Genocide in Deep South 1890-1910

Is there any way that, during the turn of the 19th-20th C, genocide could have been orchestrated against blacks in 1 or more states of the Deep South under the likes of such virulent racist demagogues as James K. Vardaman of Ms ? Given the level of racism at that time thruout virtually the entire US, and the OTL failure to combat Jim Crow such as the non-eventuation of any anti-lynching legislation at the federal level, would the federal govt have taken any action against such overt plans and actions to exterminate black ppl along similar lines as the systematic atrocities on the scale of pogroms and mass killings committed in other places like Russia (against the Jews), Turkey (againts the Armenians), or South-West Africa (against the Herrero-Nama) ? Could Vardaman et al have begun what Featherstone does in TL-191 thru pogroms and mass lynchings right up to concentration camps ?
 
Not really. The USA was busy finishing up the genocide against the indigenous inhabitants. Theer was not so much hostility towards blacks among the general population as fear of them acting out of place. Southern culture of the time was somewhat Victorian where one was expected to act as appropriate to their station. Unfortunately for Blacks this did not allow for social mobility.

Though it is current to call the actions in SW Africa as genocide. If this is included one should also include the Israeli slaughter of Palestineans and the US sanctions againstt Iraq which resulted in thew deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children.
 
Actual genocide was unlikely because the dominant class liked having an ultra cheap ;abour force- and also to divide the less well off majority on racial grounds.
 
Is there any way that, during the turn of the 19th-20th C, genocide could have been orchestrated against blacks in 1 or more states of the Deep South under the likes of such virulent racist demagogues as James K. Vardaman of Ms ? Given the level of racism at that time thruout virtually the entire US, and the OTL failure to combat Jim Crow such as the non-eventuation of any anti-lynching legislation at the federal level, would the federal govt have taken any action against such overt plans and actions to exterminate black ppl along similar lines as the systematic atrocities on the scale of pogroms and mass killings committed in other places like Russia (against the Jews), Turkey (againts the Armenians), or South-West Africa (against the Herrero-Nama) ? Could Vardaman et al have begun what Featherstone does in TL-191 thru pogroms and mass lynchings right up to concentration camps ?

Why would they even want to do this? Jim Crow wasn't genocide, and would never have advanced to genocide. Black people were too important to the economic structure of the post-war South as a labor force, and fear of black people was used politically as a means to keep the poor whites on the side of the rich whites who exploited the cheap black labor. Those in power at the time had ZERO incentive to sanction mass killings. Small scale lynchings to keep "the uppity ones" in line and give the poor whites an outlet for their hatred? Sure. Genocide? No.

About the only way something like this would be remotely possible would be if a full-on race war broke out....say a huge black rebellion on the lines of the one in TL-191. And since the Southern blacks had a pressure valve in the form of migration North, that was about as likely as the sun not rising.
 
Well, we're looking at populations with a white majority ranging from two-thirds to near-parity, and in some areas a black majority. And these were areas where black labor was vital to the primarily agricultural economy.

It's impossible to practice genocide in those areas without destroying the local economies completely. Even racist fanatics aren't that stupid, usually. And there's no way for them to industrialize the process without massive outside assistance. Which is profoundly improbable to the point of lunacy.

You're much more likely to engineer some form of slavery-in-all-but-name. Somewhere between OTL Jim Crow and the Nazi plans for the colonization of the East - mass sterilizations and destructive-labor programs designed to work whole populations into the grave.

You probably need a POD well before 1850, if not before 1800, before you could make even that happen. An earlier, smaller CSA, plus a couple of really large, horrific slave uprisings, plus earlier mechanized agriculture, plus unusual quiet from the USA and Great Britain, and even then it's not real likely.

So no.
 
I don't think you can say it is "impossible". You can't always predict such things by saying it isn't in people's interests. The same thing could have been said about much of the ww2 killings.
 
Is there any way that, during the turn of the 19th-20th C, genocide could have been orchestrated against blacks in 1 or more states of the Deep South under the likes of such virulent racist demagogues as James K. Vardaman of Ms ?
It depends on meaning of the term genocide. There was at least one genocide against country's majority - Burundian one of 1972. But it necessarily was very limited, targeted and partial genocide - Tutsi army killed, first of all, educated and/or militarily trained Hutu. Some uneducated Hutu were killed too, although such actions were not authorized by Burundian Tutsi-controlled government.
Was such limited genocide possible in the post-Reconstruction South? I think so. Moreover, lynchings of the uppity niggers could be construed as the first stage of the Burundian-style targeted killings.
 
I should add I don't believe such genocide would be successful: after several thousand Blacks murdered, the Federal government under pressure of the (Northern) public outcry would intervene and stop killings. Some murderers would be arrested, tried and, maybe, even executed. There would be talk about the Reconstruction Version 2.0, real civil rights for the Blacks and so on.
 
Though I don't see any real "legit" orchestration, you could pin a much more militant and widespread KKK campaign of lynching...
 
No, impossible is a pretty good word for it.

Hmm. Technically, OP didn't specify a POD, just a time period when the genocide had to take place. Set the POD at 1700 or so, and it becomes much more probable. :D

This is what the demographics of the South look like today, and you have to remember that this is after many generations of blacks moving all around the country post-slavery.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

Purple ones are counties with a black majority.

You're misinterpreting the map. Purple ones don't have a black majority. They have a black plurality with different white backgrounds separated. There might be more blacks than Germans, Italians, Russians, English, "Americans," etc, but if you combine them, their are much fewer counties with a black majority.

Any attempt at genocide would just lead to an uprising of some sort, an uprising the whites probably couldn't beat.

Nah. It really depends on what the federal government feels about it. I'm going to guess that they're not going to want African American guerrillas running around. If the blacks decided to declare the Carolinas "The Republic of New Africa" or something, the federal gov't would come down on it hard. Given that few blacks had training with weaponry, and the African American base wasn't exactly wealthy, the only advantage the blacks would have would be numbers, and even then only in certain counties. Since the states are genociding already, what you'd see is state militias coming in and just slaughtering any blacks they see, regardless of whether they assisted the uprising or not. State militias vs black uprising would be a toss-up (blacks have slightly more numbers in some states and nice geurrilla territory, whites have money, equipment, and a much better trained military), but if you throw the US Army in, the blacks are pretty much screwed outside of minor geurrilla groups.
 
Why would they even want to do this? Jim Crow wasn't genocide, and would never have advanced to genocide. Black people were too important to the economic structure of the post-war South as a labor force, and fear of black people was used politically as a means to keep the poor whites on the side of the rich whites who exploited the cheap black labor. Those in power at the time had ZERO incentive to sanction mass killings. Small scale lynchings to keep "the uppity ones" in line and give the poor whites an outlet for their hatred? Sure. Genocide? No.

About the only way something like this would be remotely possible would be if a full-on race war broke out....say a huge black rebellion on the lines of the one in TL-191. And since the Southern blacks had a pressure valve in the form of migration North, that was about as likely as the sun not rising.
Who Says it wasn't a Genocide ...

MILLIONS of People Died during The Lynching Years, Mostly for Simply Trying to Vote ...

And How Much Government Sanction do you Think it had?
 
A simple Wiki search puts the toll as "Between 1882 and 1968 the Tuskegee Institute recorded 3,437 lynchings of African Americans and 1,293 lynchings of whites.[1] " far short of a "millions".

And Zaphod just lost all credibility.
I'd Heard Higher Figures, Forgive The Intrusion ...

However, I was Also Taking into Account, Cases that don't Fit The Simple Lynching Motif ...

When a Local Court Issues a Death Sentence to an Innocent Man, What is that Called?
 
I'd Heard Higher Figures, Forgive The Intrusion ...

However, I was Also Taking into Account, Cases that don't Fit The Simple Lynching Motif ...

When a Local Court Issues a Death Sentence to an Innocent Man, What is that Called?

Given that the number of people executed by the judicial systems in the United States has never been much higher than 300 people a year, and in most of the 19th and early 20th centuries about half that, even combining these executions with the lynching statistics doesn't give you anywhere close to even 10,000 people. And this is assuming that EVERY death sentence imposed by EVERY court ANYWHERE in the United States was an innocent black person being convicted and sentenced solely because he was black.

There is simply no basis for your claim that "millions" of blacks were killed during the Jim Crow years.
 
A simple Wiki search puts the toll as "Between 1882 and 1968 the Tuskegee Institute recorded 3,437 lynchings of African Americans and 1,293 lynchings of whites.[1] " far short of a "millions".

It should also be pointed out that those are national statistics, not just for the Southern States. While the great majority of lynchings of blacks did occur in the South during that period, there were quite a few which took place outside the South as well.
 
Given that the number of people executed by the judicial systems in the United States has never been much higher than 300 people a year, and in most of the 19th and early 20th centuries about half that, even combining these executions with the lynching statistics doesn't give you anywhere close to even 10,000 people. And this is assuming that EVERY death sentence imposed by EVERY court ANYWHERE in the United States was an innocent black person being convicted and sentenced solely because he was black.

There is simply no basis for your claim that "millions" of blacks were killed during the Jim Crow years.
Point Taken ...

Note to Self ...

Do NOT Try to Substitute Good Research, with Hyperbole!
 
Last edited:
As to Genocide in the South

Personally, I don't see this happening. Yes, white on black crimes occurred, such as lynchings, but they weren't representative of the white population in general just like blacks committing crimes against whites were not representative of all blacks. The only way something like this could happen is if you had a Hitler like person in power in Southern politics (remember, this Hitler like person could be in power in the North too!) and for one section of the country to have sat back on its haunches and did nothing.
 
Top