Teddy Roosevelt desegregates USArmy in WWI?

Does Teddy do any of these things when he's actually President? ...

TR attempted to suppress Lynching, but got nothing effective in terms of legislation or legal action by the US Attorney General. To many politicians had a interest in terrorizing African Americans, or other ethnic groups into economic subservience.
 
So could a third term TR get a better AG? Who are some good candidates on that front that could conceivably get the job.
 
For example: We had desegregation of the army, and about 15 years after that came the Civil Rights Act. If desegregation of the army happened circa 1920, would it be reasonable to have a Civil Rights Act by roughly 1935?
I'd say generally yes, simply adding that it's a pretty broad range, any time between 5 and 25 years.

There was in fact a 1957 civil rights act, but it required individual African-American citizens to bring lawsuits of deprival of voting rights. Which of course would be long odds, dangerous, and in the final analysis, probably not worth it. My college government textbook said that pro-segregation southerns had deliberatively watered down this act.

There was another civil rights act around 1960(?) which I don't really know much about.

And then we basically got it right with the 1965 Voting Rights Act where the Justice Department could bring court cases on broad patterns of denying the right to vote.

And of course there were other civil rights acts, the famous 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed by Congress in 1962 and ratified by three-fourths of the states by Jan. '64, which banned poll taxes for federal elections; and I'm pretty sure other legislation as well, such as the Fair Housing Act, etc.
 
Last edited:
Does Teddy do any of these things when he's actually President? Certainly doesn't desegregate the army- which could be done by the President unilaterally and didn't require Congressional approval

Unfortunately that means it could be just as easily reversed by his successors.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Unfortunately that means it could be just as easily reversed by his successors.

Much as, for instance, segregation was implemented by Wilson and his Cabinet, including in Josephus Daniels's Navy.

When the Democrats began instituting segregation, it was only partly (mostly) out of racism -- it was also an effort to reduce the power of the Republican Party's appointees and hires, as the Republican Party had selected African-Americans for a number of positions. Of course, why were African-Americans overwhelmingly in favor of the Republican party at the time and being rewarded for their loyalty? Because the Democrats in the South were overwhelmingly populated by racists of the most vile stripe. Still, there was motive based on political as well as racial animus, and there's only limited reason to believe that a Democrat elected in 1916 or 1920 might not do the same that Wilson did OTL.

All of that being said: assuming Roosevelt wants to integrate the US military, and can find Secretaries of the Army and Navy who with him are willing to sack officers, face down Congressional panels, and even cope with Congress potential playing with the military budgets in backlash -- see, for instance, how Senator Tillman fought against naval appropriations in retaliation against Roosevelt's racial policies during the first two terms of Roosevelt's office -- he might be able to force it through, and he might even manage to keep it so long enough that a successor won't be able to easily undo it.

It'd be tricky, though. Definitely tricky.
 
So we could have Charles Young being sent to Europe by President Roosevelt. Due to his experience he'll probably be promoted to Brigadier General which also means that we will see him in charge of some white as well as black troops.

Who would be a good pick for an Attorney General that could crack down on lynching?

Charles Bonaparte (pro-women's education, trust buster)
Charles Custis (Minority whip, once proposed a Civil Rights act)
Henry Cabot Lodge (Pro-civil rights, good friend of TR)

What appointments could TR make to the Supreme Court that would allow an equivalent of Brown v Board of Education to happen in the 20s?
 
Could/would Teddy Roosevelt want to / be able to desegregate the United States military in any meaningful fashion during the First World War?
No.
While it does seem unlikely, Roosevelt is intensely popular and has a very forceful personality. He also invited (IIRC) Booker T. Washington to the White House during his OTL term as President...
Part of racism is the devaluation of African Americans as lazy, barbaric, etc.

I've seen a letter from Roosevelt circa 1914, in which he states that formal democracy is impossible in the Deep South... because there are too many blacks there. Like most Republicans of the day, he welcomed black voting in the North (always for Republicans). But there were only a few blacks in the North; they couldn't screw things up. In the Deep South, they were majorities in many counties and in two states (IIRC).

He might allow blacks to serve in combat units without restriction; there is no way he would support mixed-race units or blacks as commissioned officers.
 
No.

I've seen a letter from Roosevelt circa 1914, in which he states that formal democracy is impossible in the Deep South... because there are too many blacks there. Like most Republicans of the day, he welcomed black voting in the North (always for Republicans). But there were only a few blacks in the North; they couldn't screw things up. In the Deep South, they were majorities in many counties and in two states (IIRC).

He might allow blacks to serve in combat units without restriction; there is no way he would support mixed-race units or blacks as commissioned officers.

Are you saying Blacks in the South were not Republicans? I'm pretty sure they were and it would have helped the Republicans if they were allowed to vote. I'll take your word on Teddy's view of formal democracy in the South, however your reasoning of what Blacks voted in the North and South is not accurate. Blacks voted Republican, and would until about the 1940s or 50s.
 
Lots, actually. Enough that the Indiana Nat. Guard fought a lynch mob, TR was very disturbed at the situation (lynching) in general, and thousands if not millions of African Americans migrated from the South to the North.



So the actual number of lynchings is not known? And the national guard fighting -a- lynch mob doesn't say anything beyond the one incident. Why did they get involved in that particular lynching? Were lynchings so regular in Indiana the guard knew when to show up? Lynching sucks, and one is too many and yada-yada-yada. About the migration of black folk to the north, I've read that was more economic, plenty of white folk went north, too. The south was recovering from 1865 and was weak economically for generations, and the big industries (cars/steel etc) were sucking in huge numbers of workers.
 
So the actual number of lynchings is not known? And the national guard fighting -a- lynch mob doesn't say anything beyond the one incident. Why did they get involved in that particular lynching? Were lynchings so regular in Indiana the guard knew when to show up? Lynching sucks, and one is too many and yada-yada-yada. About the migration of black folk to the north, I've read that was more economic, plenty of white folk went north, too. The south was recovering from 1865 and was weak economically for generations, and the big industries (cars/steel etc) were sucking in huge numbers of workers.
Google is your friend. Hundreds if not thousands of lynching.
 
Are you saying Blacks in the South were not Republicans? I'm pretty sure they were and it would have helped the Republicans if they were allowed to vote. I'll take your word on Teddy's view of formal democracy in the South, however your reasoning of what Blacks voted in the North and South is not accurate. Blacks voted Republican, and would until about the 1940s or 50s.

Blacks in the South were almost uniformly Republican until after WW II. But between 1900 and the 1960s, they couldn't vote. (Note: black voting did not shut down completely after 1876. There was a long and gallant rear-guard action; black Republicans were elected as U.S. Representatives here and there, right up to 1898, and other blacks won state legislative seats. (I have no records how many and when, but there were some.)

(Also, In Memphis, blacks voted under the control of Boss E. J. Crump, a Democrat. This started no later than the 1920s, and possibly in the 1910s.)

But that wasn't the issue. In Roosevelt's time, the "Tragic Era" version of Reconstruction history had been universally accepted. That is, during Reconstruction, blacks had voted - but being stupid and ignorant, were easily gulled into electing extremely corrupt white "Carpetbaggers" and "Scalawags" to state and local offices; also some corrupt and debauched blacks. Klan terrorism was depicted by Southern writers, and in the Democrat national press, as a struggle to "redeem" the South from this oppression.

There were some notorious incidents of corruption among the Reconstruction-era Republican officials, also heavily publicized. It is worth noting that in 1872, Horace Greeley, a would-be reformer, bolted the Republican Party in protest over the corruption of the Grant administration, and then accepted the support of the Democrats including the Southern "Redeemers".

By 1900, this was "old news". It was also clear that white Southerners would never accept black voting again. It was not because of any help it might be to Republicans nationally (black votes could carry at most only South Carolina). It was because blacks were majorities in many counties, and would control local government, including law enforcement. So there wasn't really anything for national Republicans to gain from black voting in the South, and most had accepted the idea that black Republican majorities would be an embarassment, as allegedly in the 1870s.
 
Last edited:
So the actual number of lynchings is not known?
The number of lynchings is documented. It was recorded by the Justice Department, and reported by the Census Bureau in the Statistical Abstract.

See below. Table is from Historical Statistics of th United States: Colonial Times to 1970, page 422.

lynch.jpg

lynch.jpg
 
Top