrooms, lunch counters and waiting rooms.

The original group of 13 Freedom Riders—seven African Americans and six whites—left Washington, D.C. , on a Greyhound bus on May 4, 1961. Their plan was to reach New Orleans , Louisiana , on May 17 to commemorate the seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, which ruled that segregation of the nation’s public schools was unconstitutional.

The group traveled through Virginia and North Carolina , drawing little public notice. The first violent incident occurred on May 12 in Rock Hill, South Carolina . John Lewis , an African American seminary student and member of the SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), white Freedom Rider and World War II veteran Albert Bigelow and another Black rider were viciously attacked as they attempted to enter a whites-only waiting area.

The next day, the group reached Atlanta, Georgia , where some of the riders split off onto a Trailways bus.

Did you know? John Lewis, one of the original group of 13 Freedom Riders, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in November 1986. Lewis, a Democrat, continued to represent Georgia's 5th Congressional District, which includes Atlanta, until his death in 2020.

Freedom Riders Face Bloodshed in Alabama

On May 14, 1961, the Greyhound bus was the first to arrive in Anniston, Alabama . There, an angry mob of about 200 white people surrounded the bus, causing the driver to continue past the bus station.

The mob followed the bus in automobiles, and when the tires on the bus blew out, someone threw a bomb into the bus. The Freedom Riders escaped the bus as it burst into flames, only to be brutally beaten by members of the surrounding mob.

The second bus, a Trailways vehicle, traveled to Birmingham, Alabama, and those riders were also beaten by an angry white mob, many of whom brandished metal pipes. Birmingham Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor stated that, although he knew the Freedom Riders were arriving and violence awaited them, he posted no police protection at the station because it was Mother’s Day .

Photographs of the burning Greyhound bus and the bloodied riders appeared on the front pages of newspapers throughout the country and around the world the next day, drawing international attention to the Freedom Riders’ cause and the state of race relations in the United States.

Following the widespread violence, CORE officials could not find a bus driver who would agree to transport the integrated group, and they decided to abandon the Freedom Rides. However, Diane Nash , an activist from the SNCC, organized a group of 10 students from Nashville, Tennessee , to continue the rides.

U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy , brother of President John F. Kennedy , began negotiating with Governor John Patterson of Alabama and the bus companies to secure a driver and state protection for the new group of Freedom Riders. The rides finally resumed, on a Greyhound bus departing Birmingham under police escort, on May 20.

Federal Marshals Called In

The violence toward the Freedom Riders was not quelled—rather, the police abandoned the Greyhound bus just before it arrived at the Montgomery, Alabama, terminal, where a white mob attacked the riders with baseball bats and clubs as they disembarked. Attorney General Kennedy sent 600 federal marshals to the city to stop the violence.

The following night, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr . led a service at the First Baptist Church in Montgomery, which was attended by more than one thousand supporters of the Freedom Riders. A riot ensued outside the church, and King called Robert Kennedy to ask for protection.

Kennedy summoned the federal marshals, who used tear gas to disperse the white mob. Patterson declared martial law in the city and dispatched the National Guard to restore order.

Kennedy Urges ‘Cooling Off’ Period 

On May 24, 1961, a group of Freedom Riders departed Montgomery for Jackson, Mississippi . There, several hundred supporters greeted the riders. However, those who attempted to use the whites-only facilities were arrested for trespassing and taken to the maximum-security penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi.

That same day, U.S. Attorney General Kennedy issued a statement urging a “cooling off” period in the face of the growing violence:

“A very difficult condition exists now in the states of Mississippi and Alabama. Besides the groups of 'Freedom Riders' traveling through these states, there are curiosity seekers, publicity seekers and others who are seeking to serve their own causes, as well as many persons who are traveling because they must use the interstate carriers to reach their destination.

In this confused situation, there is increasingly possibility that innocent persons may be injured. A mob asks no questions.

A cooling off period is needed. It would be wise for those traveling through these two Sites to delay their trips until the present state of confusion and danger has passed and an atmosphere of reason and normalcy has been restored.” 

During the Mississippi hearings, the judge turned and looked at the wall rather than listen to the Freedom Riders’ defense—as had been the case when sit-in participants were arrested for protesting segregated lunch counters in Tennessee. He sentenced the riders to 30 days in jail.

Attorneys from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP ), a civil rights organization, appealed the convictions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court , which reversed them.

Desegregating Travel

The violence and arrests continued to garner national and international attention, and drew hundreds of new Freedom Riders to the cause.

The rides continued over the next several months, and in the fall of 1961, under pressure from the Kennedy administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued regulations prohibiting segregation in interstate transit terminals.

HISTORY Vault: Voices of Civil Rights

A look at one of the defining social movements in U.S. history, told through the personal stories of men, women and children who lived through it.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Wiradjuri Griffith Community

WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are warned that this site may contain images and voices of deceased persons.

Griffith High School students study Freedom Ride

Year 10 students from griffith high school have been studying sue lawson’s freedom ride. the book is based on the events of the freedom rides which were a series of protests led by charles perkins and sydney university students..

The protests raised awareness of racism in regional towns throughout Australia and were fundamental in changing laws and rights for Aboriginal people in Australia.

Below is an essay composed by Armand Gumera about Sue Lawson’s Freedom Ride.

Freedom Ride (2015) by Sue Lawson The 21st century coming-of-age novel, Freedom Ride (2015) was composed by Australian author Sue Lawson. It explores issues that are of importance to both the text and our society. Issues that include racism, violence, and bullying among many others. Lawson uses these issues to convey the central themes to the reader. Themes regarding judging people according to their race, the idea that people who grow up in ignorance do not know any different and the concept of people who grow up feeling insecure and neglected doubt themselves. In the story, these are shown from the perspective of Robbie, the main character. He has been raised by a conservative family, in Walgaree, a small town in NSW. Set in the 1960’s, when racial discrimination was widely accepted in Australia, this diagnostic text uses true events such as the Australian Freedom Ride led by Charles Perkins, to create a fictionalised story that represents and presents, in an engaging manner, these main themes to the audience. In Freedom Ride, one theme that is communicated is the widespread prevalence of people judging other people based on the colour of their skin. This is clearly evident in the novel when in Chapter 31 Robbie’s dad delivers a statement regarding an Aboriginal boy, saying “It’s wrong. Him (Barry) giving an Abo a job when a white boy would do it better.” The use of the short sentence ‘It’s wrong’, is used to create a sense of tension or demand and the use of the word ‘wrong’ shows the tone of Robbie’s dad when concerning Aborigines; it also establishes his position and view towards Micky an Aboriginal resident of the town, and the following sentence ‘Him giving an Abo a job when a white boy would do it better’ implies that his dad’s world-view is that of white superiority and prejudice towards black people. Another example of how this theme is being presented is in Chapter 24 where the McIntosh family decided to leave the caravan park after seeing Mickey working there, Mrs McIntosh describes Micky as a “dirty boong” uttering it in a hostile tone. This means that Mrs McIntosh and her family hold the exact same view as Robbie’s Dad but displayed more hatred. This is not surprising for the reason that during the period in which the novel was set, many people were especially racist. Therefore, this theme of judging people based on their race is effectively portrayed by Sue Lawson in the book by using the techniques of short sentences to create emotion and her choice of emotive and powerful words. The novel also presents the idea that people that grow up in ignorance do not know any different. This theme is depicted in Chapter 9 when Barry asks Robbie if his grandmother found overseas travel enjoyable and Robbie responded with: “Not a fan of anything outside Walgaree, especially anything foreign. Wish I had a penny for every time she told me flying makes your brain bleed and that concerts are ‘dens of sex and drugs’. Or that criminals with evil on their minds do ‘unspeakable things’ to travellers.” This quote suggests that Nan is a very conservative person; who has most likely obtained this mentality from living in a small isolated town with limited access to the outside world with the exception of newspapers which are most of the time biased. The idiom ‘Wish I had a penny for every time’ suggests that Nan frequently mentions these issues to Robbie. Also, Lawson uses visually descriptive words such as ‘flying makes your brain bleed’ and ‘dens of sex and drugs’ to illustrate what Nan’s outlook on foreign travel looks like on the minds of the reader. These examples effectively portray the attitudes which were prevalent at the time, showing that ignorant attitudes were not confined to matters by race. Furthermore, Freedom Ride explores the theme of people who grow up feeling insecure and neglected doubt themselves. This theme is revealed through Lawson’s characterisation of Robbie, the protagonist. An example of this is in Chapter 23 where Robbie tried to warn Micky (the Aboriginal boy) that Wright (the bully) would beat him up but could not for the reason that he was a weak cowardly boy, in the end of the chapter he states: “I worked out what I needed to say, but when I opened my mouth the words evaporated. At the end of the day, Micky turned left and I turned right, and the words were never said.” The first sentence indicates that he felt nervous, he had the words but he could not deliver them, which then results in him not being able to inform Micky about the impending assault. His self-doubt was caused by neglect and insecurity. His Nan and Dad mistreated Robbie in their own household. This quote created a sense of anxiety and helplessness. We have access to Robbie’s interior monologue, which obviously presented his personality to the audience. The example shown gave the reader a realistic and relatable view of a person with low self-esteem in a very conservative environment and the effects it had, and for this reason the theme of people who grow up feeling insecure and neglected doubt themselves is brilliantly conveyed to the audience. By exploring the text Freedom Ride in sufficient depth it becomes obvious that it provides themes that are portrayed effectively through the techniques of engaging characterisation, short, concise sentences, and emotive language. Also, it clearly shows powerful statements regarding race, but not just race; it too offers the dramatic journey of a teenager through all these issues in the past which becomes relevant to our society in the 21st Century as we still see these issues occurring today. Freedom Ride, stands out among other texts from its historical period and genre. This is why it communicates to the modern readers exceptionally.

By Armand Gumera – Year 10 Griffith High School

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• When did the American civil rights movement start?

Freedom Rides

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Bill of Rights Institute - Freedom Riders
• Stanford University - The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute - Freedom Rides
• BlackPast - Freedom Rides (1961)
• New Georgia Encyclopedia - Freedom Rides
• Academia - Who Were the American Freedom Riders
• Encyclopedia of Alabama - Freedom Rides
• NPR - The Cruel Story Behind The 'Reverse Freedom Rides'
• Freedom Rides - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Freedom Rides - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

Freedom Rides , in U.S. history, a series of political protests against segregation by Blacks and whites who rode buses together through the American South in 1961.

In 1946 the U.S. Supreme Court banned segregation in interstate bus travel. A year later the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Fellowship of Reconciliation tested the ruling by staging the Journey of Reconciliation , on which an interracial group of activists rode together on a bus through the upper South, though fearful of journeying to the Deep South. Following this example and responding to the Supreme Court’s Boynton v. Virginia decision of 1960, which extended the earlier ruling to include bus terminals, restrooms, and other facilities associated with interstate travel, a group of seven African Americans and six whites left Washington, D.C. , on May 4, 1961, on a Freedom Ride in two buses bound for New Orleans . Convinced that segregationists in the South would violently protest this exercise of their constitutional right, the Freedom Riders hoped to provoke the federal government into enforcing the Boynton decision. When they stopped along the way, white riders used facilities designated for Blacks and vice versa.

The Freedom Riders encountered violence in South Carolina , but in Alabama the reaction was much more severe. On May 14, upon stopping outside Anniston to change a slashed tire, one bus was firebombed and the Freedom Riders were beaten. Arriving in Birmingham , Alabama, the second bus was similarly attacked and the passengers beaten. In both cases law enforcement was suspiciously late in responding, and there were suspicions of collusion in that late response. Although the original Riders were unable to find a bus line to carry them farther, a second group of 10, originating in Nashville and partly organized by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), renewed the effort. Undeterred by being arrested in Birmingham and transported back to Tennessee , the new Freedom Riders returned to Birmingham and, at the behest of U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy , secured a bus and protection from the State Highway Patrol as they traveled to Montgomery , Alabama, where, when local police failed to protect them, they were again beaten.

Thereafter National Guard support was provided when 27 Freedom Riders continued on to Jackson , Mississippi , only to be arrested and jailed. On May 29 Kennedy ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce even stricter guidelines banning segregation in interstate travel. Still, Freedom Riders continued to travel by public transportation in the South until that dictate took effect in September.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Who Were the Freedom Riders?

Representative John Lewis was among the 13 original Freedom Riders, who encountered violence and resistance as they rode buses across the South, challenging the nation’s segregation laws.

By Derrick Bryson Taylor

Representative John Lewis, who died on Friday at 80 , was an imposing figure in American politics and the civil rights movement. But his legacy of confronting racism directly, while never swaying from his commitment to nonviolence, started long before he became a national figure.

Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat, was among the original 13 Freedom Riders who rode buses across the South in 1961 to challenge segregation in public transportation. The riders were attacked and beaten, and one of their buses was firebombed, but the rides changed the way people traveled and set the stage for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

How did the Freedom Rides start?

In 1947, the Congress of Racial Equality, known as CORE, created a “Journey of Reconciliation” to draw attention to racial segregation in public transportation in Southern cities and states across the United States. That movement was only moderately successful, but it led to the Freedom Rides of 1961, which forever changed the way Americans traveled between states.

The Freedom Rides, which began in May 1961 and ended late that year, were organized by CORE’s national director, James Farmer. The mission of the rides was to test compliance with two Supreme Court rulings: Boynton v. Virginia, which declared that segregated bathrooms, waiting rooms and lunch counters were unconstitutional, and Morgan vs. Virginia, in which the court ruled that it was unconstitutional to implement and enforce segregation on interstate buses and trains. The Freedom Rides took place as the Civil Rights movement was gathering momentum, and during a period in which African-Americans were routinely harassed and subjected to segregation in the Jim Crow South.

Who were the first 13 Freedom Riders?

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Sharing Stories Inspiring Change

• Civil Rights
• Community Organizing
• Disability Rights
• Labor Rights
• LGBTQIA Rights
• Reproductive Rights
• Voting Rights
• Women's Rights
• Architecture
• Fashion and Beauty
• Photography
• Advertising and Marketing
• Entrepreneurs
• Jewish Education
• Jewish Studies
• Summer Camps
• Women’s and Gender Studies
• Food Writing
• Antisemitism
• Soviet Jewry
• World War II
• Rosh Hashanah
• Simchat Torah
• Tisha B'Av
• Tu B'Shvat
• Philanthropy
• Social Work
• Civil Service
• Immigration
• International Relations
• Organizations and Institutions
• Social Policy
• Judaism-Conservative
• Judaism-Orthodox
• Judaism-Reconstructionist
• Judaism-Reform
• Midrash and Aggadah
• Spirituality and Religious Life
• Synagogues/Temples
• Agriculture
• Engineering
• Mathematics
• Natural Science
• Psychology and Psychiatry
• Social Science
• Coaches and Management
• Non-Fiction

Civil Disobedience and the Freedom Rides: Introductory Essay

Introductory Essay for Living the Legacy , Civil Rights, Unit 2, Lesson 3

One of the ways African American communities fought legal segregation was through direct action protests, such as boycotts, sit-ins, and mass civil disobedience. The tactic of non-violence civil disobedience in the Civil Rights Movement was deeply influenced by the model of Mohandas Gandhi, an Indian lawyer who became a spiritual leader and led a successful nonviolent resistance movement against British colonial power in India. Gandhi's approach of non-violent civil disobedience involved provoking authorities by breaking the law peacefully, to force those in power to acknowledge existing injustice and bring it to an end. For its followers, this strategy involved a willingness to suffer and sacrifice oneself.

In 1960, black college students used non-violent civil disobedience to fight against segregation in restaurants and other public places. On February 1, four black students from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College in Greensboro, North Carolina, sat down at the whites-only lunch counter in Woolworth's and politely ordered some food. As expected, they were refused service, but they remained sitting at the counter until the store closed. The next day, they were joined by more than two dozen supporters. On day three, 63 of the 66 lunch counter seats were filled by students. By the end of the week, hundreds of black students and a few white supporters filled the lunch counters at Woolworth's and another store down the street.

The sit-ins attracted national attention, and city officials tried to end the confrontation by negotiating an end to the protests. But white community leaders were unwilling to change the segregation laws, so in April, students began the sit-ins again. After the mass arrest of student protestors on the charge of trespassing, the African American community organized a boycott of targeted stores. When the merchants felt the economic impact of the boycott, they relented, and on July 25, 1960, African Americans were served their first meal at Woolworth's.

The success of the Greensboro sit-ins led to a wave of similar protests across the South. More than 70,000 people – mostly black students, joined by some white allies – participated in sit-ins over the next year and a half, with more than 3,000 arrested for their actions.

Like the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides of 1961 were designed to provoke arrests, though in this case to prompt the Justice Department to enforce already existing laws banning segregation in interstate travel and terminal accommodations. These were not the first Freedom Rides. In 1947, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), an organization devoted to interracial, nonviolent direct action led by the African American pacifist Bayard Rustin, co-sponsored a bus ride through the South with the Christian pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation, to test compliance with 1946 Morgan v. Virginia decision that prohibited segregation on interstate buses. Those first Freedom Riders were arrested in North Carolina when they refused to leave the bus. In 1961, James Farmer – one of CORE's founders and its national director – decided to hold another interracial Freedom Ride, with support from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (founded in 1957 by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP, founded in 1909).

The Freedom Ride began in Washington DC in May, with two interracial groups traveling on public buses headed toward Alabama and Mississippi. (John Lewis, who appears in Unit 2 lesson 7 and Unit 3 lesson 5, was among those on the first buses of Freedom Riders.) They faced only isolated harassment until they reached Anniston, Alabama, where an angry mob attacked one bus, breaking windows, slashing its tires, and throwing a firebomb through the window. The mob violently beat the Freedom Riders with iron bars and clubs while the bus burned. The second bus was also brutally attacked in Anniston. Violence followed both buses to Birmingham, where a mob beat the Freedom Riders while the police and the FBI watched and did nothing. No bus would take the remaining Freedom Riders on to Montgomery, so they flew to New Orleans on a special flight arranged by the Justice Department.

The CORE-sponsored Freedom Ride disbanded, but SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, founded in 1960) took up the project, gathering new volunteers to continue the rides. A new group of Freedom Riders, students from Nashville led by Diane Nash -- a young African American woman -- gathered in Birmingham and departed for Montgomery on May 20. The Montgomery bus station, which initially seemed deserted, filled with a huge mob when the passengers got off the bus. Several Freedom Riders were severely injured, as were journalists and observers. The mob violence and indifference of the Alabama police attracted negative international press for the Kennedy Administration. In response, Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent 400 U.S. marshals to prevent further mob violence, and called for a cooling off period, but civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King, James Farmer and SNCC leaders insisted that the Freedom Rides would continue. So Robert Kennedy brokered a compromise agreement: if the Freedom Riders were allowed to pass safely through Mississippi, the federal government would not interfere with their arrest in Jackson.

At this point, the Freedom Riders developed a new strategy: fill the jails. They called on civil rights activists to join them on the Freedom Rides, and buses from all over the country headed South carrying activists committed to challenging segregation. Over the course of the summer, more than 300 Freedom Riders were arrested in Jackson, where they refused bail and instead filled the jails, often facing beatings, harassment, and deplorable conditions. More than half of the white Freedom Riders were Jewish.

Judith Frieze, a recent graduate of Smith College, was among those white northerners and many Jews who joined the Freedom Rides in the summer of 1961. Arrested in Jackson, she spent six weeks in a maximum security prison. Upon her release, she documented her experience in an 8-part series of articles published in the Boston Globe .

Eventually, the Freedom Rides succeeded in their mission: by the end of 1962, the Justice Department pressed the Interstate Commerce Commission to issue clear rules prohibiting segregation in interstate travel. The experience revealed the hesitancy of the federal government to enforce the law of the land and the intransigence of white resistance to desegregation. But it also strengthened SNCC, whose leadership at a crucial moment of the Freedom Rides led to the project's success and taught these young civil rights activists about the central role of politics, and the importance of appealing to the pragmatism of politicians -- even the President -- in the fight for civil rights.

Help us elevate the voices of Jewish women.

Listen to Our Podcast

Get sweet swag.

Get JWA in your inbox

Read the latest from JWA from your inbox.

sign up now

How to cite this page

Jewish Women's Archive. "Civil Disobedience and the Freedom Rides: Introductory Essay." (Viewed on September 12, 2024) <https://jwa.org/teach/livingthelegacy/civil-disobedience-and-freedom-rides-introductory-essay>.

For Teachers

• Changing America
• Freedom Summer

The Abolitionists

Slavery by Another Name

Freedom Riders

The Loving Story

You are here

• The Power of the Individual

Film & Theme

The power of the individual: freedom riders.

In the spring of 1961, the Freedom Rides brought together people of different races, religions, cultures, and economic backgrounds from across the country. Most were students in their late teens or twenties. Some traveled alone, others as part of a group unified by the single objective to challenge segregation in the former Confederate states. Many southern whites believed segregation was a fundamental part of their communities and reacted violently to any attempt to change it.

One of the major clashes between the Freedom Riders and supporters of segregation occurred outside Anniston, Alabama in May 1961. This clip shows the brutal confrontation that resulted when a white mob ambushed and burned the bus. The events are recounted by a variety of white and black eye witnesses who reveal several different perspectives.

Further Analysis

Freedom Riders . Day 1. 20:00–29:00: Two buses of Freedom Riders travel through Alabama; Governor Patterson reacts to the Rides; Attack at the Anniston bus station.

Questions for class discussion

• Recount the stages of the events in Anniston.
• The film shows many whites who reacted violently but others—the young girl who brought water and the police officer who eventually stopped the confrontation —who did not. Why did so many white southerners react so violently to the Freedom Riders? Why did these other whites react differently?
• Was the attack a success from the attackers’ point of view? From the Riders’ point of view?

Scholarly Essay

• Raymond Arsenault on  Freedom Riders

Background Articles for the Teacher

• Freedom Riders Online Exhibit
• “People Get Ready”: Music and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s

Lesson Plans

• JFK, Freedom Riders, and the Civil Rights Movement
• Freedom Riders and the Popular Music of the Sixties

Primary Sources

• Robert Kennedy on civil rights , (1963)
• George Wallace on segregation , (1964)

More Resources

• Freedom Riders Website
• Film Segments

Explore Created Equal in the Classroom:

- Equality Under the Law - The Power of the Individual - The Strategy of Nonviolence

Community Programs

The NEH Created Equal  project uses the power of documentary films to encourage public conversations about the changing meanings of freedom and equality in America.

Changing America Exhibit

Find a "Changing America" exhibit in your community.

Over 3 Million Original Newspapers World’s Largest Archive

The Freedom Riders of 1961: Through The Papers

Written by Samples

Last Updated on 2nd February 2021

Thirteen men and women made history when they courageously defied the segregation norms of the United States in 1961 , during the Civil Rights Movement. Their efforts would pave the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which were crucial acts passed to end legal segregation in the United States. 

This post tells their story through newspaper content written about the Freedom Riders, showing how publications at the time reported on the movement. The reports reveal the racial attitudes of the American South at the time and provide fascinating first-hand accounts from those who saw the rides taking place. 

Mug shots of a group of Freedom Riders Image: Wikimedia Commons

Turn the page to: 

Who Were The Freedom Riders?

The violence continues, lack of police protection, “eyewitness tells story of rioting”, armed officers dispatched, arrests made, discipline for students, the ku klux klan intervene, from montgomery to mississippi, robert f. kennedy.

• Corruption Among the Police

The Freedom Riders were a group of thirteen young people who rode buses across the Southern states to challenge segregation laws surrounding public transport. The origins of the Freedom Rides came from the 1947 “Journey of Reconciliation” created by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), which attempted to focus attention on the way in which transport in Southern cities and states was racially segregated. 

At the time the Freedom Rides took place, the renowned Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was gathering momentum, and African American citizens were still subject to racial hatred and discrimination in the Jim Crow Southern states. Starting in May 1961, and led by the director of CORE James Farmer , the main aim of the Freedom Riders was to test the compliance with two Supreme Court Rulings:

• Boynton v. Virginia, which claimed that the segregation of lunch counters, waiting rooms and bathrooms was unconstitutional
• Morgan v. Virginia, which stated that it was unconstitutional to implement and enforce segregation on interstate trains and buses.

Among the riders was representative John Lewis, then aged 21, who would become a crucial figure in the civil rights movement and American politics. In total, there were seven black and six white riders, with the defiant act crossing racial boundaries. While the original group of riders was small, the group expanded dramatically as the movement took off. Some of the other riders included, but were not limited to: 

• CORE Director James Farmer – leader of the Freedom Riders
• Raymond Arsenault
• Rev. Benjamin Elton Cox
• Genevieve Hughes
• Mae Frances Moultrie
• Joseph Perkins
• Charles Person
• William E. Harbour
• Joan Trumpauer Mullholland
• Ed Blankenheim

Before the riders took off, they engaged in some training in the form of role-playing so they could prepare for some of the harassment they would face. Racial segregation and discrimination was still in full force during this time, particularly in the American South, so the group were completely aware of the backlash they would face as a result of their actions. 

Racial violence was common in the states they were travelling across and their efforts would be strongly disapproved of by white southerners. The Freedom Riders journey became an iconic part of the civil rights movement and was a memorable attempt to challenge the racial norms of the American South.

Freedom Rider Mobbing

On Sunday, May 21, 1961, The Washington Post reported on the violent mobbing of the Freedom Riders, 17 days after their traveling first began. The front page headline on this day was: 

The Washington Post headline, Sunday, May 21, 1961

Immediately, we can interpret that the violence was extreme, since marshals had been ordered by the President to offer back up support due to the eruption of mobbing. The subheading also stated “U.S. Official Is Knocked Unconscious,” showing the public the seriousness of the situation. According to the newspaper: 

“James Zwerg, the only white youth among the freedom riders, apparently was the most seriously hurt.”  

This  reveals to us that the violent mobs were infuriated by the whole group and their efforts, and were not afraid to attack whoever was involved, no matter the color of their skin. 

The newspaper includes a quote from screaming women, giving us an insight into the racial attitudes of the time: 

“Kill the n*****-loving……,” several women screamed when the Appleton, Wis., youth stepped from the bus.” 

This quote allows us to feel the strength of racial hatred among some white Southerners who were at the station where the participants got off. 

This Washington Post issue also pays a lot of attention to James Zwerg, writing that:

  “Several bearded youths immediately pounced on Zwerg, a tall youth dressed in an olive green business suit. He was knocked to the pavement with a rain of blows to the face and shoulders and lay bleeding profusely in the street.” 

Since Zwerg was the only white person on the bus at this time, did the newspaper focus on him for this reason, or was it purely because he was badly hurt?

In terms of the official knocked unconscious, the newspaper writes that:

  “The Kennedy aide who was beaten was John Seigenthaler, 32, an administrative assistant to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.” 

At the time, Seigenthaler was in the South to have discussions about the best way to protect the Freedom Riders. While trying to help one girl escape the mob, he was knocked unconscious. Interestingly, the newspaper reported:

  “A reporter asked Police Commissioner L. B. Sullivan why an ambulance wasn’t called for Zewrg and Seigenthaler.” 

Sullivan allegedly replied that every white ambulance in town had reported that their vehicles had broken down. 

The same newspaper issue continues discussing the mobbing on the following page, claiming that:

“The actual violence was carried out by only 25 or 30 of the estimated 300 persons that gathered at the bus terminals for the freedom riders arrival.”

  This shows that the Freedom Riders had gained significant attention from the public, allowing their cause to spread further, especially when the Washington Post goes on to say that the crowds got up to an estimated 1500 to 2000 people. 

Details of the violence were included in the reports, stating that:

“Suitcases were ripped from the hands of the students and smashed on the pavement. Later, onlookers gathered the scattered clothing that was in the street, piled it together along with an English composition textbook, and set it afire.” 

The burning of their belongings was definitely a symbolic act of violence that showed strong hatred for the cause of the Freedom Riders. As well as this:

“Teargas was used to break up several scuffles that erupted in the vicinity of the bus station. One youth was taken into custody after beating a Negro man to the sidewalk with his fists.”

  The Washington Post headline, Sunday, May 21, 1961

The Freedom Riders were already being written into the history books with the Time-Life Bureau manager, Norman Ritter, present, along with this photographer, Don Urbock. The newspaper stated that:

“The two were collaborating on a story about the freedom riders, who had the avowed purpose of breaking down racial barriers at bus stations and terminals and in the vehicles themselves,” aiming to share the genuine intentions of the riders.

The aforementioned commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, claimed that there would be no special police measures taken to ensure the safety of the Freedom Riders. At this point, they were hiding in secret locations. L. B. Sullivan stated that:

”We responded to a call here (at the bus station) just like we would any place else,”  he said. “But we have no intention of standing police guard for a bunch of trouble makers coming into our city and making trouble.”

This statement shows that the police were unwilling to protect the Freedom Riders, with a “ bunch of trouble makers ” suggesting they are responsible. Rather than criticizing the white mobs for the trouble caused by their violent reactions, the commissioner blames the Freedom Riders who were peacefully protesting on public transport. The commissioner essentially claims that the rioting is their fault, since they prompted violent responses from the public. 

A fascinating aspect of the reporting on the Freedom Riders was the inclusion of an eyewitness account in The Washington Post. This story was printed in the issue on May 21, regarding the violence that had taken place the day before. The eyewitness claims that: 

“Finally the short white man knocked the camera out of the TV photographer’s hands and hit the photographer in the mouth. Several other white men ran up and stomped the camera to bits.”

Could this reaction from the white man be a fear of the story spreading further? Did the mobs not want the event to be reported? The eyewitness continues: 

“Two other photographers – with still cameras – were beaten and one of their cameras was smashed.” 

The eyewitness then claims they were shouted at by the white man, then attacked themselves. 

The racial violence had become so extreme in Alabama that:

  “The Justice Department ordered several hundred armed Federal law officers into Alabama last night,” last night being May 20. 

This suggests that the police in the area were not coping with the extent of the violence and needed back up. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy:

“…instructed the Justice Department to take “all necessary steps” to deal with the racial strife which the “Freedom Ride” has left in its wake across Alabama.”

As well as this, Robert F. Kennedy:

  “…directed an “extra team” of FBI agents to investigate the week’s riots in Montgomery and Birmingham,” which also shows that the Freedom Riders were still getting significant government and media attention, a positive outcome from their efforts. 

The Governor of Alabama then stated: 

“If the Federal Government really wants to help in this unfortunate situation, they will encourage these outside agitators to go home. We have the means and the ability to keep the peace in Alabama without any outside help.” 

Once again, the blame for violence is being placed on the peaceful Freedom Riders as “outside agitators,” as opposed to the white mobs who reacted violently and started the rioting. The Governor continues with: 

“We cannot escore busloads or carloads of rabble rousers about our State… for the avowed purpose of disobeying our laws, flaunting our customs and traditions and creating racial incidents.”

The Washington Post, Sunday, May 21, 1961

As previously mentioned, Commissioner L. B. Sullivan had claimed that there was going to be no special protection given to the Freedom Riders. However, this seems to go against what had been advised by Robert F. Kennedy: 

“Prior to their arrival we took the additional precautionary step of having the FBI notify the Police Department that these students were coming and ask the police to take all necessary steps for their protection.” 

Was their lack of sympathy and frustration that their actions had caused violence stopping the police from going ahead with extra protection steps?

On Tuesday, May 23, 1961, The Washington Post reported that some arrests had been made following the Freedom Riders actions and the violence incited by the mobs. The headline read: 

The Washington Post, Tuesday, May 23, 1961 

It seems that the violence had increased again, this time with one of the buses being burned by an angry mob. Allegedly:

  “During the first of these rides on May 14, an incendiary bomb was thrown through the window of the Greyhound bus which had stopped just outside Anniston for repairs. The bus was burned and several riders suffered from smoke inhalation.”  

Following the incident, the newspaper writes that the mobbers were:

“charged with the federal offense of destroying an interstate bus during the first of the mob actions there a week ago last Sunday.” 

Ultimately, it appears that they were charged with destroying the bus, rather than for the intent of hurting the Freedom Riders or causing harm to others, which says a lot about race relations of the time.

A mugshot of Miller G. Green when he was arrested in Jackson, MS for being a part of The Freedom Rides Image: Wikimedia Commons

The student Freedom Riders were also about to face trouble at their universities for their involvement in the protest. The newspaper claimed that:

  “State officials are studying possible disciplinary action against the Tennessee A&I University students involved in “Freedom Rider” riots in Alabama, Gov. Buford Ellington said today.” 

While they were testing compliance of the Supreme Court decisions, and were riding peacefully against customary rules, the students could have had their education impacted by their role.

The Washington Post on May 23 also reported on the involvement of the Ku Klux Klan . The newspaper stated that:

  “The grand wizard of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan said here today the Klans of the Nation would amalgamate in an effort to prevent further integration attempts in the South” 

This statement is written in a way that suggests their actions are heroically preventing desegregation, which also gives us an insight into racial attitudes of the time. 

The wizard, Bobby Shelton, claimed that while the Ku Klux Klan did not condone violence, the organization would “take all measures necessary” to preserve Alabama customs. This shows that there was significant backlash against the Freedom Riders motivations, with the hate group attempting to prevent any racial change to Alabama. We can see that there were many white Southerners fearful of racial integration and wanted to do all they could to stop the Freedom Riders actions having any impact on the longstanding, racist customs in Alabama. 

On Thursday, May 25, 1961, The Washington Post reported: 

The Washington Post, Thursday, May 25, 1961

The Freedom Riders had traveled from Montgomery into Mississippi and were met with immediate arrests in an attempt to prevent violence comparable to the rioting in Alabama on previous days. The newspaper wrote:

  “Two busloads of white and Negro “Freedom Riders” entered race-conscious Mississippi from the riot-scarred capital of Alabama today and were promptly arrested by waiting police.” 

With Freedom Riders arrested immediately, there was hopefully less of a chance that they would create violent reactions from mobs.

The second bus of Freedom Riders would also face quick arrests, and The Washington Post reveals to the public what they did specifically to be arrested so soon. The newspaper claims they were taken to jail when they “tried to enter the white cafeteria at the bus station.” With cafeterias still segregated, their actions went against the racial norms of the state. They also began to sing hymns in the police wagon, which creates a fearless atmosphere about being put behind bars.

A further act of defiance was described when the newspaper claimed:

  “The men walked into the white rest room after reading a sign saying that the Negro area was closed. They laughed at that.” 

The Washington Post then goes on to report that:

  “All were first held in lieu of $1500 bond on three charges each of inciting to riot, breach of the peace and refusing to obey an officer. The inciting-to-riot charge – the most serious of the three – later was dropped…” 

Here, the law proves that blame was being put on the Freedom Riders for the inciting of violence, not the white mob who acted violently. The Freedom Riders had peaceful intentions to break segregation laws, and did not engage in violent protesting themselves. 

Robert F. Kennedy announced that the Justice Department did not have the power to prevent people from traveling, but asked people to “use their restraint and weigh their actions carefully.” One of the factors that caused this was that “a constant stream of incidents in the South might bring disastrous international consequences.” While the motivations of the Freedom Riders were internal, it seems the government were concerned about international relations and the reputation of the United States. 

Corruption Among The Police

The Washington Post claimed:

  “The complaint filed in Federal Court in Alabama asserts that Connor, Moore and other officers in Birmingham deliberately withheld police protection when a mob attacked the Freedom Riders there on May 14.” 

Apparently, the police were aware of when the bus was arriving in town, and knew that the bus riders’ safety would be threatened, but they failed to give them police protection. The report goes on to say:

  “The complaint also asserted that Sullivan and the Montgomery police took no measures to  protect the bus load of students there last Saturday.”

This shows that the police were not committed to protecting the Freedom Riders, which could be due to a belief that the Freedom Riders were evoking violence themselves. This gives an insight into how the Freedom Riders were treated by the forces.

As we can see from these Washington Post newspaper reports, the coverage about the Freedom Riders in the publication was mainly negative, revealing details of the violent outbreaks in the South as a result of their peaceful protesting. Looking back on these reports is a fantastic way to gain an insight into the tense race relations in the South during the 1960s and understand the racially-motivated reactions that affected the Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement .

Take a look at a Freedom Riders newspaper article for yourself in our Civil Rights book , filled with original newspaper reports spanning 1954-1968.

As expected, the newspaper coverage was not very positive about the group’s intentions, despite their efforts later bringing about positive change for minorities in the United States. The Freedom Riders had expected violence, and that is very much what they received. It wouldn’t be until a few years later that the efforts of the Riders would form a very crucial stepping stone towards the landmark acts of the 1960s that would make discrimination illegal. 

• Modern History

Journey for Justice: Australia's 1965 Freedom Ride

In 1965, a group of Australian activists boarded buses and set out on a journey across the country.

Their aim was to raise awareness about the civil rights movement in the United States, and to inspire others to take action in support of racial equality.

This initiative would come to be known as the Freedom Bus Ride, and it would prove to be a catalyst for change in Australia's civil rights movement.

The Freedom Bus Ride was inspired by the Freedom Riders movement in the United States. In 1961, a group of black and white activists boarded buses in the American South and set out to challenge segregation laws.

The Freedom Riders faced violent opposition from those who opposed desegregation, but their courageous act helped to bring about change in the United States.

When news of the Freedom Riders reached Australia, a group of students at Sydney University decided that they wanted to do something similar in their own country. 

Australia's First Nations people had long been fighting for their rights, but they were facing many social challenges.

One of the most pressing issues was racism. Indigenous Australian people were often treated unfairly and discriminated against because two centuries of historical injustices, racial prejudices, and sociopolitical policies. 

Another issue was the lack of opportunities for Indigenous Australian people. They were often excluded from education and employment, and they did not have the same rights as other Australians. 

The Australian Freedom Riders hoped that their journey would raise awareness of these challenges and provide a catalyst for change.

Key individuals

One of the most famous Australian Freedom Riders was Charles Perkins, who was a leader in the fight for Indigenous Australian rights.

He was born in 1936 in Alice Springs, and he grew up experience racism firsthand.

In 1965, Perkins became the first Aboriginal person to graduate from university. He then went on to work for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, where he helped to improve conditions for First Nations people. 

Ann Curthoys, Jim Spigelman, and Darce Cassidy were among the four members of the expedition.

Ann would later write a history of these events; Jim would go on to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and Darce was an arts student who worked as a part-time reporter for the ABC.

In 1964, a group of students had formed Student Action for Aborigines (SAFA) to plan the trip and generate media attention.

The ride begins

The Freedom Bus Ride set out from Sydney on February 13, 1965. The group of activists rode through small towns and remote communities across New South Wales and Queensland. 

The trip was intended to be a fact-finding mission for university students who might not otherwise have had the opportunity to see, first-hand, the experiences of First Nations people in these communities.

The group hoped to raise awareness about Indigenous Australian people's poor health, education, and housing status.

They stopped at schools, churches, and community centres to talk to people about the civil rights movement. They also held protest rallies and marches. 

Students were shocked by the poor conditions that many First Nations people lived in. Indigenous Australian people were not permitted to join local clubs, pools, or eat in pubs and cafés.

One of the most memorable events of the Freedom Ride occurred in Walgett, a small town in New South Wales.

The students discovered that Indigenous Australians were restricted from entering an RSL, purely due to their skin colour.

The students held a protest outside of the RSL to try and pressure the owners to change the rule. However, this protest angered the town's residents.

Outside Walgett, the activists were met with hostility from the local white residents, who hurled racist insults at them and used cars to force the bus off the road.

Jim Spigelman used his home movie camera to record the actions of the hostile convoy of cars which followed the bus out of town at night.

Darce Cassidy filed a news report to the ABC that included this footage. 

When this information aired on TVs around Australia on the evening news, it shocked many people who lived in the major cities.

In Moree, another small town in New South Wales, the Freedom Riders protested against segregation at the public swimming pool.

Indigenous Australian people were only allowed to use the pool on Wednesdays, and they had to use a separate entrance from whites. 

Charles Perkins tried to help some First Nations children to gain entry to the pool, but they were denied.

This sparked a heated, three-hour argument between the Freedom Ride protestors and the local pool owners.

As more people gathered to watch the event, some fights broke out and police arrested a number of people on both sides of the dispute.

Finally, the pool owner allowed the young First Nations children to enter. 

Ultimately, the actions of Charles Perkins and the other riders led to the Moree Baths Committee agreeing to desegregate the pool.

This was a major victory for the Freedom Riders and demonstrated the power of peaceful protest.

The Freedom Ride also made a stop at Bowraville, where they protested against segregation at the local movie theatre.

Indigenous Australian people were only allowed to sit in the balcony, while whites sat in the main auditorium. 

The Freedom Riders attempted to enter through the main entrance of a picture theater. The theater employees, on the other hand, tried to push them out.

A group of First Nations people who had come to support the protestors were also kept out.

Finally, for the rest of the evening, the theatre owner closed off access to everyone.

Eventually, the theatre owner agreed to desegregate the cinema after the pressure from the protestors.

After three weeks, the Freedom Bus Ride came to an end in Sydney. The activists had accomplished their goal of raising awareness about racial inequality in Australia.

The Freedom Ride was widely reported in the media, and it helped to inspire other Australians to take action in support of Indigenous Australian rights. 

The Freedom Bus Ride was a significant event in Australia's history. It was a catalyst for change in the civil rights movement, and it helped to improve conditions for First Nations people.

The Freedom Riders were brave individuals who risked their own safety to fight for justice. 

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Copyright © History Skills 2014-2024.

Contact  via email

The Documentary “Freedom Riders” Essay (Movie Review)

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Changing media landscape, competing strategies, advantages and limitations, today’s civil rights movement, works cited.

The documentary “Freedom Riders” describes the experiences of hundreds of freedom activists whose agenda was to challenge racial discrimination in the United States interstate transport sector. These civil rights protesters traveled in interracial groups to different southern states (“Freedom Riders”). The activists wanted to ensure all people had access to waiting rooms and bus terminal restaurants across the nation. This discussion analyzes the documentary in an attempt to understand the strategies employed by the civil rights activists.

The movie reveals that the activists of the 1960s capitalized on the changing media landscape in an attempt to pursue their aims. The campaigners were accompanied by photographers and reporters who covered their actions and missions. Most of these journalists were from the Black Press (“Freedom Riders”). The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) was observed to bring on board a freelance writer to ensure every happening was covered. This analysis shows clearly that the riders were aware of the potential benefits of the emerging media industry. This approach would make it easier for them to sensitize more people about the ongoing struggle.

Although early coverage and news labeled most of these riders as extremists, eyewitness accounts, images, and revelations encouraged more people to sympathize and support the riders’ agenda. For instance, images of the beatings at Birmingham Trailways Bus Station were shared across the nation. One of the buses burned in Anniston was captured on camera. The Ku Klux Klan members collaborated with the police to attack most of the freedom activists (Silver 13). The KKK attacked one of the photographers known as Tommy Langstom. More people were able to understand and follow these heinous events.

Different newspapers and radio stations made it possible for more people to come into terms with whatever was happening during the time. The use of media exposed the brutality perpetrated by the state and the KKK. The media presented the reality to the people. Various channels, such as NBC and CBS, described the experiences and encounters of the activists accurately. News reporters covered the mob violence experienced in Montgomery and the escort through Mississippi River (“Freedom Riders”). These events are believed to have empowered more movement leaders to pursue their rights.

The film explores how different groups used competing strategies to realize their objectives. For instance, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) chose to conduct a reconciliatory journey to ensure more people were informed about the existing discrimination in the country’s public transport. The strategy capitalized on the rulings made by the Supreme Court in Morgan vs. Commonwealth of Virginia and Boynton vs. Virginia (LaFayette and Johnson 22). The group embraced the use of training sessions and role-plays. However, the group chose not to engage in confrontation.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) emerged a few years later to support CORE’s agenda. However, these two groups of riders embraced a new strategy in an attempt to inform the whole country about the targeted agenda. The strategy was characterized by the use of boycotts and sit-ins. The ultimate goal was to cause confrontation and consequently attract the attention of more people across the nation (LaFayette and Johnson 59). Additionally, journalists from different media houses were allowed to be part of the riders. The strategy ensured that the freedom riders grabbed the desired national attention.

The non-violent strategy used by CORE from 1947 was advantageous since minimum casualties, assaults, and attacks were reported. Most of the riders were able to move from Washington to Jackson in Mississippi. The tactic managed to secure the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) ban on separation in different facilities (Schwartz 47). However, the limitation of the strategy was that it did not capture the attention of different media houses or the public. Additionally, the approach failed to attract more people and student activists to support the agenda.

The other two groups (SCLC and SNCC) were able to develop a new approach characterized by boycotts and sit-ins. The leaders of these riders encouraged more journalists to cover the events. Consequently, the combination of these approaches made it easier for more people to explore the violence and intolerance associated with racial segregation (Silver 67). Images and footages captured different events that could not have been described clearly using words. The Freedom Riders, therefore, succeeded because they engaged different media professionals. On the other hand, the boycotts and sit-ins led to disastrous confrontations between the riders and members of the KKK. More people were injured, attacked, and even arrested.

Although many people do not engage in interstate rides today, the agreeable fact is that the civil rights movement is an ongoing process today. For instance, more women are struggling with numerous social problems such as gender disparity and glass ceiling (Meyers 39). Society is also finding it hard to tolerate and support gays and lesbians, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriages.

People of color and minority groups continue to fight for opportunities and various resources such as education, health care, and employment. It is evident that the social problems experienced in the 1960s might have changed significantly. However, it is agreeable that most of the challenges encountered today echo the ones targeted by these Freedom Riders.

Aretha, David. The Story of the Civil Rights Freedom Rides in Photographs. Enslow Publishers, 2014.

“Freedom Riders.” YouTube, uploaded by Socko Pricket. 2012, Web.

LaFayette, Bernard, and Kathryn Lee Johnson. In Peace and Freedom: My Journey in Selma. The University Press of Kentucky, 2013.

Meyers, Diana T. Poverty, Agency, and Human Rights. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Schwartz, Heather E. Freedom Riders: A Primary Source Exploration of the Struggle for Racial Justice (We Shall Overcome). Capstone, 2015.

Silver, Carol R. Freedom Rider Diary: Smuggled Notes From Parchman Prison. University Press of Mississippi, 2014.

• "Freedom Riders" by Stanley Nelson
• The Documentary "Origins of Yoga: Quest for the Spiritual"
• T. Roosevelt as a Rough Rider
• African-Americans in the 1960s
• "Eyes on the Prize - Ain't Scared of Your Jails 1960–1961" Video Analysis
• The Documentary "Immigration Battle"
• The Documentary "Triumph of the Nerds"
• "Street Fight" a Film by Cory Booker
• "Miss Representation" by Jennifer Siebel Newsom
• Oman in "Routes of Incense to Those of Black Gold"
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, October 8). The Documentary "Freedom Riders". https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-documentary-freedom-riders/

"The Documentary "Freedom Riders"." IvyPanda , 8 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-documentary-freedom-riders/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Documentary "Freedom Riders"'. 8 October.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Documentary "Freedom Riders"." October 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-documentary-freedom-riders/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Documentary "Freedom Riders"." October 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-documentary-freedom-riders/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Documentary "Freedom Riders"." October 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-documentary-freedom-riders/.

Summary, Analysis and Questions of On The Rule of The Road by Gardiner

Table of Contents

NCERT SOLUTIONS CLASS 12TH: THE RULE OF THE ROAD

INTRODUCTION ‘ On the Rule of the Road ‘ is a famous and amusing essay by A.G. Gardiner. In this essay “The Rule Of The Road.” Gardiner strikes the bull ‘s eye when he declares that, in order to preserve the freedoms of all, it is necessary to curtail everyone’s freedoms. He points out what constitutes true liberty. Freedom and liberty have become the watchwords of today’s society and every action taken is in the interests of personal freedom. Liberty, both human and political, has acquired tremendous significance in the contemporary world of constructed social and political anarchy.

SUMMARY of The Rule of The Road

The essay starts with an amusing Anecdote &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;An anecdote is a very short story that is significant to the topic at hand; usually adding personal knowledge or experience to the topic.For example, if a group of coworkers are discussing pets, and one coworker tells a story about how her cat comes downstairs at only a certain time of the night, then that one coworker has just told an &lt;em&gt;anecdote&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/span&gt; " data-gt-translate-attributes='[{"attribute":"data-cmtooltip", "format":"html"}]' tabindex=0 role=link>anecdote of a fat old lady walking down a busy street in Petrograd in the middle of the road. The traffic was, of course, confused and there followed a traffic block. When someone pointed out to her that pedestrians had to walk on footpaths, her answer was intriguing. She answered that she has the freedom to walk wherever she likes. Nothing can be said against this because it is a public road.

Please enable JavaScript

The author, busy the next paragraph, goes on to clarify the boundaries of personal liberty. He says these days people are liberty – drunk. On this point, the reader can not but agree with the author as we see today that everyone wants individual freedom. Over the course of time, the problem has become more acute and fighting for freedom begins early when children are very young. Independence and dependence took on many colours and shades.

According to Gardiner, sacrifice seems to be the foundation of liberty because “in order that the liberties of all may be preserved, the liberties of everybody must be curtailed.” He gives the example of traffic police at a busy junction. The policeman may seem like a nuisance at first, but later we realize he’s actually a blessing. If everyone were driving wherever and whenever they wanted there would be utter chaos and no one could reach anywhere. So in a sense, in order to make the neighbours, a reality neighbours liberty is restricted.

The author introduces freedom as a social contract not a personal. He says it’s an adaptation. If our freedom does not interfere with others, we can do as we please. He gives many instances where we do what we like to wear, what to eat, which religion to follow, which author to prefer, and many others.

The author tells the reader that there are a lot of people in this world and adjustment is the key to liberty.

Gardiner in this bewitching essay “The Road Rule” points out what constitutes true liberty. These days, even among small children, personal freedom or individual liberty is a very familiar concept. Gardiner has dealt with this subject almost prophetically in a diplomatic and mature way by offering a solution to today’s ‘ liberty – drunk ‘ mentality. Gardiner tells us that there will often be times when we must “submit to a curtailment of private liberty” if we want to live in a social order in which we really have liberty. So what he says may seem somewhat paradoxical. He says that in order to make our liberty a reality, we must give up some of our freedom.

Literally, when Gardiner refers to the “road rule,” he’s talking about the rules that tell you what you can do on the road. He refers to the Anecdote &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;An anecdote is a very short story that is significant to the topic at hand; usually adding personal knowledge or experience to the topic.For example, if a group of coworkers are discussing pets, and one coworker tells a story about how her cat comes downstairs at only a certain time of the night, then that one coworker has just told an &lt;em&gt;anecdote&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/span&gt; " data-gt-translate-attributes='[{"attribute":"data-cmtooltip", "format":"html"}]' tabindex=0 role=link>anecdote of the Russian woman walking down the middle of the road and causing problems with traffic. That woman did not follow the rules telling us what we could do on the roads. But here too, there is a figurative meaning. Gardiner uses traffic laws as a metaphor for the rules that make society work (often unwritten and informal) and create community and solidarity in society.

The author concludes the essay by saying that both anarchist and socialist must be a judicious mix. We need to preserve individual liberty as well as social freedom. It is in the small matter of behaviour in observing the rule of the road, we pass judgment on ourselves and declare that we are civilized or uncivilised.

Rule of the Road Summary

“Rule of the Road” is an essay by one of the greatest International essayist A.G. Gardiner who wrote mostly under a pseudonym “Alpha of the Plough”. The essay is preceded by “ All About A Dog” as the two together convey the great message that laws are and should always be constituted for the welfare, wellbeing, and convenience of the general public. Laws need to be observed and followed in spirit rather than letter. However, some laws should be and can be winked at when the need arises.

The essay bears upon its reader that he/she should consider others convenience superior to his/her own. Everybody has the right to live according to his/her will and one is free in most of the matters of life but everyone should remember that his/her freedom ends where another person’s freedom starts that

Thus when people around us are free in their private affairs, we also can have a similar amount of freedom and that is possible only when we follow laws of the society in every walk of life; when we conduct ourselves according to the norms set by our societies.

Questions of On The Rule of The Road

Note: The Solved Questions will be added soon.

2 thoughts on “Summary, Analysis and Questions of On The Rule of The Road by Gardiner”

Have something to say cancel reply, discover more from smart english notes.

Protest and persist: why giving up hope is not an option

Previous Next All essays

L ast month, Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden had a public conversation about democracy, transparency, whistleblowing and more. In the course of it, Snowden – who was of course Skyping in from Moscow – said that without Ellsberg’s example he would not have done what he did to expose the extent to which the NSA was spying on millions of ordinary people. It was an extraordinary declaration. It meant that the consequences of Ellsberg’s release of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971 were not limited to the impact on a presidency and a war in the 1970s. The consequences were not limited to people alive at that moment. His act was to have an impact on people decades later – Snowden was born 12 years after Ellsberg risked his future for the sake of his principles. Actions often ripple far beyond their immediate objective, and remembering this is reason to live by principle and act in hope that what you do matters, even when results are unlikely to be immediate or obvious.

The most important effects are often the most indirect. I sometimes wonder when I’m at a mass march like the Women’s March a month ago whether the reason it matters is because some unknown young person is going to find her purpose in life that will only be evident to the rest of us when she changes the world in 20 years, when she becomes a great liberator.

I began talking about hope in 2003, in the bleak days after the war in Iraq was launched. Fourteen years later, I use the term hope because it navigates a way forward between the false certainties of optimism and of pessimism, and the complacency or passivity that goes with both. Optimism assumes that all will go well without our effort; pessimism assumes it’s all irredeemable; both let us stay home and do nothing. Hope for me has meant a sense that the future is unpredictable, and that we don’t actually know what will happen, but know we may be able write it ourselves.

Hope is a belief that what we do might matter, an understanding that the future is not yet written. It’s informed, astute open-mindedness about what can happen and what role we may play in it. Hope looks forward, but it draws its energies from the past, from knowing histories, including our victories, and their complexities and imperfections. It means not being the perfect that is the enemy of the good, not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, not assuming you know what will happen when the future is unwritten, and part of what happens is up to us.

We are complex creatures. Hope and anguish can coexist within us and in our movements and analyses. There’s a scene in the new movie about James Baldwin, I Am Not Your Negro, in which Robert Kennedy predicts, in 1968, that in 40 years there will be a black president. It’s an astonishing prophecy since four decades later Barack Obama wins the presidential election, but Baldwin jeers at it because the way Kennedy has presented it does not acknowledge that even the most magnificent pie in the sky might comfort white people who don’t like racism but doesn’t wash away the pain and indignation of black people suffering that racism in the here and now. Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, early on described the movement’s mission as “rooted in grief and rage but pointed towards vision and dreams”. The vision of a better future doesn’t have to deny the crimes and sufferings of the present; it matters because of that horror.

I have been moved and thrilled and amazed by the strength, breadth, depth and generosity of the resistance to the Trump administration and its agenda. I did not anticipate anything so bold, so pervasive, something that would include state governments, many government employees from governors and mayors to workers in many federal departments, small towns in red states, new organizations like the 6,000 chapters of Indivisible reportedly formed since the election, new and fortified immigrant-rights groups, religious groups, one of the biggest demonstrations in American history with the Women’s March on 21 January, and so much more.

I’ve also been worried about whether it will endure. Newcomers often think that results are either immediate or they’re nonexistent. That if you don’t succeed straight away, you failed. Such a framework makes many give up and go back home when the momentum is building and victories are within reach. This is a dangerous mistake I’ve seen over and over. What follows is the defense of a complex calculus of change, instead of the simple arithmetic of short-term cause and effect.

There’s a bookstore I love in Manhattan, the Housing Works bookshop, which I’ve gone to for years for a bite to eat and a superb selection of used books. Last October my friend Gavin Browning, who works at Columbia University but volunteers with Housing Works, reminded me what the name means. Housing Works is a spinoff of Act Up, the Aids Coalition to Unleash Power, founded at the height of the Aids crisis, to push for access to experimental drugs, bring awareness to the direness of the epidemic, and not go gentle into that bad night of premature death.

What did Act Up do? The group of furious, fierce activists, many of them dangerously ill and dying, changed how we think about Aids. They pushed to speed up drug trials, deal with the many symptoms and complications of Aids together, pushed on policy, education, outreach, funding. They taught people with Aids and their allies in other countries how to fight the drug companies for affordable access to what they needed. And win.

Browning recently wrote: “At the start of the 1990s, New York City had less than 350 units of housing set aside for an estimated 13,000 homeless individuals living with HIV/Aids. In response, four members of the Act Up housing committee founded Housing Works in 1990.” They still quietly provide a broad array of services, including housing, to HIV-positive people 27 years later. All I saw was a bookstore; I missed a lot. Act Up’s work is not over, in any sense.

For many groups, movements and uprisings, there are spinoffs, daughters, domino effects, chain reactions, new models and examples and templates and toolboxes that emerge from the experiments, and every round of activism is an experiment whose results can be applied to other situations. To be hopeful, we need not only to embrace uncertainty but to be willing to know that the consequences may be immeasurable, may still be unfolding, may be as indirect as poor people on other continents getting access to medicine because activists in the USA stood up and refused to accept things as they were. Think of hope as a banner woven from those gossamer threads, from a sense of the interconnectedness of all things, of the lasting effect of the best actions, not only the worst. Of an indivisible world in which everything matters.

An old woman said at the outset of Occupy Wall Street “we’re fighting for a society in which everyone is important”, the most beautifully concise summary of what a compassionately radical, deeply democratic movement might aim to do. Occupy Wall Street was mocked and described as chaotic and ineffectual in its first weeks, and then when it spread nationwide and beyond, as failing or failed, by pundits who had simple metrics of what success should look like. The original occupation in lower Manhattan was broken up in November 2011, but many of the encampments inspired by it lasted far longer.

Similarly, I think it’s a mistake to regard the gathering of tribes and activists at Standing Rock, North Dakota, as something we can measure by whether or not it defeats a pipeline. You could go past that to note that merely delaying completion beyond 1 January cost the investors a fortune, and that the tremendous movement that has generated widespread divestment and a lot of scrutiny of hitherto invisible corporations and environmental destruction makes building pipelines look like a riskier, potentially less profitable business.

Standing Rock was vaster than these practical things. At its height it was almost certainly the biggest political gathering of Native North Americans ever seen, said to be the first time all seven bands of the Lakota had come together since they defeated Custer at Little Bighorn in 1876, one that made an often-invisible tribe visible around the world. What unfolded there seemed as though it might not undo one pipeline but write a radical new chapter to a history of more than 500 years of colonial brutality, centuries of loss, dehumanization and dispossession. Thousands of veterans came to defend the encampment and help prevent the pipeline. In one momentous ceremony, many of the former soldiers knelt down to apologize and ask forgiveness for the US army’s long role in oppressing Native Americans. Like the Native American occupation of Alcatraz Island at the end of the 1960s, Standing Rock has been a catalyst for a sense of power, pride, destiny. It is an affirmation of solidarity and interconnection, an education for people who didn’t know much about native rights and wrongs, an affirmation for Native people who often remember history in passionate detail. It is a confirmation of the deep ties between the climate movement and indigenous rights that has played a huge role in stopping pipelines in and from Canada. It has inspired and informed young people who may have half a century or more of good work yet to do. It has been a beacon whose meaning stretches beyond that time and place.

To know history is to be able to see beyond the present, to remember the past gives you capacity to look forward as well, it’s to see that everything changes and the most dramatic changes are often the most unforeseen. I want to go into one part of our history at greater length to explore these questions about consequences that go beyond simple cause and effect.

T he 1970s anti-nuclear movement was a potent force in its time, now seldom remembered, though its influence is still with us. In her important new book Direct Action: Protest and the Reinvention of American Radicalism, LA Kauffman reports that the first significant action against nuclear power, in 1976, was inspired by an extraordinary protest the previous year in West Germany, which had forced the government to abandon plans to build a nuclear reactor. A group that called itself the Clamshell Alliance arose to oppose building a nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. Despite creative tactics, great movement building, and extensive media coverage against the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire, the activists did not stop the plant.

They did inspire a sister organization, the Abalone Alliance in central California, which used similar strategies to try to stop the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The groups protested against two particular nuclear power plants; those two plants opened anyway.

You can call that a failure, but Kauffman notes that it inspired people around the country to organize their own anti-nuclear groups, a movement that brought about the cancellation of more than 100 planned nuclear projects over several years and raised public awareness and changed public opinion about nuclear power. Then she gets into the really exciting part, writing that the Clamshell Alliance’s “most striking legacy was in consolidating and promoting what became the dominant model for large-scale direct-action organizing for the next 40 years. It was picked up by … the Pledge of Resistance, a nationwide network of groups organized against US policy in Central America” in the 1980s.

“Hundreds more employed it that fall in a civil disobedience action to protest the supreme court’s anti-gay Bowers vs Hardwick sodomy decision,” Kauffman continues. “The Aids activist group Act Up used a version of this model when it organized bold takeovers of the headquarters of the Food and Drug Administration in 1988 and the National Institutes of Health in 1990, to pressure both institution to take swifter action toward approving experimental Aids medication.” And on into the current millennium. But what were the strategies and organizing principles they catalyzed?

The short answer is non-violent direct action, externally, and consensus decision-making process, internally. The former has a history that reaches around the world, the latter that stretches back to the early history of European dissidents in North America. That is, non-violence is a strategy articulated by Mohandas Gandhi, first used by residents of Indian descent to protest against discrimination in South Africa on 11 September 1906. The young lawyer’s sense of possibility and power was expanded immediately afterward when he traveled to London to pursue his cause. Three days after he arrived, British women battling for the right to vote occupied the British parliament, and 11 were arrested, refused to pay their fines, and were sent to prison. They made a deep impression on Gandhi.

He wrote about them in a piece titled “Deeds Better than Words” quoting Jane Cobden, the sister of one of the arrestees, who said, “I shall never obey any law in the making of which I have had no hand; I will not accept the authority of the court executing those laws …” Gandhi declared: “Today the whole country is laughing at them, and they have only a few people on their side. But undaunted, these women work on steadfast in their cause. They are bound to succeed and gain the franchise …” And he saw that if they could win, so could the Indian citizens in British Africa fighting for their rights. In the same article (in 1906!) he prophesied: “When the time comes, India’s bonds will snap of themselves.” Ideas are contagious, emotions are contagious, hope is contagious, courage is contagious. When we embody those qualities, or their opposites, we convey them to others.

That is to say, British suffragists, who won limited access to the vote for women in 1918, full access in 1928, played a part in inspiring an Indian man who 20 years later led the liberation of the Asian subcontinent from British rule. He, in turn, inspired a black man in the American south to study his ideas and their application. After a 1959 pilgrimage to India to meet with Gandhi’s heirs, Martin Luther King wrote: “While the Montgomery boycott was going on, India’s Gandhi was the guiding light of our technique of non-violent social change. We spoke of him often.” Those techniques, further developed by the civil rights movement, were taken up around the world, including in the struggle against apartheid at one end of the African continent and to the Arab spring at the other.

Participation in the civil rights movement of the early 1960s shaped many lives. One of them is John Lewis, one of the first Freedom Riders, a young leader of the lunch counter sit-ins, a victim of a brutal beating that broke his skull on the Selma march. Lewis was one of the boldest in questioning Trump’s legitimacy and he led dozens of other Democratic members of Congress in boycotting the inauguration. When the attack on Muslim refugees and immigrants began a week after Trump’s inauguration, he showed up at the Atlanta airport.

That’s a lot to take in. But let me put it this way. When those women were arrested in parliament, they were fighting for the right of British women to vote. They succeeded in liberating themselves. But they also passed along tactics, spirit and defiance. You can trace a lineage backward to the anti-slavery movement that inspired the American women’s suffrage movement, forward right up to John Lewis standing up for refugees and Muslims in the Atlanta airport this year. We are carried along by the heroines and heroes who came before and opened the doors of possibility and imagination.

My partner likes to quote a line of Michel Foucault: “People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don’t know is what what they do does.” You do what you can. What you’ve done may do more than you can imagine for generations to come. You plant a seed and a tree grows from it; will there be fruit, shade, habitat for birds, more seeds, a forest, wood to build a cradle or a house? You don’t know. A tree can live much longer than you. So will an idea, and sometimes the changes that result from accepting that new idea about what is true, right, just remake the world. You do what you can do; you do your best; what what you do does is not up to you.

T hat’s a way to remember the legacy of the external practice of non-violent civil disobedience used by the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s, as with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which did so much to expand and refine the techniques.

As for the internal process: in Direct Action, Kauffman addresses the Clamshell Alliance’s influences, quoting a participant named Ynestra King who said: “Certain forms that had been learned from feminism were just naturally introduced into the situation and a certain ethos of respect, which was reinforced by the Quaker tradition.” Suki Rice and Elizabeth Boardman, early participants in the Clamshell Alliance, as Kauffman relates, were influenced by the Quakers, and they brought the Quaker practice of consensus decision-making to the new group: “The idea was to ensure that no one’s voice was silenced, that there was no division between leaders and followers.” The Quakers have been since the 17th century radical dissidents who opposed war, hierarchical structures and much else. An organizer named Joanne Sheehan said, “while non-violence training, doing actions in small groups, and agreeing to a set of non-violence guidelines were not new, it was new to blend them in combination with a commitment to consensus decision-making and a non-hierarchical structure.” They were making a way of operating and organizing that spread throughout the progressive activist world.

There are terrible stories about how diseases like Aids jump species and mutate. There are also ideas and tactics that jump communities and mutate, to our benefit. There is an evil term, collateral damage, for the people who die unintentionally: the civilians, non-participants, etc. Maybe what I am proposing here is an idea of collateral benefit.

What we call democracy is often a majority rule that leaves the minority, even 49.9% of the people – or more if it’s a three-way vote – out in the cold. Consensus leaves no one out. After Clamshell, it jumped into radical politics and reshaped them, making them more generously inclusive and egalitarian. And it’s been honed and refined and used by nearly every movement I’ve been a part of or witnessed, from the anti-nuclear actions at the Nevada test site in the 1980s and 1990s to the organization of the shutdown of the World Trade Organization in late 1999, a victory against neoliberalism that changed the fate of the world, to Occupy Wall Street in 2011 and after.

So what did the Clamshell Alliance achieve? Everything but its putative goal. Tools to change the world, over and over. There are crimes against humanity, crimes against nature, and other forms of destruction that we need to stop as rapidly as possible, and the endeavors to do so are under way. They are informed by these earlier activists, equipped with the tools they developed. But the efforts against these things can have a longer legacy, if we learn to recognize collateral benefits and indirect effects.

If you are a member of civil society, if you demonstrate and call your representatives and donate to human rights campaigns, you will see politicians and judges and the powerful take or be given credit for the changes you effected, sometimes after resisting and opposing them. You will have to believe in your own power and impact anyway. You will have to keep in mind that many of our greatest victories are what doesn’t happen: what isn’t built or destroyed, deregulated or legitimized, passed into law or tolerated in the culture. Things disappear because of our efforts and we forget they were there, which is a way to forget we tried and won.

Even losing can be part of the process: as the bills to abolish slavery in the British empire failed over and over again, the ideas behind them spread, until 27 years after the first bill was introduced, a version finally passed. You will have to remember that the media usually likes to tell simple, direct stories in which if a court rules or an elective body passes a law, that action reflects the actors’ own beneficence or insight or evolution. They will seldom go further to explore how that perspective was shaped by the nameless and unsung, by the people whose actions built up a new world or worldview the way that innumerable corals build a reef.

The only power adequate to stop the Trump administration is civil society, which is the great majority of us when we remember our power and come together. And even if we remember, even if we exert all the pressure we’re capable of, even if the administration collapses immediately, or the president resigns or is impeached or melts into a puddle of corruption, our work will only have begun.

That job begins with opposing the Trump administration but will not end until we have made deep systemic changes and recommitted ourselves, not just as a revolution, because revolutions don’t last, but as a civil society with values of equality, democracy, inclusion, full participation, a radical e pluribus unum plus compassion. As has often been noted, the Republican revolution that allowed them to take over so many state houses and take power far beyond their numbers came partly from corporate cash, but partly from the willingness to do the slow, plodding, patient work of building and maintaining power from the ground up and being in it for the long run. And partly from telling stories that, though often deeply distorting the facts and forces at play, were compelling. This work is always, first and last, storytelling work, or what some of my friends call “the battle of the story”. Building, remembering, retelling, celebrating our own stories is part of our work.

I want to see this glorious resistance have a long game, one that includes re-enfranchising the many millions, perhaps tens of millions of people of color, poor people, and students disenfranchised by many means: the Crosscheck program, voter ID laws that proceed from the falsehood that voter fraud is a serious problem that affects election outcomes, the laws taking voting rights in most states from those convicted of felonies. I am encouraged to see many idealistic activists bent on reforming the Democratic party, and a new level of participation inside and outside electoral politics. Reports say that the offices of elected officials are swamped with calls and emails as never before.

This will only matter if it’s sustained. To sustain it, people have to believe that the myriad small, incremental actions matter. That they matter even when the consequences aren’t immediate or obvious. They must remember that often when you fail at your immediate objective – to block a nominee or a pipeline or to pass a bill – that even then you may have changed the whole framework in ways that make broader change inevitable. You may change the story or the rules, give tools, templates or encouragement to future activists, and make it possible for those around you to persist in their efforts.

To believe it matters – well, we can’t see the future. We have the past. Which gives us patterns, models, parallels, principles and resources, and stories of heroism, brilliance, persistence, and the deep joy to be found in doing the work that matters. With those in our pockets, we can seize the possibilities and begin to make hopes into actualities.

March 13, 2017

Share Essay

• Skip to global NPS navigation
• Skip to this park navigation
• Skip to the main content
• Skip to this park information section
• Skip to the footer section

Exiting nps.gov

Alerts in effect.

• Learn About the Park
• News Releases

News Release

Freedom riders nm seeks public comment on bus burning site.

Contact: Patrick Gamman

Contact: William Karlovetz

Freedom Riders National Monument invites public input on a long-term vision for the Bus Burning Site

Last updated: September 5, 2024

Park footer

Contact info, mailing address:.

1302 Noble St. STE 3G Anniston, AL 36201

205-679-0065 Please contact the Calhoun County Area Chamber & Visitors Center for general questions about Freedom Riders National Monument at (256) 237-3536.

Stay Connected