So I’m reading Robert Kennedy and his Times by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and in one chapter Schlesinger talks about how when Kennedy’s friend Byron White sent William Orrick down to the South, Orrick joked that he felt like he was in Russia because there was not an American flag in sight. Only Confederate flags. And this made me wonder. Was it ever possible for racial tensions in the South so bad that a full-out civil war or race war erupts in the former Confederacy in the 1960’s? Maybe several governors defy government orders and, feeling that the government no longer holds their interests, perhaps they secede and try to form a Second Confederacy. How would this war affect American culture, history, and the overall Cold War? I know it may be a little far-fetched, but I feel like it would be an interesting, and disturbing concept.
Second American Civil War in the 1960s
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
FillyofDelphi
Banned
The South is the more conservative/anti-Communist part of the country. They know that triggering a second Civil War would utterly cripple the Capitalist side of the Cold War and lead to a surge of Communist power worldwide, including in The United States, while they're weakening themselves in their fight with the Feds. Even if they win, it will be stepping into a world in which the Reds are dominant and they're likely to fall under its sway and end up in a far worse situation than they're in now.
Basically, better Fed. than Red. Even if the situation on the ground isen't perfect, its infinantely better than a world in which the Soviets dominate.
Also, I guess it would be proper to point out that not everyone with a Confederate flag would actually support secession today.
I understand that, I should have clarified that I didn’t mean to say that it was the confederate flags that inspired this post. It was the lack of American flags, and the racial conflict ongoing at the time. I apologize.
I think you also have to keep in mind that even if some governor or local official got the idea in their head to secede, nullify, or otherwise resist federal control - there's no real way for them to do so with real force. Sure, the state governors have their National Guard units, but as Orval Faubus learned, a governor only has his Guardsmen until the President decides otherwise. So you have to find a way to not only heighten political/racial/cultural tensions, but also cause enough, well, sectionalism among the military that servicemembers are willing to take their chances going up against the might of the federal government.
I think that's a big lift. And without a breakdown in the military, that leaves your errant governors with... state troopers - many of whom are going to make the same calculation as the military and decide they don't want to roll the dice when a treason charge is in the mix - and maybe KKK- or White Citizens' Councils-based irregulars. Maybe that gets you a nasty, violent insurgency (and probably leads to a corresponding rise in black militancy - people are going to want to defend themselves), but it's not quite a civil war. At least, not in the American sense.
I think that's a big lift. And without a breakdown in the military, that leaves your errant governors with... state troopers - many of whom are going to make the same calculation as the military and decide they don't want to roll the dice when a treason charge is in the mix - and maybe KKK- or White Citizens' Councils-based irregulars. Maybe that gets you a nasty, violent insurgency (and probably leads to a corresponding rise in black militancy - people are going to want to defend themselves), but it's not quite a civil war. At least, not in the American sense.
The Southern governors were a bunch of BS blusterers who lamented everything in public to stay in office, and in private groveled to the White House, Washington and the National Democratic Party for patronage, funding, spending, pork, etc.
No. Not even close. Not remotely close.
The actual Southern armed rebellion in 1860-1861 broke out because at the time, a dominant minority of Southerners believed that the election of Lincoln posed an existential threat to white Southerners. In 1860, the seven Deep South States were 46% slaves. The states of South Carolina and Mississippi were majority slaves, as were large areas in the other five. White Southerners feared what the blacks would do if the slavery system broke down or was subverted. The spectre of Haiti (where rebel slaves had largely wiped out the white population) was ever-present. John Brown's expedition at Harpers Ferry was seeming evidence that Northern abolitionists would seek to incite such violence. Beyond this was the obvious point that abolition of slavery would cost Southerners billions of $.
Under these conditions, the militant secessionist plurality in the South managed to stampede several states into secession. (South Carolina had been hot to trot for years, but Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana were reluctant. Texas had to override Governor Sam Houston.)
Also, of course, since secessionist rebellion had never been tried before, the secessionists could argue that a) the North wouldn't fight, and b) if they did, Southerners would beat them.
In the 1960s? There was no panic. No one was afraid the blacks would rise up and cut white throats. (And demographics had shifted - no states were majority black any more.) There were some businesses who stood to lose from the end of Jim Crow, but not an entire region-wide class. And in fact the South had retreated considerably on race issues. Lynching (long defended as a cornerstone of white supremacy) was essentially over. (There were at least 50 lynchings each year through 1921 (except 1911).There were 25 lynchings in the 19 years after World War II. The last officially recorded lynchings were the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964.)
Another demographic shift was that several "Southern" were no longer homogenously "Southern". For instance, the southern half of Florida was mostly northern migrants. Texas had moved from being "Southern" to being equally "Western".
Finally, and most importantly, after the War, Southerners dared not fight the Federal government. In the era from after Reconstruction to 1948, white Southerners defended white supremacy by influencing the Federal government, mainly through the Democratic Party. Southern Senators employed their seniority to block civil rights legislation (and get lots of Federal pork). When the scheme broke down after 1948, all they could do was bluster. The gasconading and flag display was just that - display.
When the Supreme Court struck down their prized rules, and Presidents enforced those decisions with US Army troops... Southerners talked a lot, but they didn't care enough to risk actual fighting. George Wallace promised to "stand in the schoolhouse door" - but he got out of the way when Federal marshal walked up escorting black studens.
Completely unlikely. Even assuming that most white people in the South not only supported segregation, but were het up enough to do more than just death-squad-type violence characteristic of the KKK (and even that's a big assumption post-1925 to a large extent, as talked about above), most white Southerners, being halfway rational, remember that during the last Civil War, the economy was so thoroughly devastated that the pre-1860 level of development did not return until the 1930s.
The only way I could remotely see this happening would be in a "neutral US in WW1, minor CP victory in the West, Brest-Litosvk stays in force"-scenario with no WW2 or a minor Round 2 that never becomes another WW2. In other words in a TL where the US stays isolationist throughout the 20th century and also doesn't experience the "everyone pulling together" event that was OTL's WW2. Nor has a Warsaw Pact sized reason not to continue on looking inward.
This also gives you 40 years of butterflies during which who knows what might have happened to deliver a perfect storm in the 60s.
This also gives you 40 years of butterflies during which who knows what might have happened to deliver a perfect storm in the 60s.
Absolutely not. The South for the most part was as patriotic as any other region was. Yes, Vicksburg until 1945 did not celebrate 4th of July, yet this was an outlier. And important to note, in 1945 it was celebrated to commemorate America's victory in World War two. If you want to change the POD to get rid of WW2, fine, but then you have to explain many more reasons; the most likely (and all are very unlikely) is that the U.S. federal government brakes down to such levels that it cannot govern the nation properly in the slightest. Thus, the nation balkanizes and the South would likely unite as a shared sub-national region.
The South viewed its protections of segregation as patriotic; that the cultural changes were the sign of a unpatriotic evil. White communities plastering the Confederate battle flag across town was not to demonstrate their secessionist desires but to tell the blacks that they should stay in their place; that society's hiegharchy was static and that they as whites were filled with pride. Part of the "Lost Cause" was a reconciliation between northern and southern whites, at the expense of black Americans. I would argue that by far the biggest losers in the civil war were not the Confederates but the blacks and Indians (Christopher "Kit" Carson's scored earth tactics against the Navajo comes to mind), but that is a topic for later.
Also, with the Conservative rise with Reagan in 1980, it was about "restoring America" from the chaos of the 60's and 70's. To many, that meant fix the economy and restore patriotic pride (ie end the flag burning), however, to many in the South, that meant combating racial equality that gained steam in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (and less discussed but Nixon's busing policy was also a monumental change in the South). It was not about specific Southern pride, but about "patriotic Americans restoring the land of the free to its glorious past", and in the 1970's a racist southern white loved the past, hated the present & feared the future.
In short, no, there would be no civil war. The cultural backlash was very strong, and is part of the political deadlock to this day, and can help explain Trump and other phenomena. So the present has already been battered. But no, Fort Sumter was not going to be shot again in 1971.
The South viewed its protections of segregation as patriotic; that the cultural changes were the sign of a unpatriotic evil. White communities plastering the Confederate battle flag across town was not to demonstrate their secessionist desires but to tell the blacks that they should stay in their place; that society's hiegharchy was static and that they as whites were filled with pride. Part of the "Lost Cause" was a reconciliation between northern and southern whites, at the expense of black Americans. I would argue that by far the biggest losers in the civil war were not the Confederates but the blacks and Indians (Christopher "Kit" Carson's scored earth tactics against the Navajo comes to mind), but that is a topic for later.
Also, with the Conservative rise with Reagan in 1980, it was about "restoring America" from the chaos of the 60's and 70's. To many, that meant fix the economy and restore patriotic pride (ie end the flag burning), however, to many in the South, that meant combating racial equality that gained steam in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (and less discussed but Nixon's busing policy was also a monumental change in the South). It was not about specific Southern pride, but about "patriotic Americans restoring the land of the free to its glorious past", and in the 1970's a racist southern white loved the past, hated the present & feared the future.
In short, no, there would be no civil war. The cultural backlash was very strong, and is part of the political deadlock to this day, and can help explain Trump and other phenomena. So the present has already been battered. But no, Fort Sumter was not going to be shot again in 1971.
Perhaps not right after the civil war, but once reconstruction sadly ended (and do not buy the belief that it could have "never worked"), blacks were certainly the losers.
Am I the only one who actually read the title? Because unless I am mistaken it's "Second American Civil War in the 1960s" not "Second American Civil War in the 1960s with a PoD after WW2".
I agree it's quite unlikely, but categorically rejecting it, given we are about 60 years worth of potential changes here, is an extremly deterministic view of history.
In TL where Japan never had a Meji Restoration and in a slighty different WW1 the Entente won an early victory leaving a victorious Tsarist Russia, which is still a superpower in the 21 century most people would consider an "AHC: Japan defeats Russian Empire in a 1v1 war in 1st decade of 20th century" to be ridiculous. But it still happened in OTL.
I agree it's quite unlikely, but categorically rejecting it, given we are about 60 years worth of potential changes here, is an extremly deterministic view of history.
In TL where Japan never had a Meji Restoration and in a slighty different WW1 the Entente won an early victory leaving a victorious Tsarist Russia, which is still a superpower in the 21 century most people would consider an "AHC: Japan defeats Russian Empire in a 1v1 war in 1st decade of 20th century" to be ridiculous. But it still happened in OTL.
Post reconstruction, no reason for white southerners to do so. With a successful and longer reconstruction, if the South tried to "rise again", they would be crushed in 3 weeks.