No Segregation

Much better. Black Americans would have a 100-year head start compared to OTL and would be in better economic shape overall due to building up generational wealth. The underlying attitudes would have eroded instead of being reinforced from 1865-1965.
 
How do you avoid introducing them?

Churches (pretty important in those days) are certain to be segregated, as few Freedmen will be interested in joining one which is run by their former masters or, even worse, by their former overseers. So they'll either set up their own or else affiliate to the Northern branches of their denomination. And if churches are "segregated" so will quite a bit of education be.
 
How do you avoid introducing them?

Churches (pretty important in those days) are certain to be segregated, as few Freedmen will be interested in joining one which is run by their former masters or, even worse, by their former overseers. So they'll either set up their own or else affiliate to the Northern branches of their denomination. And if churches are "segregated" so will quite a bit of education be.

Doesn't mean the government has to force people to segregate.
 
It would be like the North all around. Problem being that it was the South...which was not like the North. And as bad as Northern racism was, Southern racism was infinitely worse. Hence the laws that were put in place. So it is difficult to imagine them not being put in place if the Southern states and towns are allowed to put them into place. However, federal and state segregation being non existent does not mean there would not be segregation undertaken by private businesses. Even where there was not Jim Crow, prior to civil rights legislation in the middle 20th century, a business owner could deny services to anyone based on race, religion, or gender, or any other issue of birth outside of human control. For example, golf courses and men's clubs were frequently gentile only. And any other business would also often refuse patronage by a person of a race or religion they held bigotry against. "Irish Need Not Apply", etc. If a Black person went into a diner in the North in a White neighborhood, they stood a decent chance of being refused service or made to feel hated if they did get service. It was all a matter of personal behavior by the business owner and workers. They had full discretion to discriminate even when the law did not.
 
It would be like the North all around...Even where there was not Jim Crow, prior to civil rights legislation in the middle 20th century, a business owner could deny services to anyone based on race, religion, or gender, or any other issue of birth outside of human control....

This is, IMO, a feature of rightful liberty as defined by the founders of the U.S. There is a significant difference between gov't forcibly preventing (or mandating) associations, and individuals freely choosing to participate or not, based on whatever characteristics those individuals choose.
 
How do you avoid introducing them?

Segregation as we know it was a side-effect of the early conflicts over Reconstruction, allowing Black Codes (Congressional attempts at remedy notwithstanding) and convict leasing and debt peonage and eventually the rise of Lost Cause mythology (propagated through the state school systems with largely fictional takes on Southern "heritage") all to take systematic hold in the South (and not just the South). Some of this may not have been inevitable: arguably without the distraction of Andrew Johnson's open hostility to former slaves right out of the gate, and the resultant emboldening of the South, the first domino of the Black Codes themselves -- and the resultant resort to military rule over the Rebel States -- might have been averted or better dealt with. One possible way to achieve that might be just to have Lincoln live to serve out his second term, which is hardly implausible, and then have Grant succeed him in the Presidency; this likely gives you a continuous, unified Federal front against attempts by the former Rebs to annull the results of the war by other means.

Whether that really heads off segregation in the long term, though? White supremacism and herrenvolk republicanism is built into the social deixis of the South -- and to an extent of the North, which was distinguished mainly by being capable of other priorities and a bit less openly Spartiate about things -- in a way that would require extremely radical measures for it not to manifest in some form. Even with optimal conditions for Reconstruction I think this basically just defers backlash until a later date.
 
Last edited:
Segregation as we know it was a side-effect of the early conflicts over Reconstruction, allowing Black Codes (Congressional attempts at remedy notwithstanding) and convict leasing and debt peonage and eventually the rise of Lost Cause mythology (propagated through the state school systems with largely fictional takes on Southern "heritage") all to take systematic hold in the South (and not just the South). Some of this may not have been inevitable: arguably without the distraction of Andrew Johnson's open hostility to former slaves right out of the gate, and the resultant emboldening of the South, the fist domino of the Black Codes themselves -- and the resultant resort to military rule over the Rebel States -- might have been averted or better dealt with. One possible way to achieve that might be just to have Lincoln live to serve out his second term, which is hardly implausible, and then have Grant succeed him in the Presidency; this likely gives you a continuous, unified Federal front against attempts by the former Rebs to annull the results of the war by other means.

OTOH, if there are no Black Codes. there will seem less need to grasp the hot potato of black suffrage, so the South may well get readmitted w/o having to give Freedmen (save maybe Union veterans) the vote. In that situation segregation could follow fast enough.


Whether that really heads off segregation in the long term, though? White supremacism and herrenvolk republicanism is built into the social deixis of the South -- and to an extent of the North, which was distinguished mainly by being capable of other priorities and a bit less openly Spartiate about things -- in a way that would require extremely radical measures for it not to manifest in some form. Even with optimal conditions for Reconstruction I think this basically just defers backlash until a later date.

Agreed absolutely - and probably not all that much later either.
 
This is, IMO, a feature of rightful liberty as defined by the founders of the U.S. There is a significant difference between gov't forcibly preventing (or mandating) associations, and individuals freely choosing to participate or not, based on whatever characteristics those individuals choose.

Then don't use public roads, utilities and other services allotted by the community, nor do business with the open public marketplace. In short, do not have a business. You're allowed to have any personal feeling you want. You can have any social feeling you want. You do not have a right to publicly or economically treat individuals unfairly or aggressively unfairly.
 
Then don't use public roads, utilities and other services allotted by the community, nor do business with the open public marketplace. In short, do not have a business. You're allowed to have any personal feeling you want. You can have any social feeling you want. You do not have a right to publicly or economically treat individuals unfairly or aggressively unfairly.

What's the difference between the gov't mandating that I may not (for example) rent my house that I own to a person of a certain race, and the gov't mandating that I must rent that same house to anyone regardless of race?

We're not talking about public services here- we're talking about private commercial transactions. And gov't mandating OR prohibiting private commercial transactions is tyranny.

I'm not saying that the moral choice made by the individual is the same, just that the gov't shouldn't be in the business of enforcing anyone's morality unless the rightful liberty of another is forcibly infringed.
 
This is, IMO, a feature of rightful liberty as defined by the founders of the U.S. There is a significant difference between gov't forcibly preventing (or mandating) associations, and individuals freely choosing to participate or not, based on whatever characteristics those individuals choose.
The "liberty" to practice racism, by the way, isn't a neutral thing. Racism is characteristically one of the guiltiest, most defensive and most habitually aggressive social phenomena in existence. Racists by and large know perfectly well that they are doing wrong by their fellow man -- and what they themselves would do to someone who treated them the way they see fit to treat others -- they've just also decided that the benefits offset the viciousness and shame of it. They will not suffer to be just one "choice" among others when allowed to dominate the public square, American history proves it over and over again. If they are out in public, the rest of the public must and will be forced to abide by their rules. As true of race riots against Black towns and communities in the last century as it is of ICE's suddenly deciding to suspend due process and basic humanity in this one.
 
What's the difference between the gov't mandating that I may not (for example) rent my house that I own to a person of a certain race, and the gov't mandating that I must rent that same house to anyone regardless of race?

We're not talking about public services here- we're talking about private commercial transactions. And gov't mandating OR prohibiting private commercial transactions is tyranny.

I'm not saying that the moral choice made by the individual is the same, just that the gov't shouldn't be in the business of enforcing anyone's morality unless the rightful liberty of another is forcibly infringed.

Arguing in favour of government-allowed discrimination is a matter for political chat.
 
Top