Some more thoughts.
If Olson really promised a Supreme Court seat to Senate Majority Leader Joseph Taylor Robinson to get the Anti-Lynching and the NLRA bills passed, he probably won't have to worry about Robinson for long because Robinson died on July 14, 1937, in real life.
The NLRA might not enough to appease Reed and the most radical of socialists. The path we picked in the quest has twice ignored Reed and, while a bit more radical than Landon's or FDR's New Deal would have been, lacks a truly potent concession to the socialists such as creating and handing sole control of a federal National Labor Board to the SPA found in the Velvet Glove path in the mod. I am sure many would find handing sole control of government agencies to a party that lost the election to be outrageous.
Contrary to what I expected, bundling the Wagner-Gavagan Act and the NLRA together might have helped pass both bills. The SPA did not want the NLRA to pass but the SPA also really wanted the Wagner-Gavagan Act to pass because white union workers realized that they needed protection from lynching as well during the New Years' Strike. Robinson bundled the Wagner-Gavagan Act and the NLRA together in a joint cloture motion to force the SPA to pick between both bills passing and neither bill passing. The socialists decided to vote for the joint cloture motion to pass to allow passage of the Wagner-Gavagan even if it meant allowing the Coalition to pass the NLRA as well.
I expect the Civil War to include a big angry reactionary Southern uprising because we enraged them, we proved that we do not need their votes, and because they cannot stop our agenda, but I would not be surprised if we had a weaker socialist uprising because we did not directly talk with Reed and the radicals will not be satisfied with the Fair Deal.
Why did Long filibuster the Anti-Lynching Act? I thought he was against racism in RL and in Kaiserreich. He certainly had a feud with the KKK. Did he turn to them for voter base?
We ended up forcing Long into making a clear choice on a race issue and ending his neutrality. Long was said to be a casual racist who did not rabidly hate black people. He was willing to help African Americans if it serves his interests or if would not hurt him and would not race bait needlessly, but he was willing to screw over the African American community if it also served his interests. The anti-lynching bill was a direct challenge to Long's mostly Southern support base so he either had to oppose the bill or lose the support of his base with no way to avoid or be neutral on the question. Long apparently decided to oppose the bill to avoid losing the support of his base even if he might consider it personally distasteful.
I'm guessing that trying to enforce the Wagner-Gavagan Act will be the sparking incident, with the South refusing to punish lynchers. Either the Feds attempt to push the issue, and the South goes 'Racism!' 'State Rights!' and "The South will rise again!", or moderating/punishing only the most egregious offenders will cause the labor unions to accuse us of weakness and false promises.
Next time you know, everyone smells blood in the water, and everything is all "Every Man a King" "Break the Chains" "Up with the Stars, Down with the traitors".
While the passage of the Wagner-Gavagan Act is undoubtably a good thing, I have no doubt there will be a massive, bloody wave of lynchings of African Americans, other minorities, and of socialists across the South and in the wider country in open defiance of the Federal Government in response to the "federal and socialist tyranny" of the passage of this bill.
