What if the Civil Rights Act didn't pass Congress?

What if the Civil Rights Act did not pass the US Congress in 1964, being stopped by a Southern filibuster or ground to a halt? One possible PoD is Kennedy lives because he didn't have Johnson's skill at pushing it through Congress nor the Kennedy martyrdom to rally the nation, or even later as it faced huge opposition. How would this alter the civil rights movement? Some say that civil rights would just get passed in 1965 after a Democrat landslide, but I doubt that. First, about 80% of Republicans supported civil rights, even more than the Democrats so getting rid of Republicans won't be much help since it was a bipartisan issue. And secondly if civil rights failed once the President wouldn't want to waste political capital on it again, and probably focus instead on the War on Poverty. So this could set back the civil rights movement substantially, though it would probably succeed eventually as the underlying factors leading to its success haven't changed. But it would be a much rougher path and alter US history and politics significantly? What would be the effects of civil rights failing in 1964? How would the civil rights movement be different? Ultimately, what would be the long-term effects? What if?
 
1918 and after OTL: Far more Irishmen than ever have had first-class army training, in WWI. As a result, the Irish held on so long in the Irish War of Independence that Britain had to let Ireland go free in the 26 counties. The British boast that "We will wrench the last pistol out of the hand of the last assassin." proves to be false.

Some time around 1970: Far more USA black men then ever have had first-class army training (front-line, not in labor battalions and suchlike), and learning well about guerrilla warfare, in the Vietnam War. If then some stray incident acts as a sufficient "match in the gasoline store", a big guerrilla war starts in the southeast of the USA, and assassinations and counter-assassinations and revenge, and black and white people fleeing opposite ways; and boasts of quick white victory prove to be false, and the area is ruined by war, and in the end the black people have a good area of their own.
 
Last edited:
if the Act is scuttled because of southern intransigence, might not more states take matters into their own hands? There's nothing unconstitutional about individual states enacting civil rights legislation on their own. And this might lead to a bit of a 'labor drain' from the south...
 
Or you could have Nixon win in 1960. Johnson stays on as Majority leader in the Senate, and he doesn't allow Nixon to get a win on this issue before the 1964 election because Johnson intends to run for President himself. A Nixon Presidency could prevent Vietnam from escalating, so things might not be as hectic in the late 60's. A Johnson win in 1964 over Nixon would be much closer than his win in the OTL, so he wouldn't have the massive numbers in Congress to pass the CRA.
 
If civil rights fails might more blacks resort to violence and the riots of the late 1960s and the turmoil there could get far worse?
 
How would the civil rights movement be altered? How long, if ever, would it take for civil rights to pass?
 
Some say that civil rights would just get passed in 1965 after a Democrat landslide, but I doubt that. First, about 80% of Republicans supported civil rights, even more than the Democrats so getting rid of Republicans won't be much help since it was a bipartisan issue. And secondly if civil rights failed once the President wouldn't want to waste political capital on it again, and probably focus instead on the War on Poverty.

First of all, if the filibuster succeeds, it will probably succeed very narrowly. So if the election produces even a couple of changes in the pro-civil-rights direction, that would be enough. And in OTL it did: In New Mexico, Edwin L. Mechem (R) who voted against the law was replaced by Joseph Montaya (D) who supported it. In Tennessee, Herbert S. Walters (D) who voted against the law retired and was replaced by Ross Bass (D) who "was the only Representative from the rural South to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Bass (It is also possible that having been safely re-elected in 1964, Albert Gore, Sr. will now vote for the bill; after all in OTL he voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.)

Second, while it is true that *in OTL* most Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, in a scenario where the filibuster succeeds, there will presumably be at least a couple of more Republican opponents. (It's not very likely that the extra votes to defeat cloture will come from Democrats--all the southern Democrats in the Senate except Yarborough opposed the bill in OTL anyway.) So if those Republicans or some of them are defeated in November, it could make a difference.

Third, it will simply not be politically possible for JFK, having committed himself to the bill and almost succeeded in passing it in 1964, and with the bill being an issue in the 1964 election as one of the major differences between himself and Senator Goldwater, to pass up the chance to enact it now that Goldwater had been defeated and the votes were there. The political damage in having pressed for the bill in the first place (basically, alienating the South and especially the Deep South) will already be baked in, anyway.

Fourth, why is this issue always presented as the bill in its 1964 form versus no bill at all? If it's only one or two votes short of passing, it could be weakened slightly to attract the extra one or two votes. (For example, there could be exemptions for "truly local" businesses with only a very indirect effect on interstate commerce, etc.)

Fifth, even in the very unlikely event that Congress does nothing, the Supreme Court within a few years will interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to ban private discrimination: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/409 This was a 7-2 decision, so there seems little reason to think it would have turned out differently it JFK had lived.
 
But would the Supreme Court decision have teeth to it, or would de facto Jim Crow linger on?

Or would not passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964 have no effects?
 
Top