The Divided States of America -- An Alternate History Setting

Hello there!

I've been a big fan of alternate histories (I love The Man in the High Castle), though I've never really created one myself. That said, I'm working on a roleplay setting set in an alternate history where a second American Civil War had been fought somewhere around the 60's and 70's, and had resulted in the USA fracturing into a number of nation-states. Here is the basic concept I have, so far:

-- Instead of Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK chooses "an until-then-unknown politician several years his senior" as his running mate. After JFK's assassination, his Vice President succeeds him. This is the main point of divergence.

-- JFK's successor pledges to guide America into becoming a nation free of injustice, and also moves for a policy of friendliness toward the USSR and Maoist China. This being the McCarthy-era, of course, results in accusations from certain elements within American society that the President is secretly a Communist, or, at worst, an agent of the Soviet Union.

-- The Civil Rights Act is passed, with a modification that forced white communities to pay taxes to improve the quality of life of America's non-white communities. This sparked outrage, particularly in the southern states, and many white communities in the South refuse to pay the new taxes, calling them "reparations."

-- The protests were dealt with, more often than not, quite harshly, and had resulted in the formation of certain political groups in the South that were opposed to the so-called "Reparations Act," as the Civil Rights Act had been nicknamed. Many of these groups begin to arm themselves.

-- After the President's re-election, the federal government lobbied for stricter gun control in response to the rise of the so-called militias, which many lobbyists and senators within said government then condemned as unconstitutional. Regardless of the government's success in bringing stricter gun control into law, the militias continued to arm themselves. Fearing for the stability of the country, the President eventually called for the National Guard to deal with the militias that were coming out of the woodwork.

-- Attempts to deal with the militias in the South and elsewhere across America result in heavy bloodshed, as they were better armed than first realised. Meanwhile, several states (mostly concentrated in the South) begin to assert their authority over the federal government in their regions, so they could abolish laws that they did not support.

-- Seeing a repeat of history, the President and his government attempt to reassert federal authority, by force if necessary, a political decision that would eventually lead to a second American Civil War.

-- Fast forward to current year, and decades since the end of ACWII the United States as we knew it has broken into several independent nation-states. The USA still exists in some form, albeit as a rump state that is basically just Washington DC and the parts of Maryland and Virginia that it still controls. As for the other 'Divided States,' I've yet to really decide on the details, but I was thinking that there is a successor to the old CSA, a Republic of Texas, perhaps a Deseret-like nation and a military dictatorship based on the east coast.

And that's all I have so far. Nothing is set in stone about this AH, so I would love to hear some advice from you guys. Does any of it make any sense? Was there a real-life politician that better fit the bill as JFK's successor, or could I get away with using a fictional character? What advice could you give me on how my ideas for the Divided States come to be?

I look forward to hearing your feedback and your suggestions. :)
 
I think Claude Pepper would fit the bill of your desired controversial President, at least if you keep his late 1940's-early 1950's left-leaning stance going on longer and keep him in the Senate.

The part about the reparations sounds a bit far-fetched and IMO probably would get killed in Congress, but I could be wrong.
 
I think that there is not a single way possible to make your Pepper or whoever you have president last his caretaker term if he tried to force reparations, since that goes even beyond bussing, which in itself was not liked in much of the country at the time and a good way to struggle with votes.

Honestly, a better timeline would be no progressive movement successes by having McKinley finish his second term and then keep the President's fairly conservative for the most part until a great depression. Then have a situation like reds spliced with your own ideas where a failed socialist revolution breaks the country since the Soviets and UK back states respectively. That may be because I don't think a civil war is really viable after that point though.
 
Thank you for the feedback and the advice, it's greatly appreciated. And in hindsight, I think that you both might be right about the whole reparations thing. If you could indulge me for a little bit longer?

Assuming that Pepper is President 36 in this DSA timeline, what policies could his government enact that would force politicians, militia groups and the like to oppose federal authority?

Assuming that McKinley takes JFK's place, what would be the best/quickest way for events to lead to this great depression and the failed socialist revolution?

In addition, what is the likelihood of a Soviet takeover of Alaska, as a result of either direction the AH takes? Personally, I don't think it's all that likely considering the second the USSR sets foot on American soil, whatever troubles the USA have until that point is going to be put to the side. But the rest of you guys are more of an AH expert than I am, so I would love to hear what you have to say.
 
Last edited:
I think that there is not a single way possible to make your Pepper or whoever you have president last his caretaker term if he tried to force reparations, since that goes even beyond bussing, which in itself was not liked in much of the country at the time and a good way to struggle with votes.

Honestly, a better timeline would be no progressive movement successes by having McKinley finish his second term and then keep the President's fairly conservative for the most part until a great depression. Then have a situation like reds spliced with your own ideas where a failed socialist revolution breaks the country since the Soviets and UK back states respectively. That may be because I don't think a civil war is really viable after that point though.
The funny part people in US still often hate busing and a lot of that is currently get gutted in south.
 
Personally I think the changes you’ve suggested to the CRA would be a poison pill. There’s be enough Northerners who would oppose such a measure that it would kill the legislation. It might never even get out of committee with such an amendment.

Edit: in fact, to me, forcing white communities to pay what amounts to reparations to non-white communities as part of the CRA is exactly the kind of thing that a Southern Conservative would insert into the bill specifically to kill it.
 
Thank you for the feedback and the advice, it's greatly appreciated. And in hindsight, I think that you both might be right about the whole reparations thing. If you could indulge me for a little bit longer?

Assuming that Pepper is President 36 in this DSA timeline, what policies could his government enact that would force politicians, militia groups and the like to oppose federal authority?

Assuming that McKinley takes JFK's place, what would be the best/quickest way for events to lead to this great depression and the failed socialist revolution?

In addition, what is the likelihood of a Soviet takeover of Alaska, as a result of either direction the AH takes? Personally, I don't think it's all that likely considering the second the USSR sets foot on American soil, whatever troubles the USA have until that point is going to be put to the side. But the rest of you guys are more of an AH expert than I am, so I would love to hear what you have to say.
Oh no, I said that your POD should be further back. Like 1901 back. Having a lot less reform and social programs (ie bread and circuses) are great ways to forment instability and revolution. Then have a bust in the 20s and drag it out a bit, socialist revolt kick in by the 30s, have it partially fail or scar the nation, and then scoot the collapsing in the 40s or 50s.

I just don't see your timeframe working too well.
 
Top