WI: A non-peaceful Civil rights movement in the 1960's

When would something like the Civil rights act of 1964 pass?

  • It would likely still pass in 1964 like in OTL

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • It would likely have been drafted and passed sooner due to the riots/unrest.

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • It would have likely taken a few more years without the movement being peaceful.

    Votes: 8 61.5%

  • Total voters
    13
So because the KKK in 1961 kidnapped and then burned MLK the peaceful civil rights movement fractured and formed a counter KKK group nick named the Bigot Burners because there most well known past time was finding and then burning KKK members.

A number of cops in the south turned a blind eye to the KKK, so would the north likely see a number of cops turning a bind eye to this organization and how likely would it be that the civil rights act of 1964 would get passed around the same time it did in OTL?

More or less I am asking without MLK and having a non peaceful civil rights movement instead of the peaceful movement lead by MLK could have things worked out sooner than in OTL or would it take longer for the civil rights movement to gain ground?

P.S I really think MLK was a great man that I respect greatly so please don't get the wrong idea by reading this thread. Sorry if the thread is offensive.
 
I don't think it's the least bit offensive, and I think it's a good question.

In my opinion, the civil rights movement would not have been as effective if there had been a significant element of violence associated with it. I think the backlash would have been considerable. Much of the strength, and the persuasive power, of the non-violent civil rights movement depended on making whites who were ambivalent about the issue (and in some cases, even opposed to civil rights) feel guilty and second-guess the morality of their views. People looked at the non-violent marchers, standing strong in defiance of the threats of extreme physical violence, and were impressed by the strength of character required to maintain that stance. And the next thing that happened was that they started to gain respect for the protesters, and the next thing that happened after that was that they started to pay closer attention to what they were saying. And the more they saw, the more they realized that it was time.

I saw this happen with my own eyes, in my own family. My own father expressed some extremely ugly, racist views when i was a young child, and even at that age, I was very disappointed in him and saddened by it. Over the course of the 60s, I saw his views change, and he lived to see Barack Obama elected. I don't think he was particularly ecstatic about the election, because his views did not fully align with Obama's, but i do remember him crying over the fact that the United States had elected a black man to the Presidency in his lifetime. He said he had never dreamed he would live to see the day when our country would move past the bigotry and judge a man on what they perceived to be his merits, rather than on his race. I discreetly refrained from pointing out that a half century earlier, he hadn't wanted to live to see the day, because I didn't see the point in spoiling the moment. But this was a man who had come full circle from expressing truly horrifying opinions about blacks to considering it one of his proudest moments that a black man could be elected President.

And just about all of that happened during the 60s. He was a man who respected and admired courage, principle, and moral character, and the more he saw of the civil rights movement, the more he came to see that he had been siding with the wrong people.

Had the civil rights movement been primarily violent, i believe it would have motivated him and many others like him to double down and take a strong defensive position against blacks. I think that if the early civil rights movement had been defined by angry, confrontational, accusatory, and even violent elements, a lot of white Americans who could have gone either way but wound up siding with the blacks would have become defensive and said, "well, there ya go. see? they really are a bunch of losers. to hell with 'em!" And their hearts would have hardened. The civil rights movement would never have been successful had it not drawn significant support from middle-class white America, and nothing would have alienated those middle-class whites more than a violent civil rights movement. I know that Martin Luther King was no saint, but I truly believe he was one of the greatest Americans ever to draw breath, and deserves to be mentioned in the same conversation as our founding fathers.
 
Last edited:

Towelie

Banned
Well, there already were violent organizations that claimed to be in favor of Civil Rights (SLA, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc.). The Civil Rights act probably would have gone through regardless because of political reasons. The liberal split in the Democratic Party ensured that the measure would have Democratic support, and the Republican Party in '64 had not yet become as virulently against federal expansion of power as it would later, as Ike was the reason many Republicans had their seats.

The way to torpedo Civil Rights is to strike at Republican support. The Democrat fissures were there since '48. To get Republicans against the bill, it'd need to be significantly more intrusive on states powers and for this terror group to start hitting in traditionally Republican areas like the Midwest, Plains States, and Rocky Mountain States. If this happens, and it is not just a southern thing, than the Republicans will find charges of Communist involvement to be much more prescient.

And no, cops would not turn a blind eye to this organization. The Klan, in a few isolated incidences, had infiltrated the police, or were a local community fixture dating back 50 years, particularly in rural areas of the cotton states. This group would not be able to infiltrate northern police departments and have them turn a blind eye to terrorism.
 
Top