John Malcom Patterson: How race defined the career of the Alabama Governor

By Chad Cowan History of the American South-Dr. Michael Gagnon-Spring 2004

Undoubtedly, race has played an integral role in the evolution and development of the United States. History points to it. Slavery, an institution based primarily on the subjugation of the black race by wealthy white land owners, served as a basis for the southern economy for nearly 200 years. Complete integration of the blacks and whites did not even occur until a little more than 30 years ago—an extremely small fraction of time, historically speaking. Furthermore, assessing our country today, the majority of the privileged and high-paying positions remain in the hands of white males, a trend that will not likely change overnight. Our culture teaches us to refer to people in terms of their race, and anyone who denies using this criteria as a means of judgment would have to seriously question their own sincerity. This being said, imagine the impact race had on the duties of the governor of one of the most racially volatile states in the country during the Civil Rights Era. John Malcolm Patterson, Alabama’s 46th governor, personified the southern politician, caught up in a whirlwind of civil rights movements, varying racial ideologies, and cries for both integration and segregation from all directions. In fact, race defined Patterson’s administration. From his dealings with the Freedom Riders in May of 1960, to his handling of Alabama State College students participating in sit-ins, to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s investigation of his voter registration policies, John Patterson dealt with almost every conceivable issue stemming from race in his four years in Montgomery, a hotbed for civil rights activity.

As African Americans sought political and social equality through the decade of the 1950’s, Alabama emerged as a location rich with civil rights-related events. While Birmingham reigned as the chief site for such activity, Montgomery did not lag far behind.1 As the site of Jefferson Davis’s inauguration as president of the Confederacy, the meeting place for the provisional Confederate Congress, and the location of the first Confederate flag, the city of Montgomery clearly possesses a history full of southern heritage, tied to its Confederate roots. Two of the city’s more prominent high schools are even named after the two most noteworthy individuals from the Confederate side of the Civil War —Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. In complete contrast to this longstanding “good ol’” southern tradition is the fact that Montgomery was home to numerous influential black civil rights activists, most notably Martin Luther King, Jr. Clearly, a clash of ideologies seemed inevitable, as one race of people fought for its rights and another attempted to maintain the status quo. With such being the case, the amount of existing racist sentiment, especially during an era when blacks passionately pursued their rights, often times by violating various social norms, becomes not acceptable, but at least, traceable.

Given the aforementioned, albeit brief synopsis of both the history and more recent standing of Montgomery and the state of Alabama as a whole in regards to racial issues, one can easily imagine the precarious situation John Patterson landed in after becoming governor in January 1959. No stranger to dealing with civil rights issues, however, Patterson came into office with a track record of opposition to desegregation. His father, Albert, while running for Attorney General under of the platform of “a man against crime,” was murdered in June of 1954 in downtown Phenix City, Alabama—a town where corruption, rampant gambling, and organized crime had become the norm. His platform did not appease the local racketeers, and by using it, Albert virtually left his life in the hands of those whose well-being he was jeopardizing. John emerged as a sympathetic replacement for his father, and running unopposed, he became Attorney General in January 1955. While using his new position to continue the clean-up of the Phenix City mess, John Patterson, as the new Attorney General, became a significant player in the world of civil rights. Most notably, he banished the NAACP from the state of Alabama. This tactic, as important as it was on its own, had positive personal effects for Patterson’s near political future, earning him a large following throughout the state. Historians feel the decisive position, taken rather early in his political career, greatly aided Patterson’s election as governor in November 1958.2 The long term effects of the decision, however, did not turn out quite as favorably for Patterson or the state. By further alienating those in favor of integration, Patterson simply elevated Alabama’s potential to become a place of civil rights unrest and prolonged a process that many felt to be inevitable.3 Additionally, in taking a legal stance to oppose those participating in the Montgomery bus boycott, sparked by Rosa Park’s famous actions on Dec. 1, 1955, Patterson further reinforced his position on desegregation. When he became governor in January of 1959, Alabama knew where John Patterson stood.

In his inaugural address, given in front of the state capitol in Montgomery on January 19, 1959, John Patterson made his intentions clear. Blocking an attempt to “destroy” southern culture, maintaining segregation in public schools, and preserving Alabama’s sovereign powers were three key tenets in Patterson’s address. He utilized an appeal to his constituents’ emotions, citing the NAACP’s apparent desire to create a racial amalgamation that would, as previously mentioned, “destroy our culture, our heritage, our traditions.” Despite these claims, however, Patterson did express concern for the African American citizens of his state—separate, but equal education facilities were stressed, with an allusion to the fact that most people of color desired segregated schools anyways. Interestingly enough, while stressing his commitment to the welfare of the blacks, he encouraged them to speak out against those fighting for integration, warning that if the “agitators” are allowed to proceed as they have been, the public schools for African Americans would be lost. By doing so, Patterson seemingly left the fate of the blacks’ public schools in the hands of the blacks themselves. Moreover, he encouraged the passage of a law that would deny public funds to any integrated public school.4

Patterson attempted to legitimize his resistance to desegregation in two ways: first, he cited the fact that segregation is part of the state constitution, and as governor, it was his duty to uphold it. This relates to the reoccurring threats in his inauguration speech, principally those concerning the federal government’s infringement upon states’ rights. In Patterson’s mind, the national government, possessing only certain powers, could not decide what was best for the education system in the state of Alabama. His second justification centered around the notion that, by using legal tactics as he had been to dance around the federal government’s decrees, time would be bought for the public to adjust gradually to inevitable desegregation.5 John Patterson’s inaugural address soundly revealed his attitudes about race-related issues. The four awaiting years would test these attitudes.

Early in 1960, the nonviolent, protesting tactic referred to as the “sit-in”, began to emerge. Originating at a Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, the sit-in grew to involve students across the country, sitting at lunch counters, waiting to be served. As the tactic developed into a relatively mainstream occurrence, Montgomery became one of the cities involved, and thus, Governor Patterson became one of the people involved. Several Alabama State College students participated in a sit-in at a white Montgomery restaurant and a march to the courthouse in February of 1960. Patterson’s initial response called upon school president H.C. Trenholm to investigate the situation and expel any student involved. The governor even went as far as to say that if the students were not expelled by the school, the State Board of Education would be called upon to take care of the task.6 A few days after the incident, a more reserved Patterson said that at the very least, the ringleaders for the incident should be punished in some way, with expulsion being a “very light” consequence, in his opinion. His primary concern was for the general welfare of the people of Montgomery, insisting that protestors coming to the downtown area would be looking for trouble, and would likely find it. Patterson had no exact solution for what punishment other protestors should have received, as he felt many of them had only participated because of persuasive leaders like Martin Luther King, who sought to gain power by earning as many followers as possible. Furthermore, he denied having any intention to withhold funds from the school if they failed to comply with the requests to expel the students.7 Order in Montgomery, seemingly, was the primary concern of the governor at this time.

Around the exact same time as the sit-ins, a Federal Civil Rights Commission’s investigation of the state of Alabama’s voter registration policies became public knowledge. On February 2, 1960, Governor Patterson testified in front of the Rules and Administration Committee of the United States Senate, expressing his displeasure in what he felt was a politically motivated effort of the federal government to establish national supervision of Southern voting registration policies, along with other related bills. He did not at all agree with the legislation that was seeking to oversee a practice that traditionally was the responsibility of the individual states. Also, by trying to create such a system, Patterson felt, the federal government was essentially insisting that state and county officials had not upheld their oaths of office, an inference he took to be extremely insulting.8 Politics, he claimed, were the primary incentive for proposing these bills, as the Republican administration in Washington sought to push a national political campaign at the South’s expense.9 Governor Patterson further illustrated that the creation of these “federal registrars” would produce “herds” of African Americans flocking to the polls—a mere mass registration tactic before the next election. He insisted that passage of the bills would damage not only the relationship between the federal and state governments, but race relations in the south as well.10 The Alabama state government, he went on to say in his address to the Senate Rules Committee, provides a way for anyone denied the right to vote to appeal their case to a circuit court of law, and if this fails, an appeal can be made to the State Supreme Court, even the United States Supreme Court if necessary. In mentioning the fact that no African American, to his recollection, had ever filed a suit complaining of wrongfully being denied voting access, Patterson questioned the necessity of federal interference when no one had even tested the system already set in place by the state.

Patterson speculated in this address to the Senate rules committee that the state provision went unused because individuals were not willing to spend the time required to appeal their case. While definitely a possible explanation for the lack of use of the appealing method, it ought to be assumed that John Patterson, a law school graduate, was much more familiar with the court system than were many African American citizens, who, although literate and eager to vote, were probably not even aware of how to appeal a case in court. Also, the possibility exists that many of the blacks who were denied the right to vote did not even realize that such of system and protection of their rights was in place, not to mention a potential lack of resources to file a suit in a circuit court, even if they knew the provision existed. Patterson cited this legal method of rights’ protection as reason to oppose federal intervention, and while it did indeed provide blacks who were denied voting rights an opportunity to earn those rights, it was by no means full-proof.

The most nationally visible event involving Governor John Patterson was, not surprisingly, another race related incident. On May 5th, 1961, a group of blacks and whites boarded buses in Washington, D.C., the starting point for what would be a southward trip of protest of Jim Crow laws that were still in effect in southern states, defying a U.S. Supreme Court decision that prohibited segregation of public transportation facilities. The state of Alabama became involved on May 14th when a “freedom ride” bus in Anniston was met with heavy mob resistance, forcing it to pull over. Other riders fell victim to a similar attack in Birmingham. Then, on May 20th, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee group, led by John Lewis, left Birmingham headed for Montgomery.11 A Justice Department report claimed Governor Patterson guaranteed the protection of anyone in the state of Alabama to a John F. Kennedy representative, whether they were a resident or just a visitor.12 However, upon the riders’ arrival at the Greyhound Bus Company station in Montgomery, the designated police escort was nowhere to be found, and a mob of over two hundred Klan supporters unleashed hell on the protestors. When later inquired in regards to the protection of the riders, Patterson provided little in answers, saying he wasn’t in “position to comment on that situation.” In response, Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent 450 U.S. Marshals. By the next day, Governor Patterson proclaimed the city of Montgomery and Montgomery County to be under martial law.

The Sunday of the martial law announcement was perhaps the most significant day in Montgomery’s history. A city caught behind the times, clinging to Jim Crow segregation laws, suddenly found itself amidst chaos. Governor Patterson held the U.S. Marshals, sent as a means of federal intervention and to escort Martin Luther King to a rally, responsible for the riots that occurred on the 21st. He seemed to believe this outside influence stirred emotion in the rioters, and that they were doing more harm than good. Staunchly sticking to his position, Patterson said the martial law edict would be lifted as soon as both the U.S. Marshals and the Freedom Riders were out of the state, even offering to provide protection of the riders to the state borders.13 Further reasoning for an attempt to remove the federal marshals, according to the governor, was the fact that $30,000 a day from the state’s general fund was used to keep the marshals there, money that would have otherwise been designated for old-age pensions. By bringing to light such a fact, Patterson simply sought to raise some eyebrows amongst his own people, hopefully persuading them to agree with his methods in handling the entire situation that had stricken Montgomery.

John Patterson’s basic philosophy regarding the Freedom Riders was that they were outside agitators, illegitimate users of interstate travel, without a true destination in their trips from town to town, and above all, troublemakers who were in violation of Alabama state law. Although supporting both John and Robert Kennedy and what they stood for politically, Patterson just could not understand the logic behind guaranteeing the safety of a group of people he felt to be troublemakers.14 A Montgomery Advertiser editorial, written two days after the most heated day of rioting in Montgomery, mentions the fact that at this time of federal involvement by the Kennedy Administration, ninety percent of rental property in Washington was denied to African Americans, and women there were not protected from rape..15 Although more or less the opinion of a single newspaper with one piece of empirical data, the concept that racial equality issues were not limited to the southern region of the country to some degree rationalizes some of Patterson’s actions. In other words, his defense, at the time, appeared to be: How can the President of the United States tell me how to handle racial conflicts in my state when has problems of his own in his backyard? As mentioned earlier, race still plays a role in this country, throughout every geographic region, and with such being the case, one has to wonder whether the Kennedy administration, despite their relatively good intentions, took the correct actions involving a place they knew relatively little about.

Unquestionably, the Freedom Riders situation was a momentous event, forever shaping the history of Montgomery, not to mention other towns in the south, along with helping to advance the Civil Rights Movement. This, along with the other two previously mentioned, newsworthy issues involving race that John Patterson handled in his gubernatorial term, ultimately defined his political career. Other than passing parts of his agenda through state legislature regarding highway construction, public school system enhancement, funding for the mentally ill, and old-age pensions, Patterson will chiefly be remembered for how he handled racial issues during a turbulent time, not only in Montgomery, but the entire state of Alabama. 16 After losing to George Wallace’s wife Lurleen in the 1966 election for governor, John Malcolm Patterson remained outside of the political spotlight.

George Wallace issued a telling remark after losing the 1958 gubernatorial election to John Patterson: "John Patterson out-niggered me, and boys, I'm not going to be out-niggered again." A fairly striking comment from someone who had been endorsed by the NAACP in the same election, although Wallace would later go on to win a few elections of his own. More importantly, however, is the meaning of the statement. John Patterson knew, in order to be elected, he had to take a stand against integration. He did not enjoy witnessing the violence that took place in Montgomery and throughout the state of Alabama during the civil rights era. He later admitted that he could have taken action that would have prevented it, as well. 17 We must remember, though, that although politicians represent the people, they too, are individuals, seeking to advance upwards in their careers. At the time of his election in 1958, John Patterson was just 37 years old, the state’s youngest governor ever. With potential to perhaps figure prominently on a national level, he took positions that put him in alliance with the majority of the people in the state, positions that would win him an election. Winning elections, in fact, would seemingly be the ultimate goal of a politician. In John Patterson’s time, these positions centered around one issue and one issue only—race. Given not only the era in which he was governor, but the location, John Malcolm Patterson literally had no choice but to figure prominently in history and the development of race relations of the United States.

John Malcom Patterson: How race defined the career of the Alabama Governor

Other Related Links Of Interest