WI: George Wallace assassinated in 1972

Honestly I feel like that's even worse because Wallace knew that what he was doing was wrong but still did it anyways in order to get elected

Off-topic but I recall an article in the past year that detailed Newt Gingrich's first campaign as a Carter Democrat. He wasn't running as a racist relict, but rather a pretty progressive guy with a big focus on the environment. It didn't work. He came back a few years later as a hardcore conservative Republican. It's a sad truth about politics: while they're not all soulless power-seekers, you can bet the soulless power-seekers are going to find their way to the field.

As for Wallace, I would imagine there would be some immediate violence in the wake of an assassination. My feeling is that as bad as it would be, it wouldn't rise to the level of national emergency without specific AH triggers. If it didn't, there would be a new round of suffering and news stories and personal reactions that collectively move the country a few small notches in the direction of both greater support for free speech (as a backlash against killing someone over their words) and greater support for the police state (as a backlash against the resulting violence).

If you can somehow force a situation where Nixon has to specifically and unequivocally denounce racist white (southern) violence, that could change things. The South has not integrated into the Republican camp in 1972, and this could be the end of that relationship. It could also force the Carter mold to form up with a bit more vigor and purpose. You could see a more progressive streak in the median white southerner who is forced to confront worsening racially-motivated violence.
 
Truman desegregated the military, LBJ desegregated everything else (besides schools). None of those 3 stood in front of a college shouting "segregation now! segregation forever!".
Sure, but then their audience did have to worry their easily triggered brains about segregation not being forever. It was the default opinion at the time. As long as FDR didn't say anything either which way it was assumed he did whether that's the case or not. If some hypothetical primary rival had manoeuvred him into a position of having to officially nail his trousers to the wall as Sir Humphrey would call it and publicly state whether he considers segregation a permanent state of affairs or something temporary until full integration, I'd not want to take any bets about his response.
 
Having been born and living in Alabama my entire life, there is an often ignored aspect of George Wallace post-shooting,

that is that he made large movements in the Alabama African-American community to rehabilitate his image (Albeit, his motives are open for debate as always) and succeeded in doing this in many ways. His "I was wrong" quote and public apologies carried some weight in communities and his multiple appointments of African Americans to cabinet and state positions further altered his image. To my surprise, in conversations i've had with those in the African American community who were alive at the time, a great deal of them hold mixed to even slight approval of late-stage George Wallace (they still rightfully hold disdain for his earlier actions).

So, had he been killed in the assassination attempt, there would be no rehabilitated "born-again" George Wallace. History would only know the segregationist demagogue
 
Nice ideas but what I want to know is who gets the delegates he already won and who wins the Maryland and Michigan primaries? Does Humphrey have a better chance at nomination?
 
My guess Humphrey wins Maryland while McGouvern wins Maryland. Humphrey also gets a better run up to the "winner-takes-all" California ending up winning it. McGovern wins all New Mexico delegates.

But the question remains. Who gets Wallace's unpledged delegates?
 
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/randall/birmingham.htm

Civil rights activists blamed George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama, for the killings. Only a week before the bombing he had told the New York Times that to stop integration Alabama needed a "few first-class funerals."
To what extent was George Wallace responsible for creating the atmosphere that led to the Sept. 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, which caused the death of four girls? Most of us have probably heard about it. The hater(s) could have bombed the church in the middle of the night. But they choose to cause human death.

I myself think Wallace bears considerable responsibility.

And I think President Kennedy probably should have pulled an Eisenhower and sent federal troops. But it's the kind of thing which needs to be done right away, in order to be most effective. And it's the kind of thing you need to be geared up to do.
 
Last edited:
But the question remains. Who gets Wallace's unpledged delegates?
Here at AH, we often view Wallace merely as a "conservative" Democratic (the ol' one-dimensional number line).

In actuality, Wallace was a mix of so-called "law and order," and populist economics (his charge of "limousine liberals" struck a chord), and probably several other things as well.

So, the delegates would be in play. And both Humphrey and McGovern might emphasize certain issues that they otherwise wouldn't as a result.
 
Here at AH, we often view Wallace merely as a "conservative" Democratic (the ol' one-dimensional number line).

In actuality, Wallace was a mix of so-called "law and order," and populist economics (his charge of "limousine liberals" struck a chord), and probably several other things as well.

So, the delegates would be in play. And both Humphrey and McGovern might emphasize certain issues that they otherwise wouldn't as a result.

So would Nixon be no longer able to call McGovern a "communist" or whatever. Assuming he does sell out that is.
 
Yes, I feel like it's worse, too.

Even though FDR choose not to pursue anti-lynching legislation, and all the rest.

Well, you know, if FDR chose not to pursure anti-lynching legislation, he arguably had some blood on his hands, comparable to the blood on Wallace's hands via the church bombing. Because anti-lyncing legislation likely would have prevented at least a few lynchings.

You could even argue that FDR's moral position was worse, because there is no surefire guarantee that using racist rhetoric is going to compel someone to go bomb a church. Whereas if you know lynchings are going on, and local authorities are allowing them to go on, but you elect not to take any action to change that situation, it's pretty easy to predict that there will be more lynchings.
 
Well, you know, if FDR chose not to pursure anti-lynching legislation, he arguably had some blood on his hands, comparable to the blood on Wallace's hands via the church bombing. Because anti-lyncing legislation likely would have prevented at least a few lynchings.

You could even argue that FDR's moral position was worse, because there is no surefire guarantee that using racist rhetoric is going to compel someone to go bomb a church. Whereas if you know lynchings are going on, and local authorities are allowing them to go on, but you elect not to take any action to change that situation, it's pretty easy to predict that there will be more lynchings.
And to Wallace's (extremely minor) credit, he did offer a $5,000 reward for the arrest of the bombers
 
LBJ desegregated everything else (besides schools).

In the 1950s, when he was Senate Majority Leader, Johnson worked hand-in-glove with fellow Dixiecrats such as Stennis, Eastland, Russell, Byrd, Sparkman, and McClellan to block all civil rights bills. He didn't sign the notorious "Southern Manifesto" in 1956 because the organizers excused him - as Majority Leader, he represented the national party.
 
Well, you know, if FDR chose not to pursure anti-lynching legislation, he arguably had some blood on his hands, comparable to the blood on Wallace's hands via the church bombing. Because anti-lynching legislation likely would have prevented at least a few lynchings.

You could even argue that FDR's moral position was worse, because there is no surefire guarantee that using racist rhetoric is going to compel someone to go bomb a church. Whereas if you know lynchings are going on, and local authorities are allowing them to go on, but you elect not to take any action to change that situation, it's pretty easy to predict that there will be more lynchings.

All true, but by the 1930s, lynching had declined tremendously, and continued to decline. Circa 1900, there were over 100 lynchings per year; by 1930 it was 10-20, and by 1940 4-6.

Southern Democrats were too important numerically in Congress for FDR and the New Dealers to alienate them over a side issue that appeared to be solving itself.

On this issue, I'm actually more condemnatory toward the Republicans of the 1920s, and especially of McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, who couldn't be arsed to do anything when lynching was rampant and they had crushing majorities in Congress.
 
Top