N/A

katchen

Banned
037771 said:
*SNIP*
Click to expand...
Thurmond has not yet crossed the aisle to join the Republican Party. IOTL, that won't happen until 1964.
I more or less take back what I said earlier. But Senator Richard Russell is going to be the key to preventing a national nightmare. Russell has seen that FBI file that shows that the Republican near majority is the product of massive violations of the Hatch Act. And he will know that if the Republicans suddenly lose their enthusiasm for passage of the Civil Rights Act, that the threat of exposure and Nixon's need to cover that threat up is the reason why.
The one thing that you have not told us is what kind of Republicans just got elected in 1962. Are they liberal Republicans or are they conservative Goldwater Republicans?
Russell is going to be on the horns of a dilemma. He has to know that the Klan, by provoking African-Americans to violence has found an almost certain way to get control of the media spin on civil rights and provoke a white backlash in the North as well as the South if the situation can be sustained beyond Natchez. This is, after all the way that terrorism works.
But the cost to America's standing abroad will be horrific. A United States that defends rather than dismantles segregation at home will be a United States that is aligned with apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia and Sixth Republic France against the liberal NATO democracies. At a time when the USSR under Shelepin is becoming more aggressive, such a United States will be playing into the USSR's hands while America's allies may be more and more inclined to "finlandize" ie. withdraw from NATO in return for guarantees that the USSR will not attack or interfere with their political system. And this may include Great Britain and Canada.
Nixon has to weigh the temptation to go along with this blackmail. Some very conservative Southern Senators may cross the aisle and deliver Nixon a Republican majority if he goes along with this. Not only Strom Thurmond. All they would need is assurance that they would keep their Senate seniority and commitee chairmanships in the Republican caucus. And the same would hold true in the House. And if that occurred, the chance of a successful impeachment would fall to near zero.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

katchen said:
Thurmond has not yet crossed the aisle to join the Republican Party. IOTL, that won't happen until 1964.
I more or less take back what I said earlier. But Senator Richard Russell is going to be the key to preventing a national nightmare. Russell has seen that FBI file that shows that the Republican near majority is the product of massive violations of the Hatch Act. And he will know that if the Republicans suddenly lose their enthusiasm for passage of the Civil Rights Act, that the threat of exposure and Nixon's need to cover that threat up is the reason why.
The one thing that you have not told us is what kind of Republicans just got elected in 1962. Are they liberal Republicans or are they conservative Goldwater Republicans?
Russell is going to be on the horns of a dilemma. He has to know that the Klan, by provoking African-Americans to violence has found an almost certain way to get control of the media spin on civil rights and provoke a white backlash in the North as well as the South if the situation can be sustained beyond Natchez. This is, after all the way that terrorism works.
But the cost to America's standing abroad will be horrific. A United States that defends rather than dismantles segregation at home will be a United States that is aligned with apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia and Sixth Republic France against the liberal NATO democracies. At a time when the USSR under Shelepin is becoming more aggressive, such a United States will be playing into the USSR's hands while America's allies may be more and more inclined to "finlandize" ie. withdraw from NATO in return for guarantees that the USSR will not attack or interfere with their political system. And this may include Great Britain and Canada.
Nixon has to weigh the temptation to go along with this blackmail. Some very conservative Southern Senators may cross the aisle and deliver Nixon a Republican majority if he goes along with this. Not only Strom Thurmond. All they would need is assurance that they would keep their Senate seniority and commitee chairmanships in the Republican caucus. And the same would hold true in the House. And if that occurred, the chance of a successful impeachment would fall to near zero.
Click to expand...

Could you please replace your quote with a *Snip*?
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

I don't know if I mentioned this previously, but one of the important things Bob Dylan did for a generation (and then after) of singers and groups was to show that you did not need to have a perfect voice to be a singer; that you could in fact have a bad voice or an odd voice, but still use singing as a way to express something and express yourself. And you could argue that his influence goes beyond singing, to doing anything musically as a means of expression even if it's off beat or bad. So I drop that tidbit here for your use. He's probably not alone in that regard of non-singing musical influence, but I don't know what other influences there would be in regards to singing.
 
MasterSanders

MasterSanders

037771 said:
EDIT:
Sorry about not replying sooner, I accidentally overlooked your question. To date I have not mentioned their relationship, which I think has been rather silly of me. However, I've sought to make amends recently by buying Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South by Steven P. Miller, so that I can tackle the evolution of Graham and evangelical Christianity in America ITTL.
Click to expand...

No problem. Still, I think you'll find that their relationship was interesting. I also recommend The Preacher and the Presidents as well.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

MasterSanders said:
No problem. Still, I think you'll find that their relationship was interesting. I also recommend The Preacher and the Presidents as well.
Click to expand...

...which includes the whacky fact that Billy Graham was pressured by a certain number of right wing interests (and rich persons) to run for the Republican nomination in 1964. And that he considered it. And he didn't run because his wife said she would leave him if he ran. (And there's the fact that he was projected to be absolutely decimated against Kennedy in the general election, even worse than Goldwater was against LBJ I believe).

A scenario that was planned in spirit for my own future timeline when "Strange Days" was still called "The Darkness and the Light" and would end in 1969. Billy Graham would have been the nominee in 1968 and president in 1969. (The Darkness being Smathers and the Light being Billy Graham, and the timeline potentially focusing on Billy Graham as the center piece). That has been many, many, many revisions left behind in the dust. It was too out there.
 
MasterSanders

MasterSanders

Emperor Norton I said:
A scenario that was planned in spirit for my own future timeline when "Strange Days" was still called "The Darkness and the Light" and would end in 1969. Billy Graham would have been the nominee in 1968 and president in 1969. (The Darkness being Smathers and the Light being Billy Graham, and the timeline potentially focusing on Billy Graham as the center piece). That has been many, many, many revisions left behind in the dust. It was too out there.
Click to expand...

I would read that TL.

As for it being "too out there," no TL is that. Butterfly license, man.;)
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

037771 said:
I'd love to see that poll, if you have a link to it. IIRC, Kennedy was a bit cautious when it came to facing off against an overtly religious opponent, in his case George Romney after he made a few statements giving that impression. There might be a tape of him talking about it with Bobby, but I can't honestly recall. It was certainly in the Dallek bio.
Click to expand...

The most I have is the quoted passage from the book I put in a post years ago.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=3105054&postcount=7

By the way, if you want to hear criticism of Graham, I do know Christopher Hitchens discussed him. You may not agree with what he said, but it is interesting as a set of ideas opposing to the status quo of praise.

Well it's not such an unorthodox choice if you consider the mistakes Smathers would likely make in office over, say, Vietnam and Civil Rights (the latter especially, given Graham's position on the issue.)
Click to expand...
MasterSanders said:
I would read that TL.

As for it being "too out there," no TL is that. Butterfly license, man.;)
Click to expand...

It's just too out there for what the vibe is now, and I've developed in my maturity (or perceived maturity) concerning alternate history since then to where I don't think it will work for what I want. I do have a number of personal AH rules for writing, and one of them is to take an idea and then put it through a filter of the mundane and real life normality and complexity. Because you'll always make it a movie version in your head, so if you filter it through that, you come out with something that isn't necessarily mundane, but is grounded in realism and how that would really turn out, and it takes on the complexities of the real world.

The Graham idea will be among what is essentially mulch for "Strange Days", meaning it's among a massive supply of ideas that were in previous drafts but I threw out, and which will be seen in the timeline in the form of "could happens" in the way the narrative is written. That happens in real life all the time, being that you see things that almost were or were going to be tried, even for a second, and then fail or aren't even anything at all in the end. It'll round out a living universe.
And like mulch, new ideas grow out of it, and it constantly recycles. And you have all the subconscious memories of previous ideas that build up a bulky narrative and lend to other ideas.

(Apologies if that was a fair bit rambling).
 
Last edited:
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Another tidbit:

Another alias Robert Zimmermann used (aka, Bob Dylan) was Elston Gunn. I believe that was the name before he went with 'Bob Dylan'.

http://expectingrain.com/dok/who/g/gunnnelston.html

Also, David Bowie's real name is David Jones. He was in a number of groups under his real name or Davie Jones (which didn't go anywhere, and he kept jumping ship). The Monkees saw to his name change, and he chose Bowie after Jim Bowie, although Jim Bowie's name was not pronounced the way David Bowie pronounces his.

And without the Beatles, you probably do not have a Monkees. (You could have something comparable, but certainly not what the Monkees were, which was a Beatles inspired band). And without the Monkees, unless Davy Jones makes it some other way, you affect David Bowie. And you also have the butterflies of Bowie's entire career, as he did fail to make it big, still failed to make it big with his first album in 1967, and only made it with his second (still self titled) album in 1969.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

As a general thing for anyone (which is why I didn't just PM you, Mr 037771), there is a series of videos on youtube called "Reflections of [Insert a Year]" which is very helpful if you are interested in music alternate histories and want a shot gun blast of information to go off of. It's about under 100 per video (I think) of the major songs of that year in snippet form. So it'll help you get an idea of the sound of the year (partially) and will show who to investigate (partially).
 
Andrew T

Andrew T

037771, it's taken me a while to get through this TL, but I have to say: I think it's incredibly well-done. As a huge Caro fan myself, I really appreciate your efforts to emulate his style.

Anyway, I don't have anything substantive, other than congratulations on a job well done (if still, thankfully, ongoing).
 
DanMcCollum

DanMcCollum

Emperor Norton I said:
Another tidbit:

Another alias Robert Zimmermann used (aka, Bob Dylan) was Elston Gunn. I believe that was the name before he went with 'Bob Dylan'.

http://expectingrain.com/dok/who/g/gunnnelston.html

Also, David Bowie's real name is David Jones. He was in a number of groups .
Click to expand...

Elston Gunnn, actually, with three n's. He used it during the summer of '59 when he moved to Fargo and played (tambourine, mostly) for Bobby Vee. He only stuck with it for about a year, I believe, before moving to the Twin Cities becoming immersed in the folk scene and becoming the Bob Dylan we all know and love today :)

On a side note, although before the POD, Bobby Vee only got his start because he was asked to play at the Surf Ballroom in Moorhead Minnesota (across the river from Fargo) after news of Buddy Holly, Valens and the Big Bopper's death. The trio were headed to Moorhead for a show when their plane went down, and a Vee went on stage in their stead, launching his own career in the process.
 
St. Just

St. Just

I also have a question- how is George Carlin doing ATL? He's probably my favorite comedian, with Mel Brooks coming second.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

037771, I've been meaning to ask, were you the one that bought the $16 copy of "Testing the Limits: George Armistead Smathers and the Cold War" a while ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top