AHC-Worst Possible End to Jim Crow

There is A World of Laughter, A World of Tears. I think that's the closest you'll get.

I read parts of that TL, I remember the bit where the Little Rock Nine were lynched by the crowd, but I don't recall it touching off a second Civil War the way CalBear outlined.
 
Is there any way to have Jim Crow end in a far messier manner than OTL?

Unfortunately, yes. Although much of the non-Southern general public in 1960s was generally sympathetic to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole(and MLK in particular), some on the right definitely were not. In fact, one anti-MLK protest in Chicago got pretty nasty, IIRC.

I have to agree with some of these. An escalation of violence would worsen the end of Jim Crow. Honestly with the way US was at the time. I feel the end of Jim Crow would come about in the eighties or early nineties if enough violence caused or by civil rights groups or if people were simply led to believe civil rights groups caused violence.

While I wouldn' t say America is overly racist at the time, a number of people will accept the status as something that works for them.

I honestly don't think the '90s would be plausible without a fairly far-back POD. The early to mid '70s, maybe......

In January 1964, a bomb goes off during a meeting between President Lyndon Johnson and civil rights leaders, planted by a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Speak of the House, John William McCormack, is quickly sworn into office becoming the second Catholic President, which like JFK gained some critics although these complaints about his religion sometimes showed in his leadership qualities, were supported by previous events.

And during the 1964, Democratic Primaries, he is quickly denied the chance to run for a full term, with Governor George Wallace of Alabama winning the ballot.

The Republicans choose former Vice President, Richard Nixon as their nominee thinking that they could swing this election .... however they could not have been more wrong.

Governor George Wallace was able to carry all 50 states, along with DC, while gaining a popular vote of 64,127,041 to Nixon's messily 6,175,754, the highest won by a candidate since James Monroe's re-election in 1820. It was the sixth-most lopsided presidential election in the history of the United States in terms of states carried, electoral votes; while in terms of popular vote, it is first.

Sworn in as the 38th President, Wallace would be nicknamed Gandalf, the White "house" wizard, referring to the book by English author J. R. R. Tolkien, and for his attitude for the Stand in the Doorway and not letting any bills pass, saying that he was voted in based on his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"

On May 15, 1972 President Wallace becomes the 6th President to be assassinated, when an out of work Busboy and Janitor, Arthur Bremer, shots him in Maryland.
Leading to Albert Benjamin "Happy" Chandler, Sr. succession as 39th President on May 16th 1972.

I'm sorry, Jonathan, but if anything, a KKK terrorist attack killing JFK would, if anything, have lead to a massive outcry *against* the racial reactionaries, and not for them. Hell, a black American being elected President in 1976 is rather more likely than George Wallace winning at all in '68, let alone all 50 states.

Why the ASB suggestions?

Wallace doesn't have the appeal to enough people to win more than the South. The USSR sneaking nukes into the US is just an absurd idea.

Exactly.
 
With all due respect: are you high?
Nope sadly this is my state of mind when sober and clear. :D I would hate to think how far the walls of reality would fall if I wasn't T-total and anti-drugs :eek:

I quite liked it.
Thank you DValdron, its not the best but I made a start.

Make George Wallace president.
I can not see any other Presidential candidate willing to make Jim Crow go out with a bang.
Its not like I suggested David Duke, white nationalist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan from Louisiana.

I agree. The only way George Walllace would get that big a landslide unless he keeps his racial views under wraps and Nixon does something really heinous on the campaign trail.
Wallace would get to the promise of restoring law and order to the nation's cities, torn by riots and crime, before Nixon could.

I'm sorry, Jonathan, but if anything, a KKK terrorist attack killing JFK would, if anything, have lead to a massive outcry *against* the racial reactionaries, and not for them. Hell, a black American being elected President in 1976 is rather more likely than George Wallace winning at all in '68, let alone all 50 states.
Wallace would ran a good campaign gaining support from the ethnic enclave industrial districts in the North and Midwest.
George Wallace was a very calculated politician, and with the right people behind him would find what is needed to gain a majority.
 

tenthring

Banned
You mean worse then 40 years of falling incomes, skyrocketing crime, and a 70%+ illegitimacy rate?

OTL Civil Rights a total failure, it accomplished zero of the objectives. People who say otherwise are retconning after the fact. The goal wasn't particular laws, but for blacks to achieve better overall life outcomes. The laws were just seen as the way to accomplish that. At most it allowed a few well off blacks to move into white neighborhoods and get white corporate jobs. For most black people, especially outside the south, lives aren't much better if at all.
 
You mean worse then 40 years of falling incomes, skyrocketing crime, and a 70%+ illegitimacy rate?

OTL Civil Rights a total failure, it accomplished zero of the objectives. People who say otherwise are retconning after the fact. The goal wasn't particular laws, but for blacks to achieve better overall life outcomes. The laws were just seen as the way to accomplish that. At most it allowed a few well off blacks to move into white neighborhoods and get white corporate jobs. For most black people, especially outside the south, lives aren't much better if at all.

It's still better than what existed before. I'd say certainly dispute that black lives were better under Jim Crow.

I also have to question several of these assertions as misleading.

40 years of falling incomes? That puts us back in 1975, and the reality that incomes have been falling for everyone but the super-rich during that time.

Illegitimacy rates? Who cares. Honestly, that's over.

As for skyrocketing crime... hasn't that been on the decline for decades? Except, of course for the War on Drugs, which is really a war on black people.

I guess the real test would be to ask black people if they're better or worse off than they were under the Jim Crow era. I don't think many would ask to go back.
 
It's still better than what existed before. I'd say certainly dispute that black lives were better under Jim Crow.

I also have to question several of these assertions as misleading.

40 years of falling incomes? That puts us back in 1975, and the reality that incomes have been falling for everyone but the super-rich during that time.

Illegitimacy rates? Who cares. Honestly, that's over.

As for skyrocketing crime... hasn't that been on the decline for decades? Except, of course for the War on Drugs, which is really a war on black people.

I guess the real test would be to ask black people if they're better or worse off than they were under the Jim Crow era. I don't think many would ask to go back.

In the wake of Voter ID laws, rollback of early voting, the almost weekly death of a young black male by cop, not a few think we're returning to a Jim Crow-like world, hence the #blacklivesmatter movement
 
In the wake of Voter ID laws, rollback of early voting, the almost weekly death of a young black male by cop, not a few think we're returning to a Jim Crow-like world, hence the #blacklivesmatter movement

That gives me an evil idea: have an unarmed white guy-bonus points if they're under 21 and from the south-get shot by a black cop, and watch Southern whites go postal.
 
In the wake of Voter ID laws, rollback of early voting, the almost weekly death of a young black male by cop, not a few think we're returning to a Jim Crow-like world, hence the #blacklivesmatter movement

Good point. The reality was that Civil Rights were fiercely opposed and deeply resented, and that there's never been a period when they were not opposed and resented.
 
You mean worse then 40 years of falling incomes, skyrocketing crime, and a 70%+ illegitimacy rate?

OTL Civil Rights a total failure, it accomplished zero of the objectives. People who say otherwise are retconning after the fact. The goal wasn't particular laws, but for blacks to achieve better overall life outcomes. The laws were just seen as the way to accomplish that. At most it allowed a few well off blacks to move into white neighborhoods and get white corporate jobs. For most black people, especially outside the south, lives aren't much better if at all.

One of the goals of the original civil rights movement was the complete abolition of de jure and de facto segregation and discrimination. In that, it has largely succeeded, although there is a great deal of de facto discrimination remaining. But the days of "Colored Only" water fountains, restrooms and other public facilities are gone. So to say that the civil rights movement accomplished none of its goals is simply untrue.

Crime peaked in the 1990s.

The other social ills you mention are prevalent in poor white communities as well. Witness the crystal meth epidemic in predominately white rural areas. I'd say economic forces have more to do with these problems than do civil rights laws. Since this isn't Chat, I'll leave it there but say that in general, incomes have been stagnant for the majority of Americans since around 1980. Blacks are hardly the only Americans facing some degree of economic stagnation nor are they the only ones with a higher rate of out-of-marriage births.
 
I'm somewhat annoyed by the effort to attach a stigma to illegitimacy or to characterize it as a social ill.

There are people close to me who were born out of wedlock. They're good people. I do not believe that in this modern era, that legitimacy or illegitimacy is meaningful, or that it is a social ill, or symptom of some personal or cultural or ethnic moral decay.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
You mean worse then 40 years of falling incomes, skyrocketing crime, and a 70%+ illegitimacy rate?

OTL Civil Rights a total failure, it accomplished zero of the objectives. People who say otherwise are retconning after the fact. The goal wasn't particular laws, but for blacks to achieve better overall life outcomes. The laws were just seen as the way to accomplish that. At most it allowed a few well off blacks to move into white neighborhoods and get white corporate jobs. For most black people, especially outside the south, lives aren't much better if at all.

Illegitimacy may have been an issue back in 1968, but in 2015 it's not. And Crime has, if anything, dropped significantly since it peaked (I can't speak for income).

Jut a thought: what if Nixon was elected in 1960? Nixon was after all prepared to support the Civil Rights movement, and was a stronger politician than Kennedy, so would he face harsher resistance if he made his moves in the 1961-1965 period? Could a Pro-Segregation Democrat like, for example Wallace, gain Democrat Nomination in 1964 (and potentially reverse the Democrat Shift) and get into office in 1964?
 
in general, incomes have been stagnant for the majority of Americans since around 1980

1970, actually

2jFk2s6.png
 
I'm somewhat annoyed by the effort to attach a stigma to illegitimacy or to characterize it as a social ill.

There are people close to me who were born out of wedlock. They're good people. I do not believe that in this modern era, that legitimacy or illegitimacy is meaningful, or that it is a social ill, or symptom of some personal or cultural or ethnic moral decay.

I think the reason why having black illegitimacy is such a big issue is that the fathers don't stick around to support their children, leaving the mother and child to fend for themselves.
 
I might become unkind.

Why? It's the truth. If you go around impregnating women and leaving them with no means of supporting their child, people are gonna look at you negatively.

And I'm not saying it's in the nature of blacks to be deadbeat dads. There are plenty of African-Americans who are responsible fathers, just like there are plenty of whites who are deadbeat dads. It's just that the irresponsible ones get the most attention.
 
Why? It's the truth. If you go around impregnating women and leaving them with no means of supporting their child, people are gonna look at you negatively.

And I'm not saying it's in the nature of blacks to be deadbeat dads. There are plenty of African-Americans who are responsible fathers, just like there are plenty of whites who are deadbeat dads. It's just that the irresponsible ones get the most attention.

Okay, here I am being unkind.

First of all, in this day and age, the connection between illegitimacy and single parenthood is largely nonexistent. This is because of two factors:

1) The emergence and recognition of common law relationships, including long term common law relationships as a societal norm. Essentially, you cannot assume that because a child is born out of wedlock, that this child is in a single parent situation with an absent father.

2) Also significant are the statistics on marital and relationship breakdown. A large proportion of legal marriages end in separation or divorce, creating a situation where many 'legitimate' children end up in single parent households, and may spend most of their childhoods in single parent households.

With respect to parental support and abandonment, I think that if you look at the statistics, there's not a lot of difference, when you factor in income brackets, for males white or black, married or unmarried, paying child support for children that they have abandoned from either one night stands, common law relationships and legal marriages. In fact, the overall rate of deadbeat dads is distressingly high, right across the income brackets.

The ratio of deadbeat dads is much much higher on the bottom income levels. Among other things, this is because at the bottom of the income levels, poor fathers don't have the resources to provide for their children. They don't have spare cash.

Black people, of course, are disproportionately represented at the bottoms of the socioeconomic ladder, so this affects their situation vis a vis deadbeat dads. But they're not significantly worse, and may be somewhat better than whites in the same position.

Now, on top of this, I'm going to throw a couple of socioeconomic ringers.

Believe it or not, our social services system is set up to discourage or disincentivise men from residing with their partners. A man making minimum wage may not be making enough to support himself, much less his family. But if he is living with his girlfriend, and they're in the system as being together, that may be sufficient to disenfranchise the mother from any kind of social support or assistance. So what's the choice for the family? Starve to death on a father's minimum wage job, or remove him from the equation in favour of lousy but non-starvation social assistance. I'm not bullshitting you on this - you can look it up yourself. There's endless stories of poor women having their homes inspected by Welfare Workers to make sure that no man is living there. The welfare system is set up to FUCK poor people, and well meaning or not, it is actively toxic to family units.

There's also the war on drugs, and the justice system, which results in blacks being disproportionately arrested and criminalized. The statistics there are frightening. But it has major impacts on the employability of those who get caught up in the criminal justice system - they lose jobs because they're in jail, if they're convicted they find barriers to getting jobs, on probation they may have difficulty travelling for work. The result is much higher unemployment rates, lower earning rates, etc. So there's a social disincentive to black men remaining in the family, they can be a drain on the family economy.

To the extent that breakdowns of black family structure, or black single parent households, or a lack of male support for black families are a social problem, it's a fuck of a lot more complex and nuanced than whinging about black illegitimacy rates. It has the effect of pointing fingers in the wrong places and at the wrong things, and it's actively counterproductive in actually understanding what's going on, much less dealing with it. It's basically colour-blind racism, as counterintuitive as that phrase is. It's 19th century moralising transposed where it doesn't belong.

But these are side issues, because as I've pointed out there's no goddammed relationship between illegitimacy and single parent housholds, and there's no goddammed relationship between illegitimacy and deadbeat dads. It's a giant red herring.


Edit: Forgive my rudeness, there are personal dimensions to this which give me insights into both illegitimacy and the peculiar destructive effects of both poverty and of programs intended to support the poor, or at least support poverty. It's hard for me to be dispassionate. If you feel my treatment of you was derotagory, then I will apologize.
 
Last edited:
Okay, here I am being unkind.

<snip>

there's no goddammed relationship between illegitimacy and single parent housholds, and there's no goddammed relationship between illegitimacy and deadbeat dads. It's a giant red herring.

Not just that, but much of the attribution from teh 60s-80s about poor blacks inner neighborhoods decending from working class to ajbect poverty has more to do with the closing of factories and the moving of jobs away from those areas. We're seeing it repeated now amongst poor whites in rural areas and small tows. Exploding drug problems (Meth, Heroin in rural areas now. Crack in the 80s), more out-of-wedlock children, staggering divorce rates, and other 'family values' breaking down in rural white neighborhoods today.

It won't stop accusations about 'those people' being 'lazy' but its really economic opportunity drying up, and nothing to do with moral character or supposed racial proclivities.

Krugman had a recent blog post on it, but my attempts to find it dragged me to some scary racist sites instead. since I'm at work, I'm not going to dig any deeper.
 
Top