AHC: Fundamentalist Christian terrorism instead of radical Islamist terrorism

I think he means RIGHT NOW and the KKK while still around to some extent is now little more than a joke. Its fire has long gone out and has had no real influence since the early 1970s, even in the South. It was declared a terrorist organization way back in the 19th century so no one argues that they aren't. They might manage a murder here and there even now but these days they provoke more laughter than fear.

I've worked my way up to the chapters on the 1940s Klan. That era would be the model for a revival of the Klan as a terrorist organization. Or rather a terrorist group using the name and history of the Klan. From the 1940s the Klan had lost any coherence as a national or even regional organization. Fragmented local groups, usually with fanatical but less than competent leaders were the norm. It is plausible the right individual could organize a violent group with a religious agenda along the lines of the Klan.
 
I dont remember. Did not pay much attention to the stories, tho I vaguely remember they may have been describing events in the San Diego area.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1b_1212369455

This is MS-13's doing, and they're an anti-immigrant hate group.

However, there is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/27arizona.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If the Minutemen could be remotely compared to the Klan, this would happen a LOT more often. Back when the Minutemen first showed up, at least one person on the board was acting like they were routinely hunting illegal immigrants for sport and that wasn't happening.
 
Last edited:
I've worked my way up to the chapters on the 1940s Klan. That era would be the model for a revival of the Klan as a terrorist organization. Or rather a terrorist group using the name and history of the Klan. From the 1940s the Klan had lost any coherence as a national or even regional organization. Fragmented local groups, usually with fanatical but less than competent leaders were the norm. It is plausible the right individual could organize a violent group with a religious agenda along the lines of the Klan.

The end of WWII and the start of the Cold War was the beginning of the end of respectable racism because the Nazis went so overboard with the Holocaust it started people thinking about their own racism and to compete with the USSR (Which could keep its racists out of the press) in the Third World the US had to start abandoning institutional racism. A non-racist KKK is no longer a KKK.
 
The end of WWII and the start of the Cold War was the beginning of the end of respectable racism because the Nazis went so overboard with the Holocaust it started people thinking about their own racism and to compete with the USSR (Which could keep its racists out of the press) in the Third World the US had to start abandoning institutional racism. A non-racist KKK is no longer a KKK.

I dont see that except a abstract sense. In the Reconstruction era the Klan was about removal of 'Yankee' intrusion & restoration of poltical power to the former southern political leaders. The white supremacy & suppresion of the liberty of the former slaves was incidental to that. The racist aspect was part of the fabric of US culture & southern politics. It would have been odd if the Klan had not reflected the culture in which it existed & it was in no way unique in reflecting the culture/politics of the era.

The Klan revival of the 1920s was focused on "morality" & immoral white Protestants were the targets of Klan violence as much or more so than Catholics who were the primary verbal target of the 1920s Klan. Prohibition was the other largest or core issue in the members motivation and the Klan was active in suppresion of illegal alcohol trade. Violence against African Americans had continued during the Klan hiatus from the 1880s to 1915 & was informally organized. It continued from the Reconstruction era into the mid 20th Century with or without Klan participation. The northern Klan, which was in some regions like New York/New Jersey larger & stronger than the southern Klan of the 1920s. Anti Catholcism and Prohibition were the near exclusive issues in those regions. there was a similar trend in the Klans of Oregon & Washington states, Colorado, California.

Race became more important in the 1930s as a Klan focus & there were actually attempts to reconcile with Catholic & Jewish groups as the protestant clergy became less active in the Klan. While the suppression of registration of black voters, black business, and Black mobility became a large part of Klan activity this was part of a larger suppression of southern labor. The Klan brought violence against union organizers equally among black or white laborers, and intimidated white voters into balloting the right way rather than complete suppression as with black voting. Suppression of the agrarian and factory laborers appears to be the primary focus of the Klan in the 1930s, tho there was a strong admiration of the racial aspects of nazi doctrines among the Klans members.

The anti union/communist doctrine continued in the Klans activites in the 1940s & it was not until the civil rights movement gained traction in the 1950s that the klans began focusing on race over the other aspects. Tho "Protestant" and religion remained a important part of the klan doctrine and argument.
 
Considering the amount of effort the Klan devoted to preventing blacks from voting, attacking schools that educated freedmen, etc., I really don't think that was just "incidental" to them.

How often did the Klan attack Union occupation troops vs. how often did they terrorize blacks? I'm thinking the latter outnumber the former vastly, if the former even happened at all.
 
The Klan of Reconstruction seldom attacked Federal soldiers. They did attack white Republican politicians in the south fairly often, and many other whites who supported the radical Republican policys. The goal there was to attack leaders or agents of the southern Republican party, black or white. A important point is Bedford Forrest dissolved the national Klan organization as part of the agreement that ended the Reconstruction era & allowed former Confederate leaders to return to politics and government office. This came with the near dissolution of the Republican party in the South That is when the primary goals of the Klan leaders of the Reconstruction era was achieved they abandoned the organization. The Klan as a organized entity effectively ceased to exist quickly after that and melted into the local ad hoc groups that conducted whatever racial or political terror that continued into the 1880s and beyond.
 
Latin America, provided you have more overt and brutal US meddling, could fit the bill quite nicely. The fact that Latin America is predominantly Catholic while the United States (until recently) is predominantly Protestant would give you something similar to a Christian-Muslim divide to work with too.

It is interesting, but even though US meddling was rather brutal in some parts of Latin America, like Central America, this never happened IOTL. True, there were Catholic priest fighting in leftist or nationalist guerrillas, but their fight was never presented as a crusade against Protestants, nor nothing of the sort.

Maybe if the US meddling had been more direct (i.e., instead of supporting brutal dictartors who tortured and killed thousands the US had intervened directly more often, as it did in Nicaragua in the early XX century or República Dominicana around 1960) this might have happened. Yet I am not sure, I think you'd need something more for this to happen...

I've started a thread related to this idea a few days ago, though I am not sure how that outcome could be produced.
 
Top