Abstract: Reactions to the Selma Marches, specifically in newspapers and speeches at the time of the protests, show a clear division between segregationists and progressives across the country. Segregationists staunchly opposed the marches, going so far as to spread disinformation to discredit the protestors. An in-depth examination of segregationist reactions to the Selma Marches reveals a combination of hate and disapproval stemming from racist ideologies. Progressives opposed these narrow-minded views, and reacted to the marches by honoring the protestors, supporting the Selma Marches as a catalyst for change, and highlighting the violence and abuse experienced by protestors. Deconstructing …show more content…
Reed explained that despite these violent attempts to disperse the marchers, the Selma Marches were beneficial to many African Americans, evidenced by the increasing number of African Americans in government and political positions (76). Thus, in focusing on the violence experienced by the Selma Protestors, both Reed and the writer from the Chicago Defender seek to stress the significance of the marches in bringing about change. The reactions to the Selma Marches show the growing shift in support for African Americans during the 1960s. Although the goal for equality among Blacks and Whites originated from a resolute group composed primarily of African Americans and determined civil rights activists, support evolved into a broad crowd of Americans as inequality became more apparent to the public eye. Americans from all backgrounds, adults and teenagers, men and women, Blacks and Whites, secular and religious, saw the importance of the Selma Marches: to fight for African American rights guaranteed by the Constitution (Talese 1). However, the wave of change faced opposition. Segregationists and racists believed that the civil rights marches in Selma were a reprehensible act; an immoral and illegal gathering of