A few PODs that I want some questions on

As my interests lie in African American history, there are a few points of divergence I'd like to explore and hopefully you can answer them for me.

1) What if Denmark Vesey had succeeded in the Charleston slave uprising?

2) What if Harriet Tubman had been captured and executed by the Condeferate government as a Union spy and subsequently martyred?

3) What if the NAACP and the Civil Rights Movement had been essentially separatist and not integrationist?

4) What if Dr. George Washington Carver had developed and patented bakelite plastic at the turn of the 20th century for the Tuskegee Institute?
 
I'll answer 1 and 3.

For number 1, the revolt would eventually fail. The blacks would not have the finance, the resources or even the guns. They may be able to cause a lot of havoc, and it could turn bloody, but I doubt the US will tolerate South Carolina being ripped apart by slave rebellion. The papers would crow that the "uncivilized negro property of our fellow planters" is ripping apart all that is civilized, Protestant and white. Sailing to Haiti is also dangerous- the language conflict and the logistics of acquiring ships, avoiding the navy and avoiding revanchist planters would be hard. He'd fail, but they could raise hell.

For number 3, the public and thusly the population would have been far less friendly to civil rights. Malcolm X, with his semi-violent, separatist message, alienated the white audience at home. MLK was a preacher who only opposed the visible brutality through peaceful protest. Separatism is AWFUL PR. If it is late 19th and early 20th century civil rights, I imagine that the ACS would be a pretty good option. America was even more intolerant, and the KKK at the turn of the century was at its peak. There would be rioting, and if they insisted on separatism, they would have to flee to Liberia or elsewhere. It was the actions of sympathetic white legislators that won the civil rights movement. If there is no sympathy, and if there is antipathy especially, than I doubt non-SCOTUS actions will succeed nearly as well as they did with the integrationist movement.

The whites are the MAJORITY, after all.
 
^General agreement while pointing out that MLK and X eventually began to operate in a somewhat good cop/bad cop style. Absent X's actions and statements, peaceful means could be less effective.
 


3) What if the NAACP and the Civil Rights Movement had been essentially separatist and not integrationist?

I can't see the Southern black population being down for this, however I can see Northern urban blacks (New York, Boston, Chicago) being more pro-Communist and pro-separatist, we could see more of them leaving the US for Jamaica or Ghana, see W. E. B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey get more ground in the early 1900s, but these views would swim in the South.
 
I might as well go for 2 and 4.


If Harriet Tubman is martyred, than she will still have a legacy as a civil rights hero, but with much more religious-style admiration. In the major scheme of things, it probably doesn't affect history all that much. Blacks will still use the railroad and the ACW will still go the same way (if its midwar). Even with the most conservative POD rules, I don't think Harriet Tubman had much effect other than being a figure to point to and admire for "bravery" and all that.

For number 4, if GW Carver can make it, than a larger company run by a white man can also make it. I think GE or a similar invention-based corporation would love to hire him, and money and quiet prestige for GE would be a big draw. Even if Tuskegee benefits, it has little effect on civil rights in the short term. We already point to Carver as a great inventor, of peanut butter and many other things. He is already a well-lauded black figure. Other than more credit to his name, I see little effect on history UNLESS bakelite (with which I am completely unfamiliar) was invented OTL much later and had a large impact on war/consumerism/technology.
 
Other than more credit to his name, I see little effect on history UNLESS bakelite (with which I am completely unfamiliar) was invented OTL much later and had a large impact on war/consumerism/technology.

Wiki says Bakelite was 1907, and Carver started his career in 1896, but wasn't well known for his research until 1921. It's possible that it was invented before he would have the facilities to do it himself.

Also, his specialties were in botany and agricultural science. Bakelite is not based on a plant product, so it also rather falls outside of his vision to find products that poor southern farmers could produce to increase their livelihood. Not that it would be impossible for him to invent it, I don't know enough about that, but I suspect that the research for it would probably take him away from some other important thing he did invent.
 
Top