Martin Luther King Jr. did not proceed with a planned march in Selma on a specific occasion, known as "Turnaround Tuesday," because President Lyndon B. Johnson pressured him to temporarily halt the demonstration. Johnson intended to issue a restraining order to prohibit the march and sought to allow time for a federal court order to secure protection for the marchers.
The broader context for this decision was the intense struggle for voting rights in Selma, Alabama, in early 1965. Civil rights activists, led by King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), aimed to march from Selma to Montgomery to demand federal protection for African American voting rights.
The Context of the Selma Marches
The voting rights movement faced severe resistance in Selma, a city notorious for its discriminatory practices and the violent suppression of Black voters. Activists sought to bring national attention to the injustices in the South, hoping to prompt federal intervention.
- Bloody Sunday (March 7, 1965): The first attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery ended in brutal violence. State troopers and local law enforcement attacked peaceful marchers with clubs and tear gas as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, severely injuring many. This horrific event was widely televised, galvanizing public opinion and increasing pressure on President Johnson to act.
President Johnson's Intervention
Following the brutality of Bloody Sunday, plans were quickly made for a second march. However, President Johnson, while sympathetic to the cause, was also navigating complex political and legal considerations. He was concerned about further violence and sought a more orderly, legally sanctioned process for the march.
- Threat of Restraining Order: President Johnson, through movement attorney Fred Gray, notified civil rights leaders of his intention to issue a restraining order that would prohibit the march until at least March 11.
- Pressure on King: President Johnson directly pressured King to call off the march temporarily. His primary motivation was to ensure that a federal court order could provide official protection to the marchers, preventing another violent confrontation. This strategic pause was intended to allow the legal system to catch up and provide the necessary safeguards.
Turnaround Tuesday (March 9, 1965)
Faced with this immense pressure and the threat of a court injunction, King made a difficult strategic decision. On March 9, 1965, he led the marchers to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, just as they had done on Bloody Sunday. However, instead of proceeding, he paused the march at the bridge and, after a prayer, turned the marchers around and returned to Selma.
This decision, while controversial among some activists who wished to push forward, was a tactical maneuver based on:
- Avoiding Further Bloodshed: King sought to prevent another violent clash without federal protection, which could have resulted in more injuries or deaths.
- Respecting Legal Process: By adhering to the legal constraints (or the implicit threat of them), King demonstrated the movement's commitment to nonviolence and rule of law, even when challenging unjust systems.
- Securing Federal Intervention: The pause allowed time for a federal judge to issue an order protecting the march, which subsequently happened. This judicial backing was crucial for the success and safety of the eventual full march.
The Successful March to Montgomery
Ultimately, after intense legal proceedings and further federal intervention, the full Selma to Montgomery march, led by Martin Luther King Jr., commenced on March 21, 1965, under the protection of federalized National Guard troops. This march successfully reached Montgomery on March 25, marking a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights Movement and directly contributing to the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Therefore, King's decision not to proceed with the march on Turnaround Tuesday was a temporary, strategic pause influenced by presidential pressure and the desire to secure federal protection, rather than a general abstention from the Selma campaign. His actions were a testament to his complex leadership, balancing moral imperative with practical realities.
