WI: Southern Black Filibuster in the 60s

What if there were a black filibuster in the South during the 60s, or perhaps 70s? That is to say, more radical groups and elements who would grow tired of white bigotry to the point of wanting their state wish to establish a homeland for themselves in one of the states of the American south, and travel to one en masse and promote migration there to any like minded individuals. Such an idea does hearken back to previous black ideas of how to deal with the issue of racism and segregation in American society.

I know this may sound unlikely, but I think it's an interesting concept not out of the bounds of a possibility.

EDIT: To specify, I do not mean that this scenario which is likely, but I do not believe it to be on par with space men abducting the president.
 
Last edited:
I know this may sound unlikely, but I think it's an interesting concept not out of the bounds of a possibility.

Actually, it probably is. It would be resisted by white southerners in the affected state, as well as by most african americans, who in the 1960's, wanted to eliminate segregation, not found a new state on it.

I suppose it could have been accomplished in "stealth fashion" by having so many blacks move to the target state (let's say Mississippi) that whites voluntarily move out in a manner akin to white flight to the subburbs. This would be a gradual process because, absent strong federal intrusion, the increasingly small white power structure would still be able to control the electoral process until a critical mass was reached. Then, Mississippi would become by default a majority black state, but any idea of a designated black "homeland" would be resisted by the US federal government.
 
It is not going to happen. The white power structure is far too strong.

What state or states would have the weakest ability, due to poverty, lesser population, lesser industrialization, and lesser centralization, to stand in the face of such a thing?

And mind you, it doesn't have to be successful necessarily, but I'd prefer it to be something which has an impact.

Actually, it probably is. It would be resisted by white southerners in the affected state, as well as by most african americans, who in the 1960's, wanted to eliminate segregation, not found a new state on it.

I suppose it could have been accomplished in "stealth fashion" by having so many blacks move to the target state (let's say Mississippi) that whites voluntarily move out in a manner akin to white flight to the subburbs. This would be a gradual process because, absent strong federal intrusion, the increasingly small white power structure would still be able to control the electoral process until a critical mass was reached. Then, Mississippi would become by default a majority black state, but any idea of a designated black "homeland" would be resisted by the US federal government.

Here's the thing (and I do understand this is not the likeliest scenario, but it is interesting, in the normal sense and the Chinese sense, so that's why I want to figure out how to make it happen in some reality): it doesn't matter who resists it if the force behind it is strong enough. Blacks against the idea aren't going to do anything active against it. Whites against it likely would, many of them bringing violence into it. The people that would go for it are the African Americans who would possibly be interested in such a thing anyway.

And of course an idea of a homeland won't be accepted by the government. But that's more or less not the point, because it doesn't need to be official. What it would need to be is a place which African Americans could consider a place for African Americans, where African Americans could assert power in the government and the state. What you said about many blacks moving into the state in such numbers that whites leave voluntary is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking as what would occur in such as scenario as this, and all I'm proposing of the idea. I'm not speaking of a state seceding from the Union or anything of that nature. Though I also think violence would come into play as the kinds of people that would take part in that activity are likely, at least many of them, the kind of people within the Civil Rights movement that will react to violence with violence.
 
Last edited:
I could imagine much support of this idea from northern whites, both liberal minded ones and racist ones as well. Racists whites might view this as a fairer, more elegant, and effective way of dealing with a perceived troublesome element in American life.
Liberal whites might get swept up in the romanticism of the whole thing, building a new nation, a black Israel kind of thing.
Under Apartheid South Africa, the Bantustans were a variant of this idea.
 
Whites against it likely would, many of them bringing violence into it...
Though I also think violence would come into play as the kinds of people that would take part in that activity are likely, at least many of them, the kind of people within the Civil Rights movement that will react to violence with violence.

Pre-late-sixties: The Dixie segregationist authorities are not going to allow the creation of black 'ghettos' that are designed as effective no-go areas for White lawmen.

The sheriffs who loosed the dogs and firehoses on the Civil Rights movement in OTL will go further, much further, should they get any hint that blacks are buying up property to create these new enclaves.* You even hint at that reality in that first sentance I quote above, even though you then resort to your old "both sides were violent in the Civil Rights struggle" fallacy.

Post-late-sixties: Anyway, why exactly would an AA organisation be attempting to follow the example of the Nation of Islam outside of the Northern metropolises? Also, the Southern AA community were starting to build there own power structure within desegregrated civil government at this time. I'd have thought you knew that.


*Though I'm certain the real estate market down South at that time is so deeply controlled by the white establishment, that this can't even happen to begin with, either in the sixties or the seventies.
 
even though you then resort to your old "both sides were violent in the Civil Rights struggle" fallacy.
Stop that. You misread what I meant in another thread and are now bringing it up here. That you misread it is not my problem, but it's become annoying now that you're acting like its some old thing I'm doing over and over even though you thought you saw it once. What I said and what I'm saying is that the more militant, more extreme factions did have those with a willingness to commit violence as well, if they were met with it first by an aggressor. Such a feeling, among those who had it, was born out of centuries of inequality and bigotry and white violence against blacks, as well as a feeling among some that the peaceful course plotted by Martin Luther King was too passive and ineffective, and that the black community should react to violence with violence and not just turn the other cheek.

This reactive violence does not, mind you, entail the savage brutality racist southern whites were capable of, such as lynchings and bombing churches full of children.
 
Last edited:
Stop that. You misread what I meant in another thread and are now bringing it up here. That you misread it is not my problem, but it's become annoying now that you're acting like its some old thing I'm doing over and over even though you thought you saw it once.

I've studied the history of African American society and the Civil Rights movement, Norton, and I know where the boundaries for respectful, well informed speculation are in these subjects. I've had to be able to converse like an adult with university lecturers about these subjects.

It's painful to watch you go the full Turtledove on this subject and demand that people not criticise you for anything you write here. Honestly, it is.

What I said and what I'm saying is that the more militant, more extreme factions did have those with a willingness to commit violence as well, if they were met with it first by an aggressor.

These factions I've already mentioned are the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam; yet here you are writing broad 'what-if' questions where these groups are not only not on the sidelines of the Civil Rights movement, but rather they're now at the very heart of major scenarios involving extravagant Civil Rights PoDs (or at least attempted PoDs.)

This reactive violence does not, mind you, entail the savage brutality racist southern whites were capable of, such as lynchings and bombing churches full of children.

What reactive violence in the Sourth, Norton?

What reactive violence in the mainstream of the Civil Rights movement, Norton?

MerryPrankster copped a shellacking the other day in HoI for citing his high school textbook about Southron history, but I have to credit him with at least demonstrating he had something to fall back on when speculating out loud.
 
I've studied the history of African American society and the Civil Rights movement, Norton, and I know where the boundaries for respectful, well informed speculation are in these subjects. I've had to be able to converse like an adult with university lecturers about these subjects.

It's painful to watch you go the full Turtledove on this subject and demand that people not criticise you for anything you write here. Honestly, it is.
Where have I demanded people not criticize me? I'm asking you stop, frustratingly, criticizing me for something I'm not even doing, and such is becoming silly. If you want an axe to grind, go to someone else's woods.

I'm not saying you wouldn't know more than me in this area. If you do wonderful, you can contribute better than anyone.

And I'm not sure what you mean by Turtledove. Do you mean a cinematic scenario which is unrealistic? Possibly, but that's not why I created this thread. Nor did I if you think there are racist undertones at work. I did so because I think of it as an interesting thought experiment purely as a thought experiment (the other discussion was the same; I'm interested in Dystopia and this is a thought which I found interesting as a concept).

These factions I've already mentioned are the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam; yet here you are writing broad 'what-if' questions where these groups are not only not on the sidelines of the Civil Rights movement, but rather they're now at the very heart of major scenarios involving extravagant Civil Rights PoDs (or at least attempted PoDs.)
The person who would be of such a thought as to do this (filibuster a state for a black majority) would not be the normal member of Civil Rights movement as would follow Dr. King. Rather, they would be a more radicalized individual, at least so far as I could guess as I do not believe a normal member of the Civil Rights movement would go in for this (If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, and we could add that to the discussion to understand the results properly). Such persons who would go for this may be non-violent themselves, or they may be of the thought that they'll react to getting attacked by fighting back. And this would be a battlefield region in that regard.

This is part of where you are misunderstanding. You're taking the mention of more radical elements of the movement which are the focus of this and the other discussion, given that more radical elements would be that part of the movement to take part, and using it to act like it's being treated as the whole of the Civil Rights movement. No, it's being focused on here because, while it is a minority, that minority is the force that would be the ones doing this if anybody were to. I would imagine the Civil Rights movement beyond it would be very upset; they'd possibly look at it as undermining black equality in the eyes of white society by giving white society an excuse to say even blacks want to be separate, and if there were violence then visible conflict may hurt the white view of the Civil Rights movement as peaceful.

What reactive violence in the Sourth, Norton?

What reactive violence in the mainstream of the Civil Rights movement, Norton?

MerryPrankster copped a shellacking the other day in HoI for citing his high school textbook about Southron history, but I have to credit him with at least demonstrating he had something to fall back on when speculating out loud.
I don't know of any reactive violence in the south. I do not know of reactive violence in the mainstream Civil Rights movement, but again, I'm not speaking about that because so far as I know, the mainstream won't go along with this, or if anyone from the mainstream did, they wouldn't be militant. Generally, when there was violence in mainstream black society at that time, so far as I know it was during race riots.

***

Overall, I think you are reading too much into a thought experiment largely to add Dystopia to the period.
 
Where have I demanded people not criticize me? I'm asking you stop, frustratingly, criticizing me for something I'm not even doing, and such is becoming silly. If you want an axe to grind, go to someone else's woods.

This is ridiculous; I've done nothing more than accuse you of fallacious thinking in a couple of sentences I wrote, and yet you start whining about me somehow persecuting you.

And I'm not sure what you mean by Turtledove. Do you mean a cinematic scenario which is unrealistic?

Quite.

Possibly, but that's not why I created this thread.

This thread being a wide open What If that isn't going anywhere deep, historically speaking, just like the last AA thread you created a few days ago.

Nor did I if you think there are racist undertones at work. I did so because I think of it as an interesting thought experiment purely as a thought experiment (the other discussion was the same; I'm interested in Dystopia and this is a thought which I found interesting as a concept).

This is why a person with regular history interests like myself finds these two threads to be so very sorry. Implausible dystopia really belongs in ASB, not here.

This is part of where you are misunderstanding. You're taking the mention of more radical elements of the movement which are the focus of this and the other discussion, given that more radical elements would be that part of the movement to take part, and using it to act like it's being treated as the whole of the Civil Rights movement.

Think, Norton, think; if you write about such a radical scenario taking centre stage in the American South, then that means you are airbrushing out the original CR movement and replacing it with this separatist, armed, potentially paranoid and violent hybrid.

You are rewriting the Civil Rights movement with this thought experiment.

I don't know of any reactive violence in the south. I do not know of reactive violence in the mainstream Civil Rights movement

Quite.

Overall, I think you are reading too much into a thought experiment largely to add Dystopia to the period.

If this was ASB I'd agree with this, but it's not, it's After 1900.
 
This is ridiculous; I've done nothing more than accuse you of fallacious thinking in a couple of sentences I wrote, and yet you start whining about me somehow persecuting you.

You are accusing me of saying the mainstream Civil Rights movement was committing acts of violence and was radical, when I was focusing on the militants and radicals who would be the ones to take part in this if any were, you silly goose. And you continue with a hostile tone throughout.

This thread being a wide open What If that isn't going anywhere deep, historically speaking, just like the last AA thread you created a few days ago.

This thread is a wide open what if because there's not much specificity to be had in the OP except that which could be created after the fact by the most plausible set of circumstances and outcomes. This is due to the fact that no one did anything of this sort in the OTL, and this scenario is born out of a materialized version of more militant black ideas of independence and power in American society, which arose in the late 60s, taken to a greater extreme, and the material form those ideas take is a region on the map itself. I don't know what an AA is. And I don't think I care to know given your tone.

This is why a person with regular history interests like myself finds these two threads to be so very sorry. Implausible dystopia really belongs in ASB, not here.

I do not believe it to be impossible. Not likely, perhaps. Then again, neither is Objectivist Katanga. The thing is, as is the thing there, you see an interesting concept, and brainstorm how it could work and be made to exist.

Think, Norton, think; if you write about such a radical scenario taking centre stage in the American South, then that means you are airbrushing out the original CR movement and replacing it with this separatist, armed, potentially paranoid and violent hybrid.

You are rewriting the Civil Rights movement with this thought experiment.

Who is saying center stage? It would be a big thing given what it is, perhaps, but I'm not erasing anything. It would take place with the militants and radicals (as they're the only ones who would do so), who came into existence as anything by the late 60s and into the 70s, placing this scenario past 1968 at minimum.
 
This is ridiculous; I've done nothing more than accuse you of fallacious thinking in a couple of sentences I wrote, and yet you start whining about me somehow persecuting you.

Magniac, I've read both of Norton's threads and you come across as overly combative, going after him without being provoked in the first place. I'm not sure if you've read them, but there are timelines in this site with incredibly violent racial conflict in the US that did not occur in OTL. There's a famous one on AH.com in which President WALT DISNEY inadvertently worsens racial tensions, with the end result a decade later being walled ghettos in the South, and northern black flight to the SOVIET UNION. There's another TL by The Vulture (now removed from this site, unfortunately :( ) in which blacks are deported to Ethiopia... and another by Hrvatskiwi in which the assassination of Malcolm X causes an increasingly militant Black Power movement to form militias and stage a revolution across the Deep South.

What Norton is doing here isn't new, it's not something that needs to be attacked as ASB when many TLs with similar events have preceded it. Just keep that in mind.
 
Well, this thread is thoroughly derailed.

Then let us get it back on track, shall we?

Magniac, I've read both of Norton's threads and you come across as overly combative, going after him without being provoked in the first place. I'm not sure if you've read them, but there are timelines in this site with incredibly violent racial conflict in the US that did not occur in OTL. There's a famous one on AH.com in which President WALT DISNEY inadvertently worsens racial tensions, with the end result a decade later being walled ghettos in the South, and northern black flight to the SOVIET UNION. There's another TL by The Vulture (now removed from this site, unfortunately :( ) in which blacks are deported to Ethiopia... and another by Hrvatskiwi in which the assassination of Malcolm X causes an increasingly militant Black Power movement to form militias and stage a revolution across the Deep South.

What Norton is doing here isn't new, it's not something that needs to be attacked as ASB when many TLs with similar events have preceded it. Just keep that in mind.

I thank you, sir.
 
And you continue with a hostile tone throughout.

Jesus Christ, you want me to respond to you in the way you allege I've been responding to you so far, then good. Here: just own the lame arguments you've made here, Norton.

Own the fact that you are conflating real history with vague Turtledove fantasy writing (even as you actually can't write anything that resembles original fiction here.)

Don't write the same "no, I know what you are but what am I?" exculpatory BS in a dozen consecutive run-on sentences.

You're in over your head with the history of the African American community and the Civil Rights movement here, and yet you want people to respond to your vague speculations seriously. As lousy as it is, just admit it.
Magniac, I've read both of Norton's threads and you come across as overly combative, going after him without being provoked in the first place.

Heh, I've only become combative now, in this post. Nice foreshadowing, rcduggan.:rolleyes:

I'm not sure if you've read them, but there are timelines in this site with incredibly violent racial conflict in the US that did not occur in OTL.

I'm not criticising anyone who's making a serious attempt to write fiction here.

Because Norton is not that person.

He's asking people to either validate his vague, ahistorical ideas, or else he appears to want someone to go and write a 'US Black Separatist' TL for him.

Seriously, we desperately need a civil rights history expert like former member AmIndHistAuthor to come and knock some poorly informed white heads together.

EDIT: I'm now loathe to continue with contributing anything to this thread, seeing as it appears I'm responsible for helping the OPer actually flesh out his ideas: "It would take place with the militants and radicals (as they're the only ones who would do so), who came into existence as anything by the late 60s and into the 70s, placing this scenario past 1968 at minimum."

That's all Norton reacting to/poaching from my straight contributions I wrote upthread, and on the previous Black Violence thread.

I won't flame here, and I won't give the OP any more ideas on how to build up this disturbing, racially tone-deaf 'What If' of his.

So, yeah, that's about it from me. Enjoy, honkies.:p
 
Last edited:
Jesus Christ, you want me to respond to you in the way you allege I've been responding to you so far, then good. Here: just own the lame arguments you've made here, Norton.

Own the fact that you are conflating real history with vague Turtledove fantasy writing (even as you actually can't write anything that resembles original fiction here.)

Don't write the same "no, I know what you are but what am I?" exculpatory BS in a dozen consecutive run-on sentences.

You're in over your head with the history of the African American community and the Civil Rights movement here, and yet you want people to respond to your your vague speculations seriously. As lousy as it is, just admit it.
What lame arguments? What I've said you've been doing, you have been doing. Or do you mean what I've been positing in the discussion? In that latter instance, I do not believe them to be "lame arguments". I think its a fascinating idea. If there were any part of the black community to do it, it would be the radicals and militants. It's not entirely out of bounds given certain ideas within the black community (not to say everyone or a majority were supportive of them, as I assume you will conflate my mentioning of them as existing in the black community as saying that the black community by any majority or unity followed them) about separation and/or black community independence, as well as an element of political power.

I'm not conflating real history with Turtledove fantasy writing (I'd like to add, if I may be as brash as yourself, that you should stop using Turtledove as a short hand term because I've never seen anyone else use it in the shorthand style you are attempting to popularize and have used several times throughout your replies lately; it's more confusing than anything). While this is not the likeliest scenario, which I have said multiple times, I do not believe it is out of bounds of something possible in some reality. Were it to be Turtledove Fantasty writing, as you term it, then the content of the idea as well as the lead up and outcome would be false to what would occur were such a thing to occur. Not the idea in and of itself. Ideas in an of themselves in Alternate History, if they are not ASB, are not Turtlove fantasy writing (ASB meaning not happening due to a person not having that as what they would do or just plain old magical intervention; not just something that's not the likeliest to happen, and I hate when people adopt it to label scenarios which are not the likeliest to occur).

I haven't written "I know you are but what am I" response, and frankly you are the one acting quite childish with your bombastic attitude. Criticizing my very writing style by calling it "a dozen consecutive run-on sentences" further highlights this.

And I freely admit I may know less about the African American community and Civil Rights movement than you. I said previous that if you do know more, I consider that a plus to the discussion as you could contribute greatly. I don't think, however, that gives you any right to lambast a speculative discussion which is not wrongly characterizing anything really. As I've state many times, this doesn't involve the mainstream Civil Rights movement, save for where said area of the movement would react to this, and that reaction would be negative, critical of it as divisive and wrong headed and giving antagonists to the movement fodder and the white community bad ideas and possibly alienating them.
And what of vague speculations? Of course I do not know where it would start or the details of it, if that's what you mean. I believe that is why many threads are made. You have an interesting idea based on some seed (the seed here being the militant and radical segment of the black community which arose in the late 60s and into the 70s): how could it occur, what if it occurred, and what would the outcomes be? I want to hear other's ideas and other's speculations, arrive perhaps on some consensus of the likeliest case or cases, and so on. That's what discussion is.

I'm not criticising anyone who's making a serious attempt to write fiction here.

Because Norton is not that person.

He's asking people to either validate his vague, ahistorical ideas, or else he appears to want someone to go and write a 'US Black Separatist' TL for him.

Seriously, we desperately need a civil rights history expert like former member AmIndHistAuthor to come and knock some poorly informed white heads together.
You're being silly. I'm not writing fiction, no. But I'm positing a concept which is no more invalid than any of those other concepts. You're also confusing my leaving a concept open for discussion to try to find likely specifics as ignorant vagueness, and either my ideas as ahistorical when they are not, or the scenario as ahistorical. The scenario is, again, not the likeliest as I freely admit, but what does that really matter? Neither is President Disney or Ayn Rand's filibuster. It is an interesting concept, which does not involve anything of magic to lead to it, simply certain events and circumstances.
When you say I want someone else to go off and write this as a timeline, you are being especially silly here. It's a discussion. It's not asking anyone to write a story. What it is asking, in that context, would be the basic ideas of a story: places it could occur, what would happen, people who could be involved, reactions and actions, reprecussions and so on.

Overall, I'm asking you to stop. To follow up that initial asking you to stop, I ask you to not act like I'm asking you to stop to avoid criticism because I'll take valid criticism of anything. You are not leveling valid criticism. You are being bombastic and just wrongheaded.


EDIT: I'm now loathe to continue with contributing anything to this thread, seeing as it appears I'm responsible for helping the OPer actually flesh out his ideas: "It would take place with the militants and radicals (as they're the only ones who would do so), who came into existence as anything by the late 60s and into the 70s, placing this scenario past 1968 at minimum."

That's all Norton reacting to/poaching from my straight contributions I wrote upthread, and on the previous Black Violence thread.

I won't flame here, and I won't give the OP any more ideas on how to build up this disturbing, racially tone-deaf 'What If' of his.

So, yeah, that's about it from me. Enjoy, honkies.:p

No. You didn't help flesh out anything. That was something I already had in my head, and which was part of my thinking when I made this thread. Again, you misunderstand and you do not listen. You assume. And you know what they say about when you assume, although you are simply acting like a pain in mine.

You seem to also think, which I did not mention before, that I am a bigot. I've been getting that vibe, and it disgusts me that you think so. I dislike it when people assume that something is supposed to be something the person would actually like or does like when it is the focus of a narrative. Such a scenario as this would be disturbing. My own thoughts on it, which I did not manage to really get out in a manner I would have liked due to your oddly irate nature throughout all this, is that it would be a mess. Were it to be successful or not, it would result in confrontation, which could take varying degrees and turn into an all out "Bleeding Mississippi" (or wherever it may be), it would be bad public relations for the mainstream Civil Rights movement, and could be devastating enough to seriously prove a problem to it; the white community is understanding of a black community asking for equality and acting peacefully, but it will be totally alienated by this action, and this action could taint the view and reaction to the mainstream Civil Rights movement just as the militancy of the Counterculture in the 60s turned off people in mainstream America who were even sympathetic to what the Hippies and all believed. If it were successful in getting settled, I think zoomar is right in saying that it'd lead to a white flight. Depending on the success of a "filibuster", I think you'd either end up with a state which is heavily divided with a very self determined and self sufficient black community which is likely as seperated as it can be from the white community and where those African Americans play a large role in state government due to their numbers, or perhaps a state where the population becomes majority black due to that movement in and white flight out, and thus a local culture and governance based on the filibusterers and their ideas, given that those people in the state will have been their children. Or, if it fails, you'll have many people who didn't end up doing anything in the end (except maybe ruin many things for the mainstream Civil Rights community), wandering around and still living there perhaps with many interesting stories to tell of the experiment, at best living in communities around the state and within cities which are perhaps of significant size for what they are but nothing more than a minority.
 
Last edited:
I think you would need a figure like Robert Williams to remain within the United States, including a number of prominent Caucasian supporters, for something like this off the ground. Black Financiers can fund such a movement if convinced, and people would arrive if the current African American dominated areas were significantly improved by said financiers, making their appeal of greater worth than their virtual lose of political rights.

But these areas cannot expand unless you have White Financiers who could act as an intermediary, especially once the movement to such a location becomes a fact and potential sellers would be pressured not to grant a sale to any African American.

This could get potentially ugly though, if it were to go through and especially is Williams were involved, were he to organize Black Armed Guard chapters throughout.

EDIT: To be clear, you would need a POD in the late 50's to make this work in any capacity in the 60's.
 
I think you would need a figure like Robert Williams to remain within the United States, including a number of prominent Caucasian supporters, for something like this off the ground. Black Financiers can fund such a movement if convinced, and people would arrive if the current African American dominated areas were significantly improved by said financiers, making their appeal of greater worth than their virtual lose of political rights.

But these areas cannot expand unless you have White Financiers who could act as an intermediary, especially once the movement to such a location becomes a fact and potential sellers would be pressured not to grant a sale to any African American.

This could get potentially ugly though, if it were to go through and especially is Williams were involved, were he to organize Black Armed Guard chapters throughout.

EDIT: To be clear, you would need a POD in the late 50's to make this work in any capacity in the 60's.

Why would a 1950s POD be necessary, though? For your scenario, Robert Williams could have avoided what forced him to flee the United States, and when militancy arose as the 1960s progressed as it did in the OTL, perhaps he could take the initiative as a black leader, leading to this. For a scenario without Williams in the US as well, though, I do believe it's a prospect during that late 1960s and early 1970s at a time when militancy had become much greater as a force, when Martin Luther King had been killed (and Malcolm X before him), when you had more militant and more radical groups coming into their own, and when things across the board in the United States were getting a bit whacky.
 
Top