Would the South eventually have desegragated itself?

[Stravo]

Just what the title asks. Would the South, absent of pressures from the courts and Federal Government eventually have become enlightened enough to abolish segregation itself? And I don't mean like hundreds of years down the road. Say from the time of Brown v. Board of Eductaion to present day 2004 would the South stop segregation on its own?

[Iceberg]

Just what the title asks. Would the South, absent of pressures from the courts and Federal Government eventually have become enlightened enough to abolish segregation itself? And I don't mean like hundreds of years down the road. Say from the time of Brown v. Board of Eductaion to present day 2004 would the South stop segregation on its own?

I don't think so.

[Stormbringer]

Just what the title asks. Would the South, absent of pressures from the courts and Federal Government eventually have become enlightened enough to abolish segregation itself? And I don't mean like hundreds of years down the road. Say from the time of Brown v. Board of Eductaion to present day 2004 would the South stop segregation on its own?

Yes. The civil rights movement did as much or more than the courts to actually break down the day to day segregation. The Civil Rights Movement did a lot on it's own to desegregate the South through simple public pressure and public activism. There's no doubt the courts and the federal government did a hell of a lot to make things easier but they were far more reactive than proactive in the matter.

[Joe]

Yes. There were progressive thinkers in power in the South - the governor of Georgia, for example, managed to negotiate a repeal of the state poll tax which was used to keep blacks from the voting booths in 1945. It would have happened, but it would have taken a LOT longer.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I'm not too sure. The Civil rights movement was big, but without the civil rights act and so on, things would have been a lot slower. They would still be working on basic rights NOW without the support of the Federal government's intervention.

[Stormbringer]

I'm not too sure. The Civil rights movement was big, but without the civil rights act and so on, things would have been a lot slower. They would still be working on basic rights NOW without the support of the Federal government's intervention.

Some what slower, but not that much slower. The civil rights movement was pretty damn powerful and as Joe pointed out there were actually enlightened Southerners that were helping. And that's leaving aside the fact that public pressure from the rest of America would only have grown stronger. Things like the Selma March and the Freedom Riders did a lot to make the Ol' Dixie system look like barbarians.

And the interesting thing is really, had the federal government not stepped in I doubt we would see the corruption of the civil rights movement into the african-american slop trough movement. And I can't help but wonder if the courts and federal government stepping in didn't help perpetuate some of the lingering racism.

[Elheru Aran]

It depends strongly on the state of the Southern economy. Without the extensive mineral resources of the Northern states, and with limited room for expansion in the west (they might have gone and taken over Mexico, though-- and I wouldn't put it past them to try and take the Caribbean islands). They would've had trouble... especially given the stringent antislavery enforcement of the British, they wouldn't have been able to import more slaves except perhaps Haitians.

Their slave economy would've most probably collapsed after a while, especially with the advent of mechanization. Slaves were expensive to keep-- several hundred dollars just to purchase them (equivalent to a luxury auto today), and then you had to feed and support them the rest of their lives. Machines, on the other hand, merely required some oil (and a qualified repairman), and you were done. Slaves might've still remained for some duties, such as cotton picking, but for the most part, it would simply be more expedient to let them go and look after themselves, paying them minimal wages-- perhaps a sharecropping system.

Segregation would remain powerful, no doubt; but the relationship between slaves and masters, for the most part, was respectful. It was clear that if the blacks fucked up, they were in trouble, but if they were fed, and didn't make trouble, the owner wouldn't harm them. They actually had amenities-- excavations of slave quarters have revealed items such as china plates (which, admittedly, could've been snitched, but with the sort of inventory-keeping they did back then... just look through diaries from the time). It wouldn't have been much different with freemen and whites; it would merely be a sort of unofficial relationship, one in which the blacks were respectful and interacted with the whites only formally, and in turn, the whites were just as formal and polite.

You would get your share of bigoted racists, to be sure-- but for the most part they would probably be quelled sharply before they caused trouble (I imagine the memories of slave uprisings, most caused by mistreatement of slaves, would remain crystal clear). Blacks would have limited rights-- they'd probably have their own lawyers, their own communities, their own schools with their own teachers. It wouldn't be full equality, but it would certainly be better than slavery-- in fact, if slavery continued in some limited capacity, I wouldn't be surprised to see freedmen land owners having slaves of their own; they had those in the North, in fact, before the Northern states outlawed slavery.

[Stormbringer]

Elheru Aran, you do realize this is talking about de-segregation, not slavery right?

[The Kernel]

Possibly, although I think the majority of the people would still be feverently against it. Hell, if you put up a vote to resegregate the South today, I would bet that you'd still get a decent amount of voters saying yes.

[Elheru Aran]

Elheru Aran, you do realize this is talking about de-segregation, not slavery right?

Yeah, but the fact is that segregation came around after slavery-- my discussion of slavery was to set the stage, so to speak, for my opinion of whether or not the South would desegregate. Hmm... <looks again> I guess I should've worked on it a bit more... but I over-write anyway...

[SyntaxVorlon]

Possibly, although I think the majority of the people would still be feverently against it. Hell, if you put up a vote to resegregate the South today, I would bet that you'd still get a decent amount of voters saying yes.

Interesting use of the word decent.

[Iceberg]

I said "no" because in the history of government no majority has ever given up an advantage it held over a minority without the law forcing them to. I see no reason why this would change.

[Darth Wong]

I saw a CNN report a while ago about "informal segregation" in Southern schools having steadily worsened for years. WORSENED, people. As in "the opposite of getting better". I seriously doubt that desegregation would have happened at all, despite the presence of certain progressives in the cities.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I saw a CNN report a while ago about "informal segregation" in Southern schools having steadily worsened for years. WORSENED, people. As in "the opposite of getting better". I seriously doubt that desegregation would have happened at all, despite the presence of certain progressives in the cities.

I see it as well every single day. I'd rather call it 'self-enforced segregation' anyway.

Racism is quite alive and well in the South on both sides of the issue.

[LadyTevar]

Elheru Aran, you do realize this is talking about de-segregation, not slavery right?

Yeah, but the fact is that segregation came around after slavery-- my discussion of slavery was to set the stage, so to speak, for my opinion of whether or not the South would desegregate. Hmm... <looks again> I guess I should've worked on it a bit more... but I over-write anyway...

Actually, it looked like you were doing it from a 'Confedrate States of America' point of view.

[Elheru Aran]

Elheru Aran, you do realize this is talking about de-segregation, not slavery right?

Yeah, but the fact is that segregation came around after slavery-- my discussion of slavery was to set the stage, so to speak, for my opinion of whether or not the South would desegregate. Hmm... <looks again> I guess I should've worked on it a bit more... but I over-write anyway...

Actually, it looked like you were doing it from a 'Confedrate States of America' point of view.

*Shrugs* And?

In all respect, that's the scenario postulated, I believe-- that, in the case of the CSA remaining independent, would they desegregate? Therefore, I did just what you said... looked at it from their point of view. I could do the other side, but since the question applies pretty pointedly to the CSA, I don't think it concerns any other countries.

[Rogue 9]

Yeah, but the fact is that segregation came around after slavery-- my discussion of slavery was to set the stage, so to speak, for my opinion of whether or not the South would desegregate. Hmm... <looks again> I guess I should've worked on it a bit more... but I over-write anyway...

Actually, it looked like you were doing it from a 'Confedrate States of America' point of view.

*Shrugs* And?

In all respect, that's the scenario postulated, I believe-- that, in the case of the CSA remaining independent, would they desegregate? Therefore, I did just what you said... looked at it from their point of view. I could do the other side, but since the question applies pretty pointedly to the CSA, I don't think it concerns any other countries.

"Other" countries? The CSA was never a valid nation-state.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think the Civil rights movement would have been politically and physically crushed. Landmark rulings like Brown vs Topeka and reforms such as the Voting Rights Acts would have never existed. Without the FBI and the federal courts going after the Klan, there would have been even more assissantions of anyone standing up for equality. The South would be even more of a shit hole than it is today.

[Xenophobe3691]

"Other" countries? The CSA was never a valid nation-state.

Hey, stop nitpicking. And FYI, it never was, but it was a de facto one. A lot of Encyclopedias and records from those years show both the US and the CS.

[Rogue 9]

"Other" countries? The CSA was never a valid nation-state.

Hey, stop nitpicking. And FYI, it never was, but it was a de facto one. A lot of Encyclopedias and records from those years show both the US and the CS.

See my sig. I'm going to bristle whenever someone suggests that the CSA was valid; it's become a rather touchy subject. Get used to it. *Shrug*

[Iceberg]

"Other" countries? The CSA was never a valid nation-state.

Hey, stop nitpicking. And FYI, it never was, but it was a de facto one. A lot of Encyclopedias and records from those years show both the US and the CS.

It was never treated as a nation-state by anybody but itself. They had to conduct all their trade in gold, which is why the Confederate dollar became so debased as the Civil War wore on. The Confederacy was a region of a nation state which was in rebellion, not a nation state either in fact or in law.

[Stuart Mackey]

"Other" countries? The CSA was never a valid nation-state.

Hey, stop nitpicking. And FYI, it never was, but it was a de facto one. A lot of Encyclopedias and records from those years show both the US and the CS.

It was never treated as a nation-state by anybody but itself. They had to conduct all their trade in gold, which is why the Confederate dollar became so debased as the Civil War wore on. The Confederacy was a region of a nation state which was in rebellion, not a nation state either in fact or in law.

Indeed. What people often forget is that rebellion is never justified unless it wins.