Klu Klux Klan Continues on....

[Fenwick]

For those unaware from 1915 to 1944 was what is known as the second KKK. Seen that picture of Klansmen marching in DC? It was this Klan that did it. Yet from 1926 onward the Klan went into a steep decline. A man from Indiana named Stephenson who ran a secondary Klan group with control in 22 states in the north. However Stephenson raped a woman to death and in the public scandal that followed the Klan went into further decline.

However WI for the sake of argument Stephenson's habits with women are better covered up and the late 20's has no Klan scandals outside of their traditional violence to blacks, foriegners, and non-WASP Americans?

While never enjoying massive votes the Klan was successful in making a political machine both independent and courted by the Democratic and Republican parties of the time.

 

[katchen]

The Klan was in many ways quite an effective terrorist guerilla organization. It can be seen as the Hezbollah or the Provisional IRA of it's day. It controlled the gambling and the prostitution over not only the rural South, but the Great Plains States up to Montana and into the Midwest as well. To some extent, I've heard, through the Rural Letter Carriers Union, it may still do so.
If the KKK continued to grow, I could see it challenging mobs like the Chicago Outfit in the 1930s and taking control of political machines throughout the Midwest. The Klan could be bad news for labor unions. Or they could force the unions to much greater militiancy and radicalism in order to fight the Klan.
We might see the American Middle Class strangled in it's cradle in the 1930s and the 50s a lot like today.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Could the Klan have taken control of the Federal Government?

Might it be able to take control in a totalitarian fashion?

If so is the US a threat to any other nations?

 

[Fenwick]

Could the Klan have taken control of the Federal Government?

Might it be able to take control in a totalitarian fashion?

If so is the US a threat to any other nations?

It could have held power in rural areas but part of the Klan's popularity was due to its anti-urban stances which at the time was removing power from rural machines and putting them into high population city political machines. So true federal power would have to be via a power sharing deal.

 

[1940LaSalle]

That the KKK essentially ran Indiana in the 1920s is beyond dispute. Also beyond dispute: that it split the Democrats badly, especially in 1924. All that said, assuming D. C. Stephenson minds his manners and does not commit rape, perhaps the KKK could have taken control of Indiana through election of a slate of individuals from the governor on down.

An ad hoc alliance with more southern state organizations might then follow: perhaps sufficiently so to prevent Al Smith's nomination by the Dems in 1928. That too might have been a bad year for the Dems, but it was anyhow. By 1932, assuming Wall Street still crashes, it might be possible for a KKK-backed semi-demagogue to gain enough popular anti-Wall Street support to gain the Dem nomination (the KKK didn't have much traction with the GOP, especially in the northeast) and challenge Hoover, perhaps successfully: it may not be out of the question that Garner might have used some KKK leverage to gain the nomination.

Once in power, the KKK of the day would use its xenophobic/racist dogma to institutionalize an America First-style policy in the '30s that would probably remain on good terms with Hitler; at the same time, relations with Japan probably would have deteriorated as in OTL. Thus, one may have a "world war" which was in reality two wars: Nazi Germany (and fascist Italy FWIW) against a coalition of France, the UK and the USSR in Europe, and the US against Japan in the Pacific. Neither would have much to do with the other, unless the British were willing to make a deal with the devil for something along the lines of Lend-Lease--if indeed those in power in the US would go for something like that, which is debatable.

You wouldn't be likely to see a Manhattan Project as in OTL: too many of the best brains were foreign (anathema to the KKK) and a lot of them Jewish (doubly so). The closest analogue would have to have come about in Great Britain, which didn't have nearly the industrial (especially the chemical) capacity of the US of the time. I think that means both wars drag out somewhat more: perhaps to 1946 or 1947 in Europe; definitely to 1947 or even 1948 in the Pacific.

The US would be a lot less pleasant place: race relations would pretty much stagnate as they were about 1915 or so, especially in the south and border south. There might be areas of the nation where blacks weren't too badly off-say, New England or the Pacific Northwest-but those would be the exception to the rule. Look for a lot of minorities, if able to do so, to leave the US for Canada.

Would the KKK collapse eventually? Perhaps, if there were some sort of misstep. After all, what took down Al Capone was running afoul of income tax laws. Maybe the same might take down the KKK after the Pacific war.

 

[Dorozhand]

That the KKK essentially ran Indiana in the 1920s is beyond dispute. Also beyond dispute: that it split the Democrats badly, especially in 1924. All that said, assuming D. C. Stephenson minds his manners and does not commit rape, perhaps the KKK could have taken control of Indiana through election of a slate of individuals from the governor on down.

An ad hoc alliance with more southern state organizations might then follow: perhaps sufficiently so to prevent Al Smith's nomination by the Dems in 1928. That too might have been a bad year for the Dems, but it was anyhow. By 1932, assuming Wall Street still crashes, it might be possible for a KKK-backed semi-demagogue to gain enough popular anti-Wall Street support to gain the Dem nomination (the KKK didn't have much traction with the GOP, especially in the northeast) and challenge Hoover, perhaps successfully: it may not be out of the question that Garner might have used some KKK leverage to gain the nomination.

Once in power, the KKK of the day would use its xenophobic/racist dogma to institutionalize an America First-style policy in the '30s that would probably remain on good terms with Hitler; at the same time, relations with Japan probably would have deteriorated as in OTL. Thus, one may have a "world war" which was in reality two wars: Nazi Germany (and fascist Italy FWIW) against a coalition of France, the UK and the USSR in Europe, and the US against Japan in the Pacific. Neither would have much to do with the other, unless the British were willing to make a deal with the devil for something along the lines of Lend-Lease--if indeed those in power in the US would go for something like that, which is debatable.

You wouldn't be likely to see a Manhattan Project as in OTL: too many of the best brains were foreign (anathema to the KKK) and a lot of them Jewish (doubly so). The closest analogue would have to have come about in Great Britain, which didn't have nearly the industrial (especially the chemical) capacity of the US of the time. I think that means both wars drag out somewhat more: perhaps to 1946 or 1947 in Europe; definitely to 1947 or even 1948 in the Pacific.

The US would be a lot less pleasant place: race relations would pretty much stagnate as they were about 1915 or so, especially in the south and border south. There might be areas of the nation where blacks weren't too badly off-say, New England or the Pacific Northwest-but those would be the exception to the rule. Look for a lot of minorities, if able to do so, to leave the US for Canada.

Would the KKK collapse eventually? Perhaps, if there were some sort of misstep. After all, what took down Al Capone was running afoul of income tax laws. Maybe the same might take down the KKK after the Pacific war.

Perhaps a KKK controlled US would drive unions and urban industrial workers farther to the left, maybe even towards a Socialist party that makes itself known to stand unyieldingly against the Klan. Then, as the depression and the '30s roll on, you could see a great polarization of the country into Socialist and Democrat blocs, with the Republicans, unable to adapt and choose a side, going the way of the whigs in the 1850s. This especially if the KKK Dems handle the depression poorly (thus economically discrediting both parties), and even more so if they blunder into a long war with Japan. Then, if the allies still win the war in Europe (provided it still happens roughly as OTL), you could get a USSR dominated Europe that sponsors the Socialists in the US.

 

[The Vet]

Does the Black Legion count as part of the KKK?

 

[Fenwick]

Does the Black Legion count as part of the KKK?

Nah. They wanted a facist state. The Klan wanted a "small town christian and american" state.

 

[RichMill]

Nah. They wanted a facist state. The Klan wanted a "small town christian and american" state.

That had white, Anglo-Saxon's at the head of society whilst other ethnic groups were second class citizens. That sounds pretty "Fascistic" to me.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Does the Black Legion count as part of the KKK?

Yes and no. Technically it was a seperate organization, but it shared demographics of membership and ideiology.

There is no way the Klan could have taken permanent control of indiana or any other state. Its revival in the early 1920s was based on a strong anti Catholic line, which was extended to Jews and essentialy to any other non WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) group. In example: my German accented grandfather and his brothers were suspect in 1922 Klan propaganda. My Irish Catholic ancestors on my mothers side were targets. In 1922 Indiana the rural population was only a slim majority of voters, and heavily Catholic in many rural counties. The urban Indiana population was heavily salted with Slavic and Mediterrainean types who were not "100% Americans" as the 1920s Klan propaganda put it. The 1920s Klan definition of its representation excluded a majority of the potiential voters in most states. The opposition quickly took advantage of this, undercutting Klan election candidates in numerous primaries by going after the many non WASP voters the Klan neglected or opposed.

Later in the 1930s the Klan leaders changed their line, with leaders attempting reconciliation with Catholic bishops (weak acceptance) and extending its acceptable membership to a much wider ethnic/cultural demographic.

A separate problem was the Klans central organization was never able to retain strong central control over the local and regional organizations. a effective party disciplinary organization never emerged, and post scandal efforts to excercise control usually backfired with the regional or local groups breaking up into independant organizations that frequently claimed to be the "true Klan". These split groups often found themselves supporting competing candidates in primary and final elections.

I'd recommend 'Hooded Empire' by R Larson for a history of the Klan from its revival circa 1915 to its latter iterations in the 1970s.

 

[Fenwick]

That had white, Anglo-Saxon's at the head of society whilst other ethnic groups were second class citizens. That sounds pretty "Fascistic" to me.

It is like telling a Marxist they are a Stalinist or a Titoist. Even though they had similar goals, and images they did not consider themselves proper allies.

 

[Fenwick]

Yes and no. Technically it was a seperate organization, but it shared demographics of membership and ideiology.

There is no way the Klan could have taken permanent control of indiana or any other state. Its revival in the early 1920s was based on a strong anti Catholic line, which was extended to Jews and essentialy to any other non WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) group. In example: my German accented grandfather and his brothers were suspect in 1922 Klan propaganda. My Irish Catholic ancestors on my mothers side were targets. In 1922 Indiana the rural population was only a slim majority of voters, and heavily Catholic in many rural counties. The urban Indiana population was heavily salted with Slavic and Mediterrainean types who were not "100% Americans" as the 1920s Klan propaganda put it. The 1920s Klan definition of its representation excluded a majority of the potiential voters in most states. The opposition quickly took advantage of this, undercutting Klan election candidates in numerous primaries by going after the many non WASP voters the Klan neglected or opposed.

Later in the 1930s the Klan leaders changed their line, with leaders attempting reconciliation with Catholic bishops (weak acceptance) and extending its acceptable membership to a much wider ethnic/cultural demographic.

A separate problem was the Klans central organization was never able to retain strong central control over the local and regional organizations. a effective party disciplinary organization never emerged, and post scandal efforts to excercise control usually backfired with the regional or local groups breaking up into independant organizations that frequently claimed to be the "true Klan". These split groups often found themselves supporting competing candidates in primary and final elections.

I'd recommend 'Hooded Empire' by R Larson for a history of the Klan from its revival circa 1915 to its latter iterations in the 1970s.

Add to this the history channel did a nice overview of the Klan's history. Not as indepth as the book listed above but it does get into various personalities in the various Klan incarnations.

 

[Some Bloke]

I have to admit I find the idea of the KKK as an organised crime syndicate morbidly fascinating.

 

[Fenwick]

I have to admit I find the idea of the KKK as an organised crime syndicate morbidly fascinating.

In some ways they always were. However it is more like Nucky Johnson in Atlantic City then Al Capone. Namely they did illegal things but the former got elected and the later just broke the law.

 

[TheShah]

check out the Gilead almanac in the Shared Worlds corner for a hypothetical post-apocalyptic state run by the Klan.