Affiliated States of Boreoamerica thread

[False Dmitri]

I recently rediscovered a highway sign that Lord Grattan made for this TL. Not to let it go to waste, I've written up a basic history of Huronia to accompany it:

Historically, Huronia was the core territory of the Huron-Petun or Wendat Confederacy, a strong agricultural nation that controlled much of the land between Canada, Ohio, and the Upper Country. Disease and war with the Iroquois weakened the confederation, and the more outlying members drifted off, later to form new confederacies important in the early history of Ohio. By the late 17th century the confederation was nearly defunct. Other groups moved in to the region, especially Anishinaabe peoples connected to the famous Council of Three Fires.

From this point and throughout the 18th century, the French continued to call the region Huronia and considered it a secure part of their zone of influence. Most of the villages in Huronia - Wendat, Anishinaabe, French, Mixed - were bound together in the Canadian alliance, and the people were generally loyal "Children of Onontio." Catholicism spread throughout the region. Toward the end of the century more permanent institutions of modern government were set up to help the growing villages manage their affairs and strengthen links with Canada. A complete working government separate from Canada was achieved only in 1820, after the rise of the ASB removed the threat of attacks from Iroquoia and the English. Full independence came later still.

Peace and a rising population during this time led to the rapid growth of ports throughout the Great Lakes. In Huronia, Toronto became the new economic center. A wave of immigrants arrived from New Netherland and Canada, greatly changing Huronia's ethnic mix. To this day, much of Toronto is Dutch-speaking, as are several other communities in southern Huronia. Seneca and other Iroquois arrived as well, seeking economic opportunity in the land of their former arch-enemies. While the capital of the state moved a few times in the early years, it was fixed at Toronto after 1824. Fed by Toronto and a growing export agricultural sector, Huronia became an economic powerhouse, and it remains so today.

No map yet, the only visual so far is this state highway sign. Route 32 is one of Huronia's principal roads. It runs from Toronto north to the Sea of Wendake (Georgian Bay in OTL), crossing the narrowest part of the state.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Purple Fifties and Blue Sixties

Norman Thomas' majority was small, but effective as he reformed many of Boreoamerica's tax industries (Stendahl reformed them effectively, but new reforms were needed in the 50s, reforms that Martin didn't pass.) His administration had less of a cordial relationship to the states than Stendahl did). The President, Edouard Dupont, opposed his policies and there was an openly antagonistic relationship between the two most powerful men in Boreoamerica.

Frustated with this obstructionism, Thomas called an election in 1955 on the basis of "Who Runs This Country?". Apparently people didn't think it was the Chief Minister.

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., was a rock-solid blue Democrat, despite having Whiggish sympathies. He was the leader of the Democratic Party and entered the 1955 election expecting to exit a stronger Opposition. He ended up with a strong minority government. Remembering Martin, he opted not to go with them and instead chose to govern as a minority, a risky choice.

*include foreign stuff about a missile crisis somewhere in the world*

Lodge can be seen as the "Father of Boreoamerican Internationalism" for he dealt with the missile crisis in a very statesmanlike manner and asserted Boreoamerica's place as one of the great powers. He won a majority in 1959, promising to continue Boreoamerica's strong place in the world. His campaign portrayed his main opponent the Socialist leader Adrien St. Martin, as an isolationist when in fact he was a high-ranking diplomat in the Thomas cabinet. This paid off and can be seen to be the origin of all those political mudslinging we see so much those days.

As Boreoamerica entered the 60s, the economy boomed. People hailed a "Roaring Sixties" to rival and outshine the 20s. People credited this to the small-c conservative attitude of the Lodge administration and gave him a landslide majority in 1964 against Arvo Halberg, one of the most leftist Socialists ever to lead the party. The Socialist Party was in a bad time. Lodge's "New Democracy" was popular with the people and there was seemingly no way but right after the landslide defeat of 1964.

In 1966, Lodge chose to retire after 11 years in the premiership and handed over to his protege David Gambrell. Gambrell called a snap election and thanks to a disastrous campaign, plus the Socialists' new leader Lindon Jordan of Muscogia appealing to moderate leftists who previously voted Progressive or Green (or even Democratic!), the landslide majority of 1964 was turned in the razor-thin majority of 1967.

Gambrell's government only lasted four years, but those four years hammered the final nails in the coffin of New Democracy. A disastrous war in [some Asian country] started by Lodge got worse under Gambrell. Jordan ran his party platform on experience and getting a trusted "old hand" in, contrasting his experience with Gambrell's inexperience. Jordan's Southern populism opened doors for the Socialists and their allies down south as leftist parties gained at the expense of old entrenched liberal ones. His "Southern Strategy", applied in a limited extent in 1967, came in full force in 1970 as Socialists won many Southern seats that were formerly unfavourable ground for them. Jordan became Chief Minister in an unbelievable landslide, starting what is known as the "Socialist Seventies" or "Red Seventies" as Jordan and his protege Michel Herriot of Upper Louisiana brought a dose of radicalism to Parliament.

List of Chief Ministers up to this point.
Armand Linville (Democratic-Illinois) 1864-1871 Dem maj.
Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau (Democratic-Canada) 1871-1875 Dem maj.
William Walker (Democratic-Huronia) 1875-1882 Dem maj.
James A. Garfield (Whig-Upper Connecticut) 1882-1886 Whig maj.
Ely S. Parker (Whig-Iroquoia) 1886-1887 Whig maj.
Samuel Tylden (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1887-1893 Dem maj.
Steven Cleveland (Democratic-Maryland) 1893-1899 Dem maj.
John Carlisle (Democratic-Upper Virginia) 1899-1902 Dem maj.
Pascal Chastain (Whig-Allegheney) 1902-1917 Whig maj.
Wilfrid Laurier (Whig-Canada) 1917-1921 Whig maj.
Dougal McAdoo (Whig-New Scotland) 1921-1922 Whig maj., then Whig min.
Gamaliel Harding (Democratic-Ohio) 1922-1928 Dem maj.
Henri Voclain (Democratic-Illinois) 1928-1932 Dem maj.
Urban Stendahl (Socialist-Christiana) 1932-1946 Soc maj.
William Martin (Democratic-Plymouth) 1946-1951 Dem-Whig coalition
Norman Thomas (Socialist-Ohio) 1951-1955 Soc maj.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1955-1966 Dem maj.
David Gambrell (Democratic-Carolina) 1966-1970 Dem maj, then Dem min.
Lindon B. Jordan (Socialist-Muscogia) 1970-???? Soc maj.

 

[False Dmitri]

Gradually learning more - Lower Louisiana has a Governor-General and enough of an Anglo population to elect Huey Long. The Greens go way back and are an outgrowth of the agrarian movements of the late 1800s. I think that Dakota and the western Upper Country were the center of the Green movement at the beginning, and probably remain so today. There is clearly a sense of Southern culture despite the region's diversity and multilingualism. Probably things like cuisine, hospitality, and attitudes and mentalities.

Now I had first imagined that the Grand Council was the same as the executive, functioning as a Cabinet. Is there a separate Cabinet, presided over by the Chief Minister? In fact, how is the CM chosen - basically as in regular parliamentary states, or more like the GCoS, requiring a larger-than-usual majority?

I am archiving this on the website, by the by:
Government homepage
Parliament
Chief Ministers
Presidents of the Grand Council of State

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Gradually learning more - Lower Louisiana has a Governor-General and enough of an Anglo population to elect Huey Long. The Greens go way back and are an outgrowth of the agrarian movements of the late 1800s. I think that Dakota and the western Upper Country were the center of the Green movement at the beginning, and probably remain so today. There is clearly a sense of Southern culture despite the region's diversity and multilingualism. Probably things like cuisine, hospitality, and attitudes and mentalities.

Now I had first imagined that the Grand Council was the same as the executive, functioning as a Cabinet. Is there a separate Cabinet, presided over by the Chief Minister? In fact, how is the CM chosen - basically as in regular parliamentary states, or more like the GCoS, requiring a larger-than-usual majority?

To all of the first paragraph, you are correct.

There's two different "cabinets" in a sense. The Grand Council deals with "Head of State" responsibility, with power over all the stuff a President in America does.

The Cabinet for the Chief Minister serves in a parliamentary capability, dealing with matters of government. Basically a weaker "Westminster" cabinet.

And regular parliamentary states. GCoS is different.

 

[False Dmitri]

OK, so still some interplay between them. That's good. Actually, the more bodies there are meeting around the capital, the better. TB, did you notice I did include a vestigial Lords-like body? I'm not sure how they spend their time these days, but I imagine they have a building in Two Forts whose maintenence is paid by some kind of trust. They enjoy some prestige as symbols of traditional authority, but for the most part exist outside the flow of confederal politics.

Speaking of aristocracy, it occurs to me that sometime in the 18th century, the Jacobite Pretender was bound to reward Lord Baltimore for his loyalty. A promotion was in order. Today he holds the rank of Earl in the Jacobite peerage, though in the context of Maryland's constitution he is known as the Lord Proprietor. There is also a local baronetage; most of the colonial "Lords of the Manor" were given the rank of Baronet by 1750 or so. The old landholdings are pretty much long gone, but the titles remain.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

OK, so still some interplay between them. That's good. Actually, the more bodies there are meeting around the capital, the better. TB, did you notice I did include a vestigial Lords-like body? I'm not sure how they spend their time these days, but I imagine they have a building in Two Forts whose maintenence is paid by some kind of trust. They enjoy some prestige as symbols of traditional authority, but for the most part exist outside the flow of confederal politics.

Yeah, I noticed that. They're essentially a prestigious collection that doesn't really have that much power? A much weaker House of Lords?

 

[False Dmitri]

Yeah, I noticed that. They're essentially a prestigious collection that doesn't really have that much power? A much weaker House of Lords?

Hardly even that, since they are not actually a part of Parliament. The point is to show that in the pre-history of the ASB there were many different councils, congresses, conventions, and deliberative bodies addressing different aspects of the alliance. By the mid-1800s, the inter-governmental bodies were all folded into the Congress of the Nations, and the other representative bodies were folded into Parliament. The chiefly council, which was originally a meeting of clan chiefs and leading landowners, was basically left over. And so it remains today. Less than half the states even send members to the Chiefly Council - 18, by my count. Some of these states see it as very important that traditional chiefs have a voice in the capital, and this has been the main thing that has sustained it. They might also have clauses in their constitutions saying that their "people and chiefs" or "citizens and leading families" shall be represented in the Confederation, so for them the Chiefly Council plays some role in binding them to the rest of the ASB. But it's

So basically, the Chiefly Council is sort-of connected to the ASB's government without truly being a part of it. They have been self-supporting, generally not receiving any tax revenue. When they do weigh in on an issue and pass a resolution, sometimes people pay attention, other times not.

 

[Faeelin]

I'm a bit skeptical that this nation wouldn't reach the Pacific, or at least the Rockies. Why wouldn't Borealic settlers on the west coast want to join it?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

The "Red Seventies"

In early 1971, after passing through significant welfare reforms, Jordan promised to solve the "festering sore of blacks being denied the right to vote". Segregationist states managed to interpret Chastain's referendum as refering to the white working class, and some of them added more votes to the rich to "compensate". Martin's government was forced by reliably Democratic segregationist states to exclude the blacks from this harmonising, much to the Whigs' displeasure.

However, Chastain and Martin wished to form a new settlement amongst the states, while Jordan viewed it as an injustice blotting a nation's reputation. To him it was a moral question, not a politicial one. A devout Catholic, he believed fervently in the doctrine of social justice. Alongst with his protege Michel Herriot, they worked out a strategy in order to assert the right of voting belonged to blacks as well as whites.

His announcement shocked several segregationist states, as they believed that Jordan was "one of them" (ie, a segregationist). One state (West Florida) even amended its constitution to allow blacks to vote (but gave whites five more to "compensate"). However, segregationism would die in Jordan's term because of the different approach he took to it.

He invited segregationist leaders to his "Big House" in Muscogia and used tactics to intimidate them into complying. If that didn't work, he brought out some "incriminating" evidence and implicitly offered a deal which also included higher funding for whatever programs they might have planned. He managed to get six states (Choctaw, Lower Virginia, East Florida, West Florida, Upper Louisiana and Arques) to comply, but the states of Muscogia, Carolina, Chicasaw and Cherokee was harder to convince as they desired to keep their states' rights and their discrimination against blacks in favor of Aboriginals and whites. By this time, Jordan knew he was dying and wanted to break the back of segregation before he croaked. He decided to go out in Chastainian fashion by calling a referendum on the issue.

The referendum went 58% for yes, a narrower margin than expected because many people were turned off by rumors of Jordan's "dictatorial" government and potential bullying of governors into submission. However, Carolina and Chicasaw refused to comply (while Muscogia and Cherokee complied in exchange for better funding in the future) so Jordan established a precedent that has shadowed Boreoamerican politics ever since.

He sent the federal army to arrest the Governors of those states, finally asserting the nation had more power than the states over inviolable matters. This instantly became a very controversial decision, with roughly half praising Jordan for standing up for civil rights while another half condemned him for violating states' rights.

However, the Chief Minister would not hear any of the words targetted towards him as one cold wintery night in Two Forts, Jordan had a massive heart attack and died, leaving a half-written letter of resignation which named Herriot as his successor.

Presently, Lindon Jordan is one of Boreoamerica's most controversial Chief Ministers, but the ideas behind his actions are mostly approved. A devout Catholic who would break people to assert justice, he embodied the radical faction of the Socialist Party who would not compromise at all.

His protege and successor Michel Herriot found himself responsible for cleaning up the mess that Jordan left. Many people in Southern states reacted to the arrest of the two Governors with fear and displeasure as they saw it as violating what Boreoamerica ultimately stood for. There were even talk of secession from the Common Estate of the Lower Louisianan Estates General (which came to nothing thankfully). Herriot had to use all his charisma and tact in order to soothe tensions resulting from Jordan's actions. This took him two years and then it was election time in 1975. Herriot predicted a landslide loss, with even fearful thoughts of his Socialists falling behind the Progressives or Whigs, but the people ultimately did not feel that Jordan's actions was enough to condemn his successor, and delivered Herriot a greatly-reduced majority. Notably, the Socialists kept several Southern seats despite losing most of them. This was due to those seats being black-majority ones. Indeed, thanks to Jordan, African-Boreoamericans would be a reliably Socialist demographic (before, they were a swing one between Socialists and Progressives).

Herriot's ministry focused on education (including opening education up to blacks) and labor reforms (with his "Co-operative Plan" being a basis) and in both, he had a mixed result. Education reform successfully negotiated the end of class-determined education, but failed to open up Southern universities to blacks, while labor reform managed to get a quite watered down version of his Co-operative Plan, with a labor arbitration board never being established.

In 1979, the tired Michel Herriot and his Socialist Party went to their defeat as the Democrats under moderate Anika Lucas won a strong majority, ending 9 years of Socialist rule and starting the era that would be known as the turbulent 1980s...

List of Chief Ministers up to this point.
Armand Linville (Democratic-Illinois) 1864-1871 Dem maj.
Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau (Democratic-Canada) 1871-1875 Dem maj.
William Walker (Democratic-Huronia) 1875-1882 Dem maj.
James Garfield (Whig-Upper Connecticut) 1882-1886 Whig maj.
Ely Parker (Whig-Iroquoia) 1886-1887 Whig maj.
Samuel Tylden (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1887-1893 Dem maj.
Steven Cleveland (Democratic-Maryland) 1893-1899 Dem maj.
John Carlisle (Democratic-Upper Virginia) 1899-1902 Dem maj.
Pascal Chastain (Whig-Allegheney) 1902-1917 Whig maj.
Wilfrid Laurier (Whig-Canada) 1917-1921 Whig maj.
Dougal McAdoo (Whig-New Scotland) 1921-1922 Whig maj., then Whig min.
Gamaliel Harding (Democratic-Ohio) 1922-1928 Dem maj.
Henri Voclain (Democratic-Illinois) 1928-1932 Dem maj.
Urban Stendahl (Socialist-Christiana) 1932-1946 Soc maj.
William Martin (Democratic-Plymouth) 1946-1951 Dem-Whig coalition
Norman Thomas (Socialist-Ohio) 1951-1955 Soc maj.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1955-1966 Dem maj.
David Gambrell (Democratic-Carolina) 1966-1970 Dem maj, then Dem min.
Lindon Jordan (Socialist-Muscogia) 1970-1973 Soc maj.
Michel Herriot (Socialist-Upper Louisiana) 1973-1979 Soc maj.
Anika Lucas (Democratic-Dakota) 1979-???? Dem maj.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Hey, this has been moved!

 

[False Dmitri]

I'm a bit skeptical that this nation wouldn't reach the Pacific, or at least the Rockies. Why wouldn't Borealic settlers on the west coast want to join it?

I know. It's one of the less realistic aspects of the world, together with the failure to expand into Rupert's Land. But I wanted to stay focused on the area east of the Missouri and south of the Canadian Shield. West of that the land is largely controlled by Mexico. In universe, the best explanation to offer is that Anglo-Americans' numbers were much smaller and for whatever reason they did not multiply into the demographic juggernaut of OTL. The diffusion of state interests played a role as well; as I said on page 1, "The ASB, as a regional bloc rather than a state, did not have the means or the desire to expand rapidly westward that was seen in OTL's USA and British North America."

I admit that's not a perfect in-universe justification, but it is what I want for this project.

Hey, this has been moved!

Huzzah!

The "Red Seventies"

This is the first post where I'm going to suggest significant modifications to what you wrote. I'm trying to formulate my thoughts on race in the ASB, but I don't quite have it together. Short and preliminary version: it must not be forgotten that Haiti is part of the confederation. And the Bahamas. And the Black Seminoles. And that in some areas, English-speaking Blacks and Whites were both minorities who found they had common interests and ended up cooperating. And that English-speaking Whites are themselves divided into ethnic groups that may not be physically distinct but are still seen as "real," permanent divisions. So while I don't question the main points of this storyline, I know that things were more complicated than simply saying, "The South had slavery." I've got to take more time before I can be more specific than that.

Like I said, I think it's a really good story. It's a wonderful look at the ASB undergoing a constitutional crisis, with very realistic political drama. And I like seeing a CM from Dakota. Since reading more about the agrarian movement I am suddenly very interested in Dakota.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

This is the first post where I'm going to suggest significant modifications to what you wrote. I'm trying to formulate my thoughts on race in the ASB, but I don't quite have it together. Short and preliminary version: it must not be forgotten that Haiti is part of the confederation. And the Bahamas. And the Black Seminoles. And that in some areas, English-speaking Blacks and Whites were both minorities who found they had common interests and ended up cooperating. And that English-speaking Whites are themselves divided into ethnic groups that may not be physically distinct but are still seen as "real," permanent divisions. So while I don't question the main points of this storyline, I know that things were more complicated than simply saying, "The South had slavery." I've got to take more time before I can be more specific than that.

Like I said, I think it's a really good story. It's a wonderful look at the ASB undergoing a constitutional crisis, with very realistic political drama. And I like seeing a CM from Dakota. Since reading more about the agrarian movement I am suddenly very interested in Dakota.

I expected that anyway. Any way I can modify it so that it'll be acceptable for until you can be more specific?

 

[Hominid]

I just discovered this and it looks cool. I'd like to hear more about Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

 

[False Dmitri]

I expected that anyway. Any way I can modify it so that it'll be acceptable for until you can be more specific?

Not really. It's likely you wouldn't even need to change anything, just add some more explanation. Sorry to be so cryptic, but I'm still thinking over just what race means in this world.

I just discovered this and it looks cool. I'd like to hear more about Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Together they fought a revolution against English rule. ... That's really all I know for now.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Not really. It's likely you wouldn't even need to change anything, just add some more explanation. Sorry to be so cryptic, but I'm still thinking over just what race means in this world.

Alright, I'll leave that alone and focus on the 80s, try to avoid talking about race issues (maybe do education stuff as Herriot failed to do it).

 

[False Dmitri]

Alright, I'll leave that alone and focus on the 80s, try to avoid talking about race issues (maybe do education stuff as Herriot failed to do it).

If you want to touch on race as well, please do. You might discover something interesting! The main difference with OTL is the complexity of the situation. In some states Blacks were a majority and were seen as the bedrock of society, rather than as an unpleasant aberration as in most of the OTL United States. On the other hand the White majority states certainly felt rather superior to the Black majority ones, as well as superior to the Black individuals on their own states.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

If you want to touch on race as well, please do. You might discover something interesting! The main difference with OTL is the complexity of the situation. In some states Blacks were a majority and were seen as the bedrock of society, rather than as an unpleasant aberration as in most of the OTL United States. On the other hand the White majority states certainly felt rather superior to the Black majority ones, as well as superior to the Black individuals on their own states.

How about you make a map of ethnicity?

In some states, yeah, like Lower Louisiana (the placage system had long-term effects there, as a considerable amount are mixed-race). However, in Southern "native" states, there were pressure from natives to stop blacks from "taking over" their states. Racism is not only a white thing, unfortunately.

In Seminole and the Caribbean, obviously Blacks have more prominence and more power than they had in the South. I would expect Black governors there.

In the Northern states, race relations tended to come second to class strife, especially as labor and capital worsened their fight. This is why the Socialist Party do well, as class matters more than race in Northern states. Well, and religion is as important as class in some of the more Catholic states.

 

[False Dmitri]

How about you make a map of ethnicity?

That's a good idea. I'm making one for race (ethnicity would be rather more complicated). But it will take a while. I don't want to hold you back.

In some states, yeah, like Lower Louisiana (the placage system had long-term effects there, as a considerable amount are mixed-race). However, in Southern "native" states, there were pressure from natives to stop blacks from "taking over" their states. Racism is not only a white thing, unfortunately.

In Seminole and the Caribbean, obviously Blacks have more prominence and more power than they had in the South. I would expect Black governors there.

All very true. Though language and other factors are also going to play a role. For example, Choctaw drew a lot more influence from Louisiana than from the English settlers. Muscogia has a lot of influence from Spanish Florida. And the different attitudes are going to interact with existing Indian ideas.

HIn the Northern states, race relations tended to come second to class strife, especially as labor and capital worsened their fight. This is why the Socialist Party do well, as class matters more than race in Northern states. Well, and religion is as important as class in some of the more Catholic states.

Yes! That's an area that's barely been explored, but in some states you can make some awfully fine distinctions of "ethnic" groups based on the factors of race, language, and religion. Depending on the area, of course. For example, Ohio as a whole is incredibly pluralistic, but there are areas where groups like Protestants and Catholics, Episcopalians and Congregationalists, or Lutherans and Moravians have hated each other since time immemorial. Though the Quakers like everyone.

And he freewheeling climate of religious pluralism that prevailed in Pennsylvania and (eventually) New England spread westward along with Pennamite and Yankee settlers, which helped to create situations like in OTL North America, where at the center of every big town are churches of a dozen different denominations, and that's just the normal way of things.

But! Running counter to all that is the overall hugeness of Carolina. It's going to play a big role in setting the national agenda, and we can be fairly certain that it has contained all the nastiness of the Deep South of OTL. But even here, there are differences; namely the proportion of Black people is noticeably higher than in OTL; not an overall majority but reaching toward that. That's going to affect the dynamic as well.

 

[False Dmitri]

This is a work in progress. It's a start.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

That's a good idea. I'm making one for race (ethnicity would be rather more complicated). But it will take a while. I don't want to hold you back.

I'll go ahead with the 80s.

All very true. Though language and other factors are also going to play a role. For example, Choctaw drew a lot more influence from Louisiana than from the English settlers. Muscogia has a lot of influence from Spanish Florida. And the different attitudes are going to interact with existing Indian ideas.

I don't know that much about existing Aboriginal ideas, TBH. Could you explain a bit about that (only the relevant bits, please!)

Yes! That's an area that's barely been explored, but in some states you can make some awfully fine distinctions of "ethnic" groups based on the factors of race, language, and religion. Depending on the area, of course. For example, Ohio as a whole is incredibly pluralistic, but there are areas where groups like Protestants and Catholics, Episcopalians and Congregationalists, or Lutherans and Moravians have hated each other since time immemorial. Though the Quakers like everyone.

Now that's quite interesting. Perhaps Ohio used to have ethnic parties before the worsening of labor-capital relations pushes many workers to the Socialists?

But! Running counter to all that is the overall hugeness of Carolina. It's going to play a big role in setting the national agenda, and we can be fairly certain that it has contained all the nastiness of the Deep South of OTL. But even here, there are differences; namely the proportion of Black people is noticeably higher than in OTL; not an overall majority but reaching toward that. That's going to affect the dynamic as well.

I'll edit the 70s to reflect Carolina.