AHC: Republicans pass Civil Rights Act.

Challenge: With a POD of after 1947, have a Republican Congress pass the Civil Rights Act and a Republican president sign it instead of the Democrats.
 
We would need a radical movement spring up within the ranks of the GOP that sends it flying to the social left while still maintaining "morals". If we get enough people on board it will take enough steam on it's own, naturally excluding people who don't fit the ideology. (Which is why parties are so narrow in scope)
 
I've argued before that the GOP winning one more Senate seat in 1956 could be enough of a PoD for them to pass a CRA with teeth in 1957 -- that said, I should note that it's a debated point, to say the least.
 
Either Truman does worse or everyone else does better. Give Dewey coattails too.
Result: The Chicago Tribune never regrets a headline, and we have a Civil Rights Act. (Plus the Haberdasher is relegated to a footnote.)
 
1948 Dewey wins. I read somewhere, can't recall where, that the Dixiecrats were actually more worried about Dewey on Civil Rights than Truman. The Dixiecrat's plan was to force the election in the House and then cut a deal with Truman.

1948 Dewey wins and keeps Congress Republican. The powers that be in the Republican party figure on a Southern strategy somewhat different from OTL, going after the African-American vote. That could pick off a few Southern states (remember Nixon and Wallace are 20 years in the future) and solidify the Northern states. Also, I seem to recall that Dewey was pro-Civil Rights.
 
i read somewhere that one of the reasons the democrats lost the south was signing of the civil rights acts is that true?
 
i read somewhere that one of the reasons the democrats lost the south was signing of the civil rights acts is that true?
That's how they lost it in presidential elections. The Democrats remained in control of many state governments and statewide elected officials for longer, but after 1964, the South began to go Republican, with only native Southerner Jimmy Carter briefly taking it back for the Democrats.
 
Challenge: With a POD of after 1947, have a Republican Congress pass the Civil Rights Act and a Republican president sign it instead of the Democrats.

Well, more Republicans voted for the OTL Act than Democrats did if I recall. But my guess is that if Nixon would have won in 1960 it becomes a possibility. However, if the GOP did all of the work rather than just half like OTL (LBJ did the rest as we all know) then that would leave the South not only pissed off like OTL but with nowhere to go. I mean, they'd hate the GOP still but the Democrats are starting to be no better either. Perhaps that leads to the Dixiecrats doing better in elections and possibly forcing a brokered election in the aftermath of 1964 or 1968?
 
Well, more Republicans voted for the OTL Act than Democrats did if I recall.
Here's the breakdown of votes by party and region (off Wikipedia):

HOUSE:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

  • Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
SENATE:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
So you can see it's a very strong North-South split more than anything else. There were more Democrats in Congress overall than Republicans, and a significant number of them were in the South. Meanwhile, the Republicans were barely represented in the South at all -- and none of the Southern Republicans voted for the bill, probably because (being Republicans in the South pre-Southern-Strategy) they were much more vulnerable politically.

Thus, even though a greater proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill overall, a greater proportion of Northern Democrats voted for it than Northern Republicans and a greater proportion of Southern Democrats voted for it than Southern Republicans.

So, yeah, to get the Republicans the credit for the Civil Rights Act basically what you need is a whole lot more Republicans in the North.
 
Last edited:
Basically you have to butterfly the Depression away, or make the Dems ASB incompetent.

Not neccesarily. In my own TL I had Dewey win in '48, and lose in 52 after the conservative Republicans split the ticket and run MacArthur as an independent (MacArthur, oddly enough, was VERY pro-civil rights.).

This leads to Eisenhower running as a Democrat; largley out of a fear of a MacArthur Presidency. Naturally, he wins the election in a landslide.

Eisenhower as a Dem is likely to favor Southern Dems for political appointments. Although he wasn't a racist by any means, Ike had grown up in Kasas, his wife was from Texas, and he knew many Southern Dems from the army. His natural sympathy to them, even if now their cause, would lead to them getting some plum spots in his administration.

Now, if the Republicans are able to retake the Senate and House during this time Civil Rights is going to be a huge issue they want to deal with. Nixon, especially, was a strong proponent of a Civil Rights bill, and would push for it if he were still in the Senate.

This would lead to a split in the Democrats as Northern, liberal, Dems vote with Nixon's bill, while Southerns do not. It puts an end to any Southern Stratedy, of course, but it also lays bare a HUGE schism within the Democratic Party.
 
Your own timeline has a POD of 1946, before my limit of 1947.

Oh, very true, I just brought it up to show that it was certainly possible to my mind.

Honestly, a Dewey administration would certainly make some movements on Civil Rights, and try to use it as a wedge issue to cause some havoc between the Democrats Northern and Southern wings. I'm not sure how far reaching they would be; he would be likely hampered by a Democratic Congress (although Dewey was used to working with like-minded Democrats from his time as governor of New York).

If (a big if), he's able to gain a second term, I could see him trying something a bit more ambitious though.
 
Top