What if "Southern Nationalism" was founded during the Early 20th Century

aspie3000

Banned
There is a fringe political ideology today which was founded in 1994 called Southern Nationalism and represented by an organization called the League of the South. It is absolutely repugnant. It is basically a European style ethnic nationalist ideology which sees Anglo Celtic white southerners as a nation in the sense of the Bible a tribe united by ancestry, race, religion, language, culture, and identity. It basically resurrects the most reactionary and extreme forms of thought from Antebellum southern writings and gains its inspiration from people like Goerge Fitzhugh and Robert Barnwell Rhett and is anti enlightenment and sees hierarchy in race, gender, and social organization as natural and egalitarianism as a anathema. The League of the Souths founder Dr. Michael Hill has said that hes a segregationist and has many times voiced the opinion that blacks are inferior to whites and that Jews are evil Edomite impostors. It is very anti American and sees the United States of America as an evil multicultural empire and generally holds to the lost cause version of history when it comes to the Civil War and southern history which sees the south as a victim of imperialism in the same way Ireland was to the English. They believe that the South is not a part of mainstream American civilization but rather is an extension of the plantation societies of the Caribbean and Latin America. The organization's main goal is for the states that constitute the American South to peacefully secede from the Union and form their own independent nation state.

Of course they will get nowhere in their aims and will not succeed in their goals because most southerners today are not racist, pretty much believe in enlightenment democratic ideals, and follow a version of evangelical Christianity which holds the Jews in a very high regard. Most southerners today would find the ideals of these southern nationalists abhorrent. There's also the fact that the south's distinctiveness and gung ho patriotism about being from the south are (sadly) fading with time and the immigration of hordes of Yankees to the southern states.

However, while these views are anathema to today's southerners I cant help but wonder what would happen if this movement was founded during the early 20th century from 1900 to the end of the civil rights era. Back then the confederate culture of the south was still very strong. Heck, they were all pretty much half way there already. How big could this movement get and would it find any more success back then than it would now?
 
Last edited:
Southern nationalism was basically a thing OTL, just it was never identified as such and only looks obvious if you're looking back over the post-Reconstruction South. "...generally holds to the lost cause version of history when it comes to the Civil War and southern history which sees the south as a victim or imperialism in the same way Ireland was to the English," was a pretty mainstream view by Southern historians and intellectuals at one point. The Lost Cause version of history is of course indisputable in the pre-WWII South. "They believe that the South is not apart of mainstream American civilization but rather is an extension of the plantation societies of the Caribbean and Latin America," is arguably fact, especially regarding pre-Civil War.

But the sort of Southern nationalism you describe is basically like comparing German nationalism to Nazism. I can see the ideology existing earlier and having a similar if not larger following, but it would always be fringe unless something horrible happened to the United States as a whole.
 

aspie3000

Banned
Southern nationalism was basically a thing OTL, just it was never identified as such and only looks obvious if you're looking back over the post-Reconstruction South. "...generally holds to the lost cause version of history when it comes to the Civil War and southern history which sees the south as a victim or imperialism in the same way Ireland was to the English," was a pretty mainstream view by Southern historians and intellectuals at one point. The Lost Cause version of history is of course indisputable in the pre-WWII South. "They believe that the South is not apart of mainstream American civilization but rather is an extension of the plantation societies of the Caribbean and Latin America," is arguably fact, especially regarding pre-Civil War.

But the sort of Southern nationalism you describe is basically like comparing German nationalism to Nazism. I can see the ideology existing earlier and having a similar if not larger following, but it would always be fringe unless something horrible happened to the United States as a whole.

Yeah, there was a kind of southern patriotism and you could even call it a form of nationalism but it didn't really have the ideological depth (for lack of a better word) that the modern League of the South has. Southerners back then were white supremacists, hated Yankees and blacks, believed southerners to be as George Wallace put it, "the greatest people on earth" were still (and kind of still are) resentful and seething one hundred years later from their defeat in the war. However, no one to my knowledge even raised the issue of the Souths nationhood in any sense or ever considered seceding from the United States of America to form their own nation state. Yet paradoxically, I have a feeling that the ideology of Southern Nationalism as stated above would be much more palatable to the people who revived the Klu Klux Klan in the early 20th century or voted for George Wallace in then sixties than to the people of the modern south. I think that the reason that there were no separatist movements back then in the south were because in the cultural climate of the time, simply nobody thought about it and southerners for whatever reason after the war became the most patriotic citizens of the country (and still are). My question is what if somebody did think of it and said, "we aren't Americans, we are defeated Confederates and our way of life can not survive while we are in a union with foreigners." I wonder especially how large such an ideology could get during the civil rights movement as a way to defend segregation. It probably would be a fringe movement, but I wonder if it wouldn't be a bit larger then than it is now. Also, yes the south is an extension of the plantation societies of the old Caribbean just with whites outnumbering blacks and a bunch of Scots Irish influences thrown in which explains much about its history.
 
Last edited:
In the early twentieth century, southern nationalism was pointless--the North was acquiescing in white supremacy, southerners were becoming powerful in national politics, and people like Robert E. Lee were bring admitted to the national pantheon.
 
Dude, Southern nationalism was founded... back in, like, the 1850s. Maybe earlier. There's also versions of it that aren't entirely psychotic. Across states like Tennessee (my home) there's plenty of people who have a sort of lingering resentment towards the Federal government. They don't care enough to actually do anything, but they whine about how it'd be better if we split off again, kind of like how you have those groups in Italy that want to balkanize but don't act violently. There's a good point to it, too. The regions of the US are easily as different from one another as the US is to the Commonwealth nations, and the US is bloated and polarized as is. Better to allow people to govern themselves separately. You know, like progressive hero Woodrow Wilson wanted.

I suppose you mean, though, what if Southern nationalism had become mainstream in the early 1900s. Well... why would it? Sure, you're always going to have Lost Causers, but Reconstruction is over, the US is being reunited through successful overseas wars, and the South is a poor, weak section of the country with no real hopes on its own. I could see Southern nationalism being popular if nutters like Thaddeus Stevens had been in power during Reconstruction and the U.S. then got defeated in one or two wars against a great power, but that'd be an 1800s POD.
 

aspie3000

Banned
Dude, Southern nationalism was founded... back in, like, the 1850s. Maybe earlier. There's also versions of it that aren't entirely psychotic. Across states like Tennessee (my home) there's plenty of people who have a sort of lingering resentment towards the Federal government. They don't care enough to actually do anything, but they whine about how it'd be better if we split off again, kind of like how you have those groups in Italy that want to balkanize but don't act violently. There's a good point to it, too. The regions of the US are easily as different from one another as the US is to the Commonwealth nations, and the US is bloated and polarized as is. Better to allow people to govern themselves separately. You know, like progressive hero Woodrow Wilson wanted.

I suppose you mean, though, what if Southern nationalism had become mainstream in the early 1900s. Well... why would it? Sure, you're always going to have Lost Causers, but Reconstruction is over, the US is being reunited through successful overseas wars, and the South is a poor, weak section of the country with no real hopes on its own. I could see Southern nationalism being popular if nutters like Thaddeus Stevens had been in power during Reconstruction and the U.S. then got defeated in one or two wars against a great power, but that'd be an 1800s POD.

Read my post again. I'm not talking about some dude in Tennessee wishing the south could split from the Union again; I'm not talking about the Southern Nationalism invented in the 1850s or the great patriotism southerners feel about their home region. I'm talking about the specific brand of southern nationalism as described above as practiced by the League of the South. It is ethnically nationalist, anti enlightenment, proudly reactionary in the European sense of the word, anti American, proudly secessionist, and (and this is important) an actual organized political movement and organization which seeks separation from the United States. I'm not even talking about it becoming mainstream, I'm talking about this particular political movement being founded in the early 20th century. And yes, as a southerner myself (I'm from South Carolina) I do think that southern secession as an issue is kind of a valid thing to consider considering our cultural difference to the rest of the United States and how we differ in politics, religion, and the type of society we would want to live in. However the only active organization considering this issue is the League of the South of which I am mentioning above and they are absolutely insane. So I think if that man from Tennessee was serious about his conviction that it would be better off if the south would break away from the US again he'd better get up off his ass and start a separatist movement that isn't racist and abhorrent.
 
Read my post again. I'm not talking about some dude in Tennessee wishing the south could split from the Union again; I'm not talking about the Southern Nationalism invented in the 1850s or the great patriotism southerners feel about their home region. I'm talking about the specific brand of southern nationalism as described above as practiced by the League of the South. It is ethnically nationalist, anti enlightenment, proudly reactionary in the European sense of the word, anti American, proudly secessionist, and (and this is important) an actual organized political movement and organization which seeks separation from the United States. I'm not even talking about it becoming mainstream, I'm talking about this particular political movement being founded in the early 20th century. And yes, as a southerner myself (I'm from South Carolina) I do think that southern secession as an issue is kind of a valid thing to consider considering our cultural difference to the rest of the United States and how we differ in politics, religion, and the type of society we would want to live in. However the only active organization considering this issue is the League of the South of which I am mentioning above and they are absolutely insane. So I think if that man from Tennessee was serious about his conviction that it would be better off if the south would break away from the US again he'd better get up off his ass and start a separatist movement that isn't racist and abhorrent.

I did read it again and the original post is still vague enough that it sounds like you're equating Southern nationalism in general with the newer branch of it. But yeah, I get you now.

Of course, one major problem with any Southern nationalist movement (in the present day or in an alternate history) is what to do with the Blacks, especially since most arguments for Southern secession don't really apply to Blacks. One could argue that Southern Blacks and Southern Whites are the same culture, but the similarities in material culture and some similarity in dialect doesn't justify a total break.

This wouldn't be quite "reactionary," but you could maybe get a reactionary South if you have a US that's Left-wing but, for some reason, really struggling. Then, you might have the emergence of Fascism in the American South. Since Fascism changes to suit the needs of the people practicing it, and the South already had a recent history of a more feudal structure, the Southern Fascists might take that aspect and crank it up to ten.
 
Well, I don't consider myself a Southerner, or a Yankee. I have, however, run across a fairly large number of Southerners who espoused the heartfelt wish of breaking the old Confederacy away from the rest of the USA and going about their business without them Damn Yankees interfering. Similarly, I've met many from the North that when speaking of this course of action, gleefully shout, "Let them go, please, please, let them go!" Might solve a lot of problems...hate to have to move from Florida, but might solve a lot of problems. Who knows, the US might just opt for that border wall everyone's talking about.
 
Top