Bloody Sunday: Today marks 60 years since attack on Civil Rights marchers in Selma
Friday marks 60 years since 'Bloody Sunday,' a major turning point in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
On March 7, 1965, hundreds of civil rights advocates, including late Congressman John Lewis, gathered for a peaceful march for voting rights in Selma.
But that peace was shattered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge by Alabama State Troopers.
'They came toward us. Beating us with nightsticks, trampled by horses, releasing the tear gas. I thought I was gonna die on that bridge. I thought I saw death,' Lewis told Channel 2 Action News in 2015.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
Lewis was hospitalized with a cracked skull. But the attack on the marchers bolstered support for the Voting Rights Act. Five months later, Johnson signed the act.
'We said it was worth it. The blood, the beatings, the jailing, it was all worth it,' Lewis said in 2015.
Over the years, survivors and civil right leaders have gathered in Selma to walk across the bridge again as a reminder for what they went through. Lewis made a final trip across the bridge in March 2020, a few months before he died from pancreatic cancer.
TRENDING STORIES:
Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis key figures in Civil Rights movement
Civil Rights icon Andrew Young reflects on his most memorable moments of the movement
Key figure in civil rights movement, youngest 'Freedom Rider' honored after passing at 82
For the 60th anniversary this weekend, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock says he will make the trip to Selma.
'Selma reminds us better than most places that unarmed truth and unconditional love as Dr. King used to say will have the last word,' Warnock told Channel 2 Action News.
Warnock said he believes there is still work to do.
'We need every voice. That is fundamental truth of democracy in the first place. Every voice matters. We have to raise our voices not only at the polls, but after. We need to raise our voices now more than ever,' he said.
There will events throughout the weekend in Selma and Montgomery.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Travel Ban Targets Black Migrants as Protests and Deportations Spread
As demonstrations against the California immigration crackdown continue, President Donald Trump's new order banning travel to the U.S. for citizens of a dozen countries — most of them in Africa and the Middle East — went into effect on Monday. Since protests started in the Los Angeles area last week, Trump has deployed more than 2,000 members of the National Guard. This has followed several days during which people have gathered to condemn a series of deportation raids that have led to more than 100 arrests. Democratic leaders have assailed the administration's decision to send the National Guard. 'What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said during a press conference on Sunday. 'When you raid Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans through our streets, you cause fear and you cause panic.' She added that 'we stand with all Angelenos,' and emphasized the importance of protesting peacefully. A longtime critic of Trump, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X on Sunday that 'commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the Governor of that state is illegal and immoral.' Trump has repeatedly balked at demands that he withdraw troops, prompting Newsom to sue the administration. The last time deployment occurred without the request of a governor was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized National Guard members to protect protesters in Alabama at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Elizabeth Goitein, the senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told CNN. Additionally, The New York Times has reported that, in 1963, President John F. Kennedy used the powers of his office to override a governor's objections and deploy troops to integrate the University of Alabama. While some weekend protests have largely dispersed, others are expected in the days ahead in response to the new travel ban. Read on to learn more about how this ban differs from the one under the first Trump administration and where communities can find resources. This story will be updated. The proclamation, which Trump has framed as a matter of public safety, prohibits citizens of Afghanistan, Chad, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, the Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Trump's ban doesn't revoke visas that had already been issued to people from these countries, according to guidance from the U.S. State Department. New applicants from the countries on the list must meet specific criteria to be exempted from the ban and receive a visa. Additionally, citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't possess a valid visa now have heightened restrictions. Most of the affected countries are in Africa and the Middle East and are facing war or other social and political crises. Notably, Haiti was a target of Trump and his allies during the 2024 presidential campaign, when the president claimed, without evidence, that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating people's pets. Those baseless assertions fueled an uptick in security threats against migrants from the island. For the millions of Black migrants in the U.S., the new ban likely comes as no surprise. 'I knew in November that there would be trying and exhausting times ahead,' Farah Larrieux, a native of Haiti living in South Florida, told Capital B earlier this year. 'But this, this is much more than that.' Trump's 2017 ban was narrower in focus, mostly targeting Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The former ban was amended several times to remove some countries from the list and add others, such as North Korea and Venezuela. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2018; former President Joe Biden repealed it in 2021. He condemned the ban as 'a stain on our national conscience,' and said that it was 'inconsistent' with the country's 'long history of welcoming people of all faiths and no faith at all.' The 2017 ban triggered an array of courtroom challenges. Immigration experts expect the new ban to withstand such pushback, saying that its greater precision — including offering specific exemptions and providing more reasoning for the restrictions — might help it to survive legal scrutiny. 'I imagine there will be legal challenges to the current ban, but I do think that they've been very careful in how they've crafted it,' Mariam Masumi Daud, an immigration lawyer, told NPR. She underscored her concern about the impact the ban will have on vulnerable communities. 'This is going to have a global impact, as well, on our reputation in the world,' she said. 'And we're basically closing our doors for immigrants, and it's very unfortunate that this type of policy has become normalized.' Organizations such as the International Rescue Committee and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration provide a variety of legal services to migrants, including law clinics that share information and resources; representation for processes including naturalization and citizenship; and screenings that clarify the path to lawful status. Immigration advocates also urge people who could be affected by the ban to review their documents to make sure that they're valid and accurate and, if necessary, secure legal counsel to determine what strategic options might be available to them. Trump has said that the ban list is 'subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made' and that 'new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world.' The Legal Aid Society and other groups are keeping detailed, country-specific information about the ban and offering updates as necessary. The post Trump's Travel Ban Targets Black Migrants as Protests and Deportations Spread appeared first on Capital B News.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Back to the Supreme Court: Alabama plans 3rd appeal in congressional redistricting suit
Rep. Napoleon Bracy, D-Prichard (left, at podium), speaks to Rep. Chris Pringle, R-Mobile during a special session on redistricting on Friday, July 21, 2023 in Montgomery, Alabama. (Stew Milne for Alabama Reflector) The Alabama Attorney General's Office plans to go to the U.S. Supreme Court a third time in an ongoing lawsuit over Alabama's congressional districts. The office filed notice of an intent to appeal Friday. Late on Monday, the office and plaintiffs who successfully challenged a 2021 state congressional map said in a court filing they had failed to reach an agreement in the ongoing lawsuit. While the state has indicated it will stick with a court-drawn congressional map that includes two districts with majority or near-majority populations of Black voters, the state and the plaintiffs disagreed on whether the court should oversee any future problems or challenges related to congressional redistricting after the 2030 Census. 'What we've always requested with respect to preclearance is that Alabama be put under preclearance for congressional maps through the post-2030 redistricting cycle, and that's to confirm that there's no backsliding after 2030 with any new district lines that get drawn,' said Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, in a phone interview Tuesday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX A three-judge panel in the U.S. Northern District of Alabama, which includes two judges appointed by President Donald Trump, has repeatedly ruled that the 2021 congressional map approved by the Alabama Legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to give Black Alabamians a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred leaders. The panel has cited racial polarization of voting in the state — where white Alabamians tend to support Republicans and Black Alabamians tend to support Democrats — in ordering the state to draw districts that give Black Alabamians the ability to substantially participate in the process. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 twice upheld the lower court rulings. Federal court: Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in redistricting Messages seeking comment were left with the offices of the Alabama Attorney General and Secretary of State on Tuesday. 'They're saying they're not going to redistrict before the 2030 census, but they're obviously challenging the map as well, so it's not as if they're giving up,' Ross said. Alabama has until June 16 to file a brief on the position. The plaintiffs will have until June 23 to file a response, and any reply should be filed by June 27. If the three-judge panel decides a hearing is necessary, they will schedule it for July 29. The three-judge panel has repeatedly criticized the Legislature for drawing a map in a 2023 special session that it said did not follow its guidance on drawing congressional districts. The court appointed a special master to draw the map that will now be used for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles, as well as any special election. That map was also used in the 2024 elections, when U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Mobile, won in the 2nd Congressional District last November. That election marked the first time in history that Alabama elected two Black U.S. Representatives at the same time. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Veterans slam Trump's ‘political' deployment of Marines and National Guard to LA: ‘Citizens are not enemy combatants'
Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles is a thinly veiled 'authoritarian' and politically motivated attempt to inflame protests and crush dissent, veterans and legal experts warn. Trump is relying on federal law that allows the president to call up the National Guard to respond to domestic unrest, an action known commonly as federalizing the normally state-authorized Guard. Even then, those troops have only a limited mission in supporting federal law enforcement agents and federal buildings at the center of protests against the administration's mass deportation agenda. But now, with his National Guard deployment combined with sending some 700 Marines to L.A., veterans groups, military law experts and Democratic officials fear the president is testing the limits of his authority to send active-duty military into American streets — and violating service members' commitments to stay out of domestic politics. 'When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath — not to a person, not to a party, but to the Constitution,' said Marine veteran Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, a national nonpartisan advocacy group. 'What we're seeing now is a deliberate effort to turn the military into a political prop,' she told The Independent. Trump is not deploying troops for national defense but 'domestic intimidation,' she added. 'That's not just just politicizing the military — it's crossing a dangerous line,' Goldbeck told The Independent. Trump's military threats are 'how authoritarian regimes take power' and signal the president's wider ambitions for 'the weaponization of the military for political gain,' according to veterans advocacy group Common Defense. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' Army veteran and Common Defense political director Naveed Shah said. 'The idea that Marines would be deployed to suppress the very people we're meant to protect is a disgrace. It's un-American,' Marine Corps veteran and Common Defense organizer Jojo Sweatt added. The last time a president federalized the National Guard against the will of a state governor was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon Johnson deployed troops to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery — two weeks after the violence of 'Bloody Sunday' on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Johnson did so after Alabama's segregationist Gov. George Wallace told the president that his state 'refuses to provide for the safety and welfare' of the marchers, according to Johnson's proclamation. But 60 years later, Trump is deploying troops not to defend civil rights activists but to protect law enforcement and federal property. Activating troops against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom'is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states' rights,' retired Major Gen. Randy Manner said in a statement to Fox News. 'There are over a million badged and trained members of law enforcement in this country for the governor to ask for help if he needs it,' he added. 'While this is presently a legal order, it tramples the governor's rights and obligations to protect his people. This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' Trump's open-ended memo invoking military deployment does not single out Los Angeles or even California. It empowers the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'to employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.' Carrie A. Lee, a former associate professor at the U.S. Army War College, called Trump's actions 'massive overreach' and 'crazy broad,' seemingly paving the way for the administration 'to use military force against protestors on American soil anywhere they want.' Invoking 'protective power' authority without any geographical limits effectively creates an unprecedented and 'dangerous' nationwide order, according to Lee. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, though the president and administration officials have repeatedly labeled protesters 'insurrectionists' and 'seditionists' — sparking fears that the president is laying the groundwork for mass deployment of military assets across the country. Instead, Trump is currently relying on a far more limited statute that taps his 'protective power' authority, which does not allow the military to conduct law enforcement activities — unlike the Insurrection Act, which is excluded from federal statute that bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. 'The public must be laser focused on seeing the extent to which Secretary Hegseth adheres to these historically recognized limitations,' according to University of Houston Law Center professor Chris Mirasola, a former attorney-advisor at the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel. If troops are pulled into violent confrontations, Trump could use those incidents to justify invoking the Insurrection Act, opening the door for active-duty military to face off against Americans not just in the streets of Los Angeles but across the country. 'This is an unnecessary, unprecedented and predictable misuse of military power against American citizens,' according to Army veteran Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 'And Trump has now thrust our troops into the middle of the most explosive issue in America,' he added. 'And this is likely just the start. We could see a clash and crisis between Trump and governors and mayors across America like we've never seen.' A lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight called the deployment 'an opening salvo in a coordinated national strategy and not simply an isolated incident.' The lawsuit is seeking records from the Trump administration regarding the use of military assets in immigration enforcement and 'potential authorities his administration would invoke to authorize federalizing law enforcement.' 'Deploying the military to quash protests over the administration's inhumane and legally dubious immigration policies — especially over the objection of elected state leaders — is a dangerous, though unfortunately predictable, escalation by the Trump administration,' according to American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. 'If left unchecked, this abuse of power under thin legal pretense can be readily replicated across other states in the future,' he said in a statement. 'Americans have a right to know who authorized it, what rationale was offered, and not just whether the government crossed a line — but by how much that line has been obliterated.'
