If the Civil Rights Act hadn't been passed, when/would the individual Southern states repeal segregation?

[Nyvis]

If that happens, they would be large riots probably making the King Assisination Riots dwarf in comparison, the factions in the CRM that want to work through the Federal Government would be discredited because of this castrated bill, probably leading to several urban insurrections, that probably leads to a 60s PATRIOT ACT to save the country. Oh shit this is during the beginning of Vietnam, if so I don't see the US doing well in the 70s or 80s.

Either successful revolution or naked fascism in the cards honestly.

 

[Japhy]

Either successful revolution or naked fascism in the cards honestly.

Or just a lot of needlessly dead people.

 

[Nyvis]

Or just a lot of needlessly dead people.

You can assign that to either depending on where you lean... I think there's a level of repression you can't walk back easily, and that will probably require it to stay on top of the unrest.

 

[d32123]

I think the Northern Ireland comparisons are more apt. Riots can and would be suppressed by military force. The "peace" afterwards would be the problem. In the OTL 70s the US saw a lot of subsequently forgotten open left-wing political violence/terrorism from both black and white radicals and I imagine it could be even bigger and last longer ITTL.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Also, remember that I only mentioned that as a possibility. It's also possible that Mechem and Walters, who opposed the bill, being replaced respectively by Montoya and Bass, who supported the bill, would be enough to provide a filibuster proof majority.

No offense, but everyone has apparently neglected this possibility.

 

[Geordie]

No offense, but everyone has apparently neglected this possibility.

That's because the alternative suggestion had far more to discuss. A 'slight watering down' of the bill, exempting local businesses, leaves an absolutely huge hole in the law. Every Mom and Pop store can keep segregation. Depending on the definition of local, rather larger businesses could also keep colour bars in place. Charity doing the outsourced job of welfare could.

That's desegregation in name only. The consequences of such an idea really do boggle the mind, and deserve to be discussed.

 

[Japhy]

You can assign that to either depending on where you lean... I think there's a level of repression you can't walk back easily, and that will probably require it to stay on top of the unrest.

You can assign that fo either side regardless of bow you lean but it's not really a topic I'm willing to discuss with you considering.

Anyway @d32123 is right. Northern Ireland is far more likely.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I think this is an extremely overly deterministic view of history. I agree that JFK is likely to win (due to incumbency), but the economic and political conditions of late 1964 were by no means determined by 1963.

Before John F. Kennedy's death, Gallup polls showed him having a huge lead over Goldwater.

 

[Japhy]

Before John F. Kennedy's death, Gallup polls showed him having a huge lead over Goldwater.

And Goldwater wasn't inevitable.

 

[Ricardolindo]

And Goldwater wasn't inevitable.

I am reasonably sure of one thing: Nelson Rockefeller couldn't get the nomination. Even if he did not remarry, Goldwater would still have overwhelming support in the South and in parts of the West. Maybe Goldwater could be stopped but, then, the Republicans would have to find a compromise nominee.

That's because the alternative suggestion had far more to discuss. A 'slight watering down' of the bill, exempting local businesses, leaves an absolutely huge hole in the law. Every Mom and Pop store can keep segregation. Depending on the definition of local, rather larger businesses could also keep colour bars in place. Charity doing the outsourced job of welfare could.

That's desegregation in name only. The consequences of such an idea really do boggle the mind, and deserve to be discussed.

My previous definition of local businesses was too broad. Here's a better one: They are defined as businesses that are only accessible by county roads. The law would still apply to businesses that were accessible by state and interstate roads. It wouldn't be trivial but I don't think it would be desegregation in name only. It certainly would be much more robust than the 1958 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. If it's passed before the 1964 elections, the law could be extended to local businesses after them. Either way, the Supreme Court would probably rule local business segregation unconstitutional within a few years.

 

[Indicus]

My previous definition of local businesses was too broad. Here's a better one: They are defined as businesses that are only accessible by county roads. The law would still apply to businesses that were accessible by state and interstate roads.

That’s still a massive loophole - all a state has to do is “chop up” state roads by county, give these “separated” roads to each county, and that would enable the expansion of segregation to state roads.

 

[Ricardolindo]

That’s still a massive loophole - all a state has to do is “chop up” state roads by county, give these “separated” roads to each county, and that would enable the expansion of segregation to state roads.

That's a good point, but remember that, even in our timeline, Southern states explored several loopholes. For example, after the Voting Rights Act, when blacks started to administer several counties where they were the majority, the white majority state legislatures cut funding to said counties. Still, things didn't end in a revolution, a sectarian conflict or a dictatorship, like some of you are imagining would happen in such a scenario.

 

[Oppo]

I am reasonably sure of one thing: Nelson Rockefeller couldn't get the nomination. Even if he did not remarry, Goldwater would still have overwhelming support in the South and in parts of the West. Maybe Goldwater could be stopped but, then, the Republicans would have to find a compromise nominee.

Rockefeller wasn’t always going to be the main anti-Goldwater candidate. Draft efforts emerged for candidates as varied as Richard Nixon, George Romney, Lauris Norstad, and Milton Eisenhower.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Rockefeller wasn’t always going to be the main anti-Goldwater candidate. Draft efforts emerged for candidates as varied as Richard Nixon, George Romney, Lauris Norstad, and Milton Eisenhower.

I did say there could have been a compromise nominee. Out of those 4, Nixon seems to me the only viable one. George Romney had only been Governor for 1 year and might have been too liberal to be acceptable to the Goldwaterites. Lauris Norstad was, IMO, too unknown. Milton Eisenhower had no political or military background, which was not the case with any President until Trump. Regardless of who, thing is: If Nixon couldn't win in 1960, despite being the Vice-President of the very popular Dwight Eisenhower, how could any Republican win in 1964, let alone a conservative one, like Goldwater, which would be necessary to block the Civil Rights Act, assuming it hadn't passed already?

 

[Japhy]

I did say there could have been a compromise nominee. Out of those 4, Nixon seems to me the only viable one. George Romney had only been Governor for 1 year and might have been too liberal to be acceptable to the Goldwaterites. Lauris Norstad was, IMO, too unknown. Milton Eisenhower had no political or military background, which was not the case with any President until Trump. Regardless of who, thing is: If Nixon couldn't win in 1960, despite being the Vice-President of the very popular Dwight Eisenhower, how could any Republican win in 1964, let alone a conservative one, like Goldwater, which would be necessary to block the Civil Rights Act, assuming it hadn't passed already?

It doesn't actually have to be a compromise someone else could just do better. The Kennedy campaign was actively afraid of Romney, Scranton had National appeal and yes Nixon could have gotten it. There are also other Conservative figures and the fact that a Liberal Republican could force Kennedy to appease the party right.

Nothing is historical inevitability. That said I don't know what else there is to talk about here when you continually just insist that everyone else must be wrong because you say so.

 

[Ricardolindo]

It doesn't actually have to be a compromise someone else could just do better. The Kennedy campaign was actively afraid of Romney, Scranton had National appeal and yes Nixon could have gotten it. There are also other Conservative figures and the fact that a Liberal Republican could force Kennedy to appease the party right.

Nothing is historical inevitability. That said I don't know what else there is to talk about here when you continually just insist that everyone else must be wrong because you say so.

Romney didn't even run in 1964. Remember that he had only been governor for 1 year. Scranton only ran after Rockefeller's campaign blew up. Also, I think you are underestimating the conservatives. In 1952, Taft almost defeated the very popular Eisenhower. Conservatives blamed Nixon's 1960 defeat on his campaign being too liberal. They were very resentful of the party establishment. As for other conservative options, I can think of Walter Judd. However, as conservatism did not fit the US at the time, he would lose. It would be a smaller defeat than in our timeline, though.

 

[Japhy]

I'm actually very aware of the rise of the American Conservative Movement. I dare say a little bit more then you.

But you just want to tell everyone else they're wrong so again, what's the point?

 

[Ricardolindo]

I'm actually very aware of the rise of the American Conservative Movement. I dare say a little bit more then you.

But you just want to tell everyone else they're wrong so again, what's the point?

I know I'm at odds with the others in this thread but, believe me, I'm not only trying to tell you that you're wrong. I want to hear your side better. Two questions: 1. If Taft almost defeated Eisenhower, a war hero, in 1952, how do you think a moderate could defeat Goldwater in 1964, except as a compromise?
2. How could a Republican win in 1964? It was a prosperous and peaceful year.

 

[theev]

I know I'm at odds with the others in this thread but, believe me, I'm not only trying to tell you that you're wrong. I want to hear your side better. Two questions: 1. If Taft almost defeated Eisenhower, a war hero, in 1952, how do you think a moderate could defeat Goldwater in 1964, except as a compromise?
2. How could a Republican win in 1964? It was a prosperous and peaceful year.

I think you have weird historical myopia regarding this specific election’s role in the grand scheme of the American civil rights movement but I’ll answer.

1. The Taft example is irrelevant. After Eisenhower the party establishment was firmly moderate and eastern. Goldwater benefited from a string of good luck and burgeoning small-scale conservative activism. Considering how Goldwater barely won OTL, just put him up against a less divided opposition field or a primary opponent with fewer skeletons and more political sense than Nelson Rockefeller.

2. If the Bobby Baker scandal blew up or the public got wind of all of Kennedy’s shit or the Democratic Party split or the GOP ran a stronger candidate. The result wasn’t set in stone, Kennedy wasn’t winning every single poll conducted in late 1963.

 

[napoleon IV]

That's a good point, but remember that, even in our timeline, Southern states explored several loopholes. For example, after the Voting Rights Act, when blacks started to administer several counties where they were the majority, the white majority state legislatures cut funding to said counties. Still, things didn't end in a revolution, a sectarian conflict or a dictatorship, like some of you are imagining would happen in such a scenario.

Yeah but if all of the state roads are chopped up that leaves a relatively small number of businesses that are actually desegregated. A huge portion of the South didn't have an interstate run through it, and even when it did a lot of the roads leading to and from the interstate could be chopped up and turned into "county roads." Basically, any loophole you create that allows some private businesses to be segregated will be exploited to the point that the Civil Rights Act doesn't change anything, and that's functionally a massive defeat for the Civil Rights Movement.

I think you have weird historical myopia regarding this specific election’s role in the grand scheme of the American civil rights movement but I’ll answer.

1. The Taft example is irrelevant. After Eisenhower the party establishment was firmly moderate and eastern. Goldwater benefited from a string of good luck and burgeoning small-scale conservative activism. Considering how Goldwater barely won OTL, just put him up against a less divided opposition field or a primary opponent with fewer skeletons and more political sense than Nelson Rockefeller.

2. If the Bobby Baker scandal blew up or the public got wind of all of Kennedy’s shit or the Democratic Party split or the GOP ran a stronger candidate. The result wasn’t set in stone, Kennedy wasn’t winning every single poll conducted in late 1963.

My favorite POD with this is that there is no JFK assassination so the Salad Oil Swindle causes a stock market crash and a recession. That would really make it difficult for JFK to win a second term, particularly if the Republicans pick someone other than Goldwater.