WI: Segregationist President in the 60's.

Our POD is around the time JFK pretty much has the Democratic nomination wrapped up. So Jack is looking for a running mate, and he needs a Southerner, but instead of choosing old LBJ, he chooses Sen. George Smathers, a Conservative southerner from Florida. Smathers is interesting, he is a segregationist, but doesn't come off as one (sort of the opposite of LBJ) he's business friendly, and one of the signers of the Southern Manifesto.

No major butterflies, Kennedy/ Smathers narrowly beats Nixon/ Lodge.

Kennedy is shot on schedule, and Smathers is sworn in on Air Force 1.

Smathers is reelected on Kennedy's dead body in 1964.

So how does Segregationist Conservative Smathers react to the Sixties (Vietnam, Civil Rights)?

Does Smathers seek another term in 1968? Would he win? How could this impact the 1968 political realignment?
 
Hmmm, well if Smathers came out as an arch-segregantionist a la Wilson, i'd say the civil rights disturbances, race riots etc of the 60s would have been even worse, as angry blacks would've been even more willing to fight govt forces which were controlled at the top by a known pro-segregation pres- esp if ITTL the 1964 Civil Rights Act wasn't passed, & Smathers decided to not use federal law enforcement or troops to protect civil rights activists. Dunno bout Smathers' foreign policy goals, but if he still committed to Vietnam, all of America's problems at the time would have exploded in a much bigger way- OTL Watts, Detroit, Newark etc would've looked like a picnic if you combine a Wilson-style pres with the winds of change of the 60s...
 
About Vietnam, after researching a bit, i found out that George Smathers had defeated Claude Pepper in the Democratic Primary for Senate because Pepper wasn't "tough on communism", so Smathers would probably do something, unless of course the domestic situation was so severe, the govt couldnt spare any troops.
I would say MLK's peaceful approach wont work as effectively, and Malcolm X might urge a more violent approach. How long would that set back Civil Rights? No clue.
I guess that Smathers probably chooses Henry Jackson as a VP in 1964, to balance the ticket geographically, and he decides to pull an LBJ and not run. Who's the Republican in 1968? Probably Romney, or some other Anti-War candidate. I'd be close in 1968 no matter who wins.
 
This is horrible! God help America, for Smathers is the worst name for a president since Filmore. On a serious note, seems the Black Panthers might grow substantially. America's gonna get much more violent, protests agains Vietnam much more heated. Which reminds me, would Smathers even keep the military segregated?
 
Not initially, but if black riots go really sour, I could see Smathers trying to re-segregate the Military "To protect out Armed Forces on the inside, and out." :rolleyes:
 
If George Smathers was selected as John F. Kennedy's running mate in 1960, and consequently assumed the Presidency upon his assassination on November 22, 1963, I would expect the Democratic Party could well become the more conservative of the two mainstream political parties by the 21st century. However, that depends on the outcome of the presidency of George Smathers, which in my personal opinion would be a disastrous one at. With Smathers being a staunch segregationist expect no comprehensive civil rights legislation, nor the Vietnam War to deescalate prior to 1968, meaning 1968 America under the President George Smathers could well become anarchic than in RL 1968. Thus, if Smathers chose to seek re-election in 1968, I would expect the unpopular incumbent to lose by a landslide to his Republican opponent, who would in my opinion be the liberal Governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller.
 
Not initially, but if black riots go really sour, I could see Smathers trying to re-segregate the Military "To protect out Armed Forces on the inside, and out." :rolleyes:

You're extrapolating too much for a simple "What If?"

You really should put this in timeline form, and show us the rationale as to how and why you believe something as dramatic as the return of military segregation is possible.
 
If he actually gets elected on his own accord then there can be a massive shift in how the Republican Party - no the country - is politically.

Think about having the Democrats being socially conservative, that by 2009 they still have some rather anti-gay elements in it, the anti-illegal immigration party, and would be against any actual gay rights but are probably for more of those New Deal social programs meanwhile the Republicans are closer to someone like Rockefeller or Nixon then, in 2009 they might support welfare but are for reform, more socially tolerant to minorities (racial or religious) and, be more pro business and emphasize balanced budgets more but will be willing to have higher tax levels.
 
Top