Remove ads

The Second Reconstruction-A Post-Civil War Kaiserreich USA Quest

Reader mode
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Offer no deal to supporters of Prohibition in Congress
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Offer no deal to Texan oil men, it is to risky to try to undercut Garner's support
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Implement a flat Wealth Cap
 
Socialists:
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed

Civil Rights Liberals:
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation

Free Trade Supporters:
[X [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley

Prohibitionists:
[X] [DRINK] Offer no deal to supporters of Prohibition in Congress

Market Liberals:
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts

Western Representatives:
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief

Texan Business Interests:
[X] [OIL] Push Congress to enact Federal Oil Subsidies

Undecideds:
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts

Byrd and Southern Democrats:
[X] [RACISM] Segregate access to Fair Deal Programs

Longists:
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long

We can do a little bit of GRAFT and RACISM, as a treat
 
Last edited:
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Federal Tax on Trade and Sale of Alcohol
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Offer no deal to Texan oil men, it is to risky to try to undercut Garner's support
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long
 
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Federal Tax on Trade and Sale of Alcohol
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Push Congress to enact Federal Oil Subsidies
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long
 
Both Long and Reed want to tear the U.S Constitution to shreds in different ways and setup Authoritarian governments so they get nothing. A Anti-Lynching Law also does no seem like to lose us to much support and it has clear good to support.

[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Federal Tax on Trade and Sale of Alcohol
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Push Congress to enact Federal Oil Subsidies
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long
 
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Federal Tax on Trade and Sale of Alcohol
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Offer no deal to Texan oil men, it is to risky to try to undercut Garner's support
[X] [GRAFT] Offer no deals to undecided representatives, avoiding dirtying our hands
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long
 
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Offer no deal to supporters of Prohibition in Congress
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Push Congress to enact Federal Oil Subsidies
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
 
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Offer no deal to supporters of Prohibition in Congress
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Push Congress to enact Federal Oil Subsidies
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Implement a flat Wealth Cap
 
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Federal Tax on Trade and Sale of Alcohol
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Push Congress to enact Federal Oil Subsidies
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long

That is getting support over 7/10 issues. Anti-Lynching should give us progressive support while Fair Deal prioritization will give us what can be the swing vote that decides it. Federal subsidies, ending tariffs and taxing alcohol gives us the pro-business wing and social conservative wing respectively. I would rather not legitimize the AFP or CSA by giving them legislative wins when we do not have to.

Sturmi said:
Oil is the only force in Texas strong enough to sometimes defeat the the Dixiecrat establishment IRL. With the Longists sapping their strength, the support of Big Oil could bring us an unexpected harvest of votes in the House and Senate. Lyndon Baines Johnson, the unexpected hero of Civil Rights, began and ended his career with the unrepentant support of Texas Oil which allowed him to defeat people he shouldn't have been able to like the highly popular ultraconservative Governor of Texas, Coke Stevenson, in the Democratic primary for Senate in 1948 irl.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While you convinced me I am worried about upsetting Garner. Combined the AFP and CSA could have 30% of the senatorial seats if the presidential electoral victories match.
 
Last edited:
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Offer no deal to supporters of Prohibition in Congress
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Offer no deal to Texan oil men, it is to risky to try to undercut Garner's support
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Implement a flat Wealth Cap
 
Jeeshadow said:
Be warned, some offers may not go well together. Some will sink the entire agenda. I also urge you to reach out beyond Olson's traditional base of support. But the more deals you make, the more likely the Bill will pass.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To the fellow players of this quest, which options do you think do not go well together? Which options do you think will sink the bill? If you look at what I voted for, you will see the rest of the post is me playing devils advocate.

Repealing tariffs might have some friction with bailouts and farm subsidies. If we have a politician who is pro-free market they may like the first but not the rest. Another kind of politician could be a protectionist who is neutral or supportive of supporting businesses during an economic depression but not making them compete with the foreign market.

Pork has the potential to be one of those options that will poison the vote. Offering oil subsidies could incense Garner and his allies.

A federal tax on alcohol should have a wide range of support from conservatives to progressives. It carries some risks since many states prior to Prohibition depended on tax from liqour. There may be a similar number of prohibition states as OTL or not.

I doubt the lynching and telling Byrd no is one of them. Unless they are meant to be a lesson that we will sometimes have to pick a morally repugnant choice to win. Doing both at once will provoke a worse reaction from Byrd.

It will be interesting to see how the AFP and CSA votes, since they both espouse to represent the working class. So do the Dixiecrats but the anti lynching bill may keep all of them from voting for it.
 
Garner and his allies are precisely the people threatening to sink the the NLRA so im fully indifferent to making them angrier. They have made their bed and it's time to lay in it.

Repealing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff will ruffle some feathers no doubt, but overall I think its consequences would be starting to bite at this point. In the Election Platform update the wording was, emphasis mine:

"Domestically it would seem like a minor success, with factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production beginning to rise. When Americans went to the polls on Election Day, it certainly seemed to have worked. Yet there was strong opposition in states bordering Canada, their citizens not happy about the now hard border and Hoover had managed to drive a wedge into the National Unity coalition. Internationally, it was a disaster. Canada and the entire Entente were outraged and quickly passed retaliatory tariffs of their own, with US imports and exports collapsing even further by the start of the Civil War. With the exception of trade to Asia, South and Central America, and various neutral nations, the US economy was incredibly isolated."

This would mean a rise in food prices which would be good to farmers but catastrophic for the rest of the country in Depression. A few months in after Inauguration Day it's also rather likely that the further collapse of international trade has begun to bite bad in export heavy states and border states with Canada. We can placate farmers with subsidy, any businessmen who liked having less competition probably also aren't feeling that great about the collapse of import and export markets so they probably won't complain too much about rescinding the tariff. The type of hardcore protectionists that will defend Smoot-Hawley to the death are few and far between and really marginal. I think either Smoot or Hawley actually also repudiated this tariff a few years afterwards IRL but I forgot which. For those who are on the fence we are offering more bailouts and the like and that will probably be enough for those who are wavering. In the best case scenario it might even induce some SPA Congressmen to vote for the bill in combination with other things.

I admit that I'm really not seeing the downsides to pork for the undecideds. It's a minuscule(proportional) increase to overall government expenditure and while its an ugly look, there's a whole lot of America that looks a lot worse than that. A lot of Dixiecrats and Conservative Republicans considered the Tennessee Valley Authority to just be a bunch of pork, but in the end if development happens and money goes towards places that need money I would rather some districts get that money first than no money come forward at all. Keep in mind we've already pushed through a lot of legislation, the Olson Administration has inertia and Garner and the Dixiecrats are standing in front of the train. We have a lot to sell ourselves on and some dirty deals to get this piece of legislation through isn't going to cast a pale of corruption over the whole Fair Deal.
 
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Federal Tax on Trade and Sale of Alcohol
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Push Congress to enact Federal Oil Subsidies
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long
 
Scrapknight507 said:
Slightly disagree on the civil rights bill. The bridge with Byrd and the fire-eating Southern Democrats has already been burnt to the ground - there is no faction in America that currently has a lower opinion of us. This is a way to stand up for our principles at the cost of alienating people that would support exactly none of our agenda to begin with. Plus, the south is Long's country now, and he's a different type of person than Byrd and co.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It has not been burnt to the ground. The anti lynching bill may be what does it. I am still not changing my vote on it.

What if we think of something to push towards reconciliation with his faction? Byrd and his supporters may be detestable but I would prefer it if we could keep them from making the civil war worse for us. The more insurrection there is in the south, the more victims there will be and the more blood that will have to be shed to stabilize it. AFP militants and American soldiers will not be the only casualties in the South. It will be Olson's fault if he does nothing to mitigate the growing rift with the South.If the "white southerner" really was one of the cornerstones of the New Deal then maybe they will be soothed by the rest of the Fair Deal?

What about Garner? What are some proposals we can push that would keep more of the right in our coalition, so they are content enough to stay on our side if there is a civil war? Ones that would not contradict our other policies?

Conservatives love the second amendment. What if we expand funding for the Civilian Marksmanship Program? In the legislation we can require there be at least one new program or facility opened up in every state and then leave the particulars to the Department of War. We can put those facilities in counties that favor us instead of the AFP or CSA. If we cannot get away with that then we can decide what kind of guns get used. The "Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship" is currently managed by the Army. Ultimately this will provide some experience for civilians when we need to mobilize and it could let the Army preemptively recognize sharpshooters.

G.I. Bill? That could win the loyalty of veterans and the entire military. There should be a large number of veterans even though the USA did not fight in the Great War.

For irony, what if we took the law Obama signed that allowed open carry of rifles, shotguns or pistols in national parks? We could put "in God we trust" on the dollar bill early?

School vouchers for any private school, to win support from the religious and immigrant communities? Tax credits such as family relief or for small businesses? What if we take a British position on school prayer? School prayer - Wikipedia That looks moderate. School prayer is already common at this time and does not become controversial OTL until 1962. We only have to word it in such a way that it will not upset religious minorities.
 
[X] [CSA] Grant legal authority to the workers councils that have been organized
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley
[X] [DRINK] Offer no deal to supporters of Prohibition in Congress
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief
[X] [OIL] Offer no deal to Texan oil men, it is to risky to try to undercut Garner's support
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies
[X] [LONG] Implement a flat Wealth Cap

If you can build a Reform Front against the old guard, then that may help things.

But I'm fairly sure this is an ambitious plan that will be shot through by the collapse of the administration's authority.

But in any case, I'd rather we have the hatred of the reactionaries than the hatred of the reformists. So, I'm voting my conscience here.
 
Gunman said:
It has not been burnt to the ground. The anti lynching bill may be what does it. I am still not changing my vote on it.

What if we think of something to push towards reconciliation with his faction? Byrd and his supporters may be detestable but I would prefer it if we could keep them from making the civil war worse for us. The more insurrection there is in the south, the more victims there will be and the more blood that will have to be shed to stabilize it. AFP militants and American soldiers will not be the only casualties in the South. It will be Olson's fault if he does nothing to mitigate the growing rift with the South.If the "white southerner" really was one of the cornerstones of the New Deal then maybe they will be soothed by the rest of the Fair Deal?

What about Garner? What are some proposals we can push that would keep more of the right in our coalition, so they are content enough to stay on our side if there is a civil war? Ones that would not contradict our other policies?

Conservatives love the second amendment. What if we expand funding for the Civilian Marksmanship Program? In the legislation we can require there be at least one new program or facility opened up in every state and then leave the particulars to the Department of War. We can put those facilities in counties that favor us instead of the AFP or CSA. If we cannot get away with that then we can decide what kind of guns get used. The "Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship" is currently managed by the Army. Ultimately this will provide some experience for civilians when we need to mobilize and it could let the Army preemptively recognize sharpshooters.

G.I. Bill? That could win the loyalty of veterans and the entire military. There should be a large number of veterans even though the USA did not fight in the Great War.

For irony, what if we took the law Obama signed that allowed open carry of rifles, shotguns or pistols in national parks? We could put "in God we trust" on the dollar bill early?

School vouchers for any private school, to win support from the religious and immigrant communities? Tax credits such as family relief or for small businesses? What if we take a British position on school prayer? School prayer - Wikipedia That looks moderate. School prayer is already common at this time and does not become controversial OTL until 1962. We only have to word it in such a way that it will not upset religious minorities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


You are looking to break bread where there is none to break.

We do still in fact have a right wing of our coalition, the Conservative Republicans. NRA shit is a dumb move at a time America is swarming with growing numbers of paramilitaries and is frankly window dressing compared to what the Dixiecrats view as a fundamental assault on their "liberties" with the NLRA. When the Taft-Hartley act was passed which shackled organized labor, despite being a Republican project, it was the South that gave them the votes to pass it. Every southern states was staunchly right-to-work, and it was indeed this weakness with labor that prevented George Wallace's 1968 run from being more successful in the north.

A GI Bill is meaningless in a country with so few GIs with America not having participated in World War 1.

Ancillary social issue stuff like School Prayer will not make them rethink their stance on such deeply held core ideological things such as the defense of segregation and Jim Crow and their fundamental disapproval of labor. The occasional Dixiecrat that did manage to break through, the more pro-labor among them have probably been swooped up in the more populist AFP. What we have in Garner and Byrd are the worst parts of the coalition, and to blame Olson for not throwing them a bone in the defense of Jim Crow is like blaming Lincoln for tearing the union apart by being elected.

Think about what you are saying. The antilynching bill might be what does it. We have proven in the election that we do not need the South for a mandate from America, we are not dependent on them as FDR was and I'll be damned if we kowtow to them. I will not throw our entire agenda aside, the agenda we were elected on, for the whims of some holdover Dixiecrats who couldn't even keep their house in order against Long.

When all is said in done, if these are the issues that will push some Dixiecrats to treason, I say let them. I will not actively abide the continuation of segregation as a compromise for some border states. If that means civil war then it is not our fault that a great number of Southerners have chosen racial supremacy over their country.

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
-Lincoln
 
Last edited:
Sturmi said:
When all is said in done, if these are the issues that will push some Dixiecrats to treason, I say let them. I will not actively abide the continuation of segregation as a compromise for some border states. If that means civil war then it is not our fault that a great number of Southerners have chosen racial supremacy over their country.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If it wasn't for the civil war being inevitably, I would fundamentally disagree.
Any compromise to stop or hinder a civil war is Morally right in my view, because the morality you adhere to means nothing if it means a bill or action that needs passing and doing to help a large amount of people and lessen any internal conflict (IE saving people lives) fails, failure to pass means that all your morality is smoke, that the people you claim to want to help get nothing, while in this case i don't think the racists (IE Byrd) need to much if any pandering so we can do the parts that actually help more people fortunately, but I do think trying to keep Garner on side is the best option for making sure this bill is able to pass.

But since the Civil War is inevitable, its not as strong a disagreement, but still this bill needs to pass if we want to have the civil war as minimized as possible, so that less people are hurt.
 
Last edited:
Ghostdevil said:
If it wasn't for the civil war being inevitably, I would fundamentally disagree.
Any compromise to stop or hinder a civil war is Morally right in my view, because the morality you adhere to means nothing if it means a bill or action that needs passing and doing to help a large amount of people and lessen any internal conflict (IE saving people lives) fails, failure to pass means that all your morality is smoke, that the people you claim to want to help get nothing, while in this case i don't think the racists (IE Byrd) need to much if any pandering so we can do the parts that actually help more people fortunately, but I do think trying to keep Garner on side is the best option for making sure this bill is able to pass.

But since the Civil War is inevitable, its not as strong a disagreement, but still this bill needs to pass if we want to have the civil war as minimized as possible, so that less people are hurt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The NLRA does not need Dixie to pass. You severely underestimate the dedication of the South to Jim Crow, segregating the Fair Deal is the bare minimum and frankly even that would not be enough by itself. If the TVA was not enough pork for the South to let segregation go, no amount of pandering will keep them in line. We have the choice of either buckling on our values and bowing to a clique of holdover Dixiecrats who couldn't even keep their own backyard in check in the face of the the AFP or buckling down on the coalition as is and leaching support from the SPA. You speak of the bill as if its on knife's edge but it isn't. The administration has mustered up the votes already for unemployment benefits, Social Security, banking regulation, and more. The Conservative Republicans are in line and the Dixiecrats threw their best shot already in the South. If you want to be meta about it then I would also ask you, isn't it a little bit absurd for the NLRA to be the straw that breaks the camel's back in regards to a second Civil War? An incredible flurry of activity has taken place with this election, the South has not begun to eject Federals the moment the results of the election were clear before we were even inaugurated. While we know that Civil War is going to happen, from an IC perspective it may very well seem that the moment of Crisis, the election, has passed. You can only call it mitigation of civil war from a meta perspective.

Think of it this way, with control of the Steel Belt, there is likely a great deal more SPA members than there are remaining Dixiecrats. If we could get even a third of them to vote for the NLRA in the House, that would probably outweigh the remaining House Dixiecrats. The Speaker of the House is not a Senate Majority Leader. The Speaker of the House is much much weaker and he cannot stonewall legislation all by his lonesome with his remaining Dixiecrats. The CPUSA was historically one of the only forces willing to combat racial supremacy in the South and that ideological current would mean if that we make that compromise with Garner and Byrd, the SPA has every excuse to bring out the whips and retain cohesion against the NLRA in its entirety. In leaving the door open by refusing to cooperate with Garner and Byrd, we make an SPA vote of conscience possible, for the electoralists of the SPA, the Sewer Socialists to vote for the bill and those votes would more than make up for the remaining Dixiecrats. We know that the Unions were divided if not evenly, then at least within parity between Olson and Reed and the NLRA is giving the Unions exactly what they want, meaning the SPA would have to have a damn good reason to whip against the bill. Do not give them that reason in cooperating with Dixie. Compromise with Byrd and Garner would not only kill any potential of crossover support from the SPA, which would probably be worth as much or more as the votes of the remaining Dixiecrats, it would revitalize the remaining Dixiecrats as a roadblock for any administration agenda in the future because they'll know that even in their horribly reduced state, they can take the bull by the horns and come out on top. To be meta about it again, I would also prefer an amplified 2-way Civil war with the AFP than I would a 3-way civil war against the AFP and the SPA. Selling out for Dixie probably means the 3-way whereas blocking them leaves a good chance for a 2-way.
 
Last edited:
Sturmi said:
The NLRA does not need Dixie to pass. You severely underestimate the dedication of the South to Jim Crow, segregating the Fair Deal is the bare minimum and frankly even that would not be enough by itself. If the TVA was not enough pork for the South to let segregation go, no amount of pandering will keep them in line. We have the choice of either buckling on our values and bowing to a clique of holdover Dixiecrats who couldn't even keep their own backyard in check in the face of the the AFP or buckling down on the coalition as is and leaching support from the SPA. You speak of the bill as if its on knife's edge but it isn't. The administration has mustered up the votes already for unemployment benefits, Social Security, banking regulation, and more. The Conservative Republicans are in line and the Dixiecrats threw their best shot already in the South. If you want to be meta about it then I would also ask you, isn't it a little bit absurd for the NLRA to be the straw that breaks the camel's back in regards to a second Civil War? An incredible flurry of activity has taken place with this election, the South has not begun to eject Federals the moment the results of the election were clear before we were even inaugurated. While we know that Civil War is going to happen, from an IC perspective it may very well seem that the moment of Crisis, the election, has passed. You can only call it mitigation of civil war from a meta perspective.

Think of it this way, with control of the Steel Belt, there is likely a great deal more SPA members than there are remaining Dixiecrats. If we could get even a third of them to vote for the NLRA in the House, that would probably outweigh the remaining House Dixiecrats. The Speaker of the House is not a Senate Majority Leader. The Speaker of the House is much much weaker and he cannot stonewall legislation all by his lonesome with his remaining Dixiecrats. The CPUSA was historically one of the only forces willing to combat racial supremacy in the South and that ideological current would mean if that we make that compromise with Garner and Byrd, the SPA has every excuse to bring out the whips and retain cohesion against the NLRA in its entirety. In leaving the door open by refusing to cooperate with Garner and Byrd, we make an SPA vote of conscience possible, for the electoralists of the SPA, the Sewer Socialists to vote for the bill and those votes would more than make up for the remaining Dixiecrats. We know that the Unions were divided if not evenly, then at least within parity between Olson and Reed and the NLRA is giving the Unions exactly what they want, meaning the SPA would have to have a damn good reason to whip against the bill. Do not give them that reason in cooperating with Dixie. Compromise with Byrd and Long would not only kill any potential of crossover support from the SPA, which would probably be worth as much or more as the votes of the remaining Dixiecrats, it would revitalize the remaining Dixiecrats as a roadblock for any administration agenda in the future because they'll know that even in their horribly reduced state, they can take the bull by the horns and come out on top. To be meta about it again, I would also prefer an amplified 2-way Civil war with the AFP than I would a 3-way civil war against the AFP and the SPA. Selling out for Dixie probably means the 3-way whereas blocking them leaves a good chance for a 2-way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem is that Garner is not the Byrd vote, hes the Pork vote from what i understand, we don't have to vote for racism for Garner support, undercutting Garner via graft is a poor idea, And i already said in this case we don't need to pander to the racists in this case, though perhaps the anti lynch might alienate more than that, but i doubt it it'd be the clincher for anything either way.
 
Ghostdevil said:
The problem is that Garner is not the Byrd vote, hes the Pork vote from what i understand, we don't have to vote for racism for Garner support, undercutting Garner via graft is a poor idea, And i already said in this case we don't need to pander to the racists in this case, though perhaps the anti lynch might alienate more than that, but i doubt it it'd be the clincher for anything either way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Garner is firmly against the Bill and throwing his entire political weight into killing it. He was willing to go along with most of the Fair Deal considering the national crisis but he is firmly anti-union and a pro-union bill was to much for him.
 
Last edited:
Jeeshadow said:
Garner is firmly against the Bill and throwing his entire political weight in killing it. He was willing to go along with most of the Fair Deal considering the national crisis but he is firmly anti-union and a pro-union bill was to much for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Then i misunderstood, complaint retracted in that case.
 
Socialists:
[X] [CSA] Offer no deal to Reed

Sorry Reed, this is a SocLib-SocDem server.

Civil Rights Liberals:
[X] [SOCIAL] Back Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation

Duh.

Free Trade Supporters:
[X] [TARIFF] Repeal Smoot-Hawley

It didn't go well keeping it OTL, so get rid of it now.

Prohibitionists:
[X] [DRINK] Federal Tax on Trade and Sale of Alcohol

This is easier to repeal than the OTL 18th Amendment. And we need the funds.

Market Liberals:
[X] [BANK] Further and more comprehensive business bailouts

Keeping the businesses solvent helps keep investments there.

Western Representatives:
[X] [FARM] Federal Farm Relief

Back the farmers. Food is important, and there's no food megacorps yet.

Texan Business Interests:
[X] [OIL] Offer no deal to Texan oil men, it is to risky to try to undercut Garner's support

Eat shit Garner, but also your oil buddies as well.

Undecideds:
[X] [GRAFT] Prioritize Fair Deal public works funds to their districts

Corruption is nothing new. Every President had some favors granted to their political allies/pals, this is more of the same. Plus it will help people at the very least.

Byrd and Southern Democrats:
[X] [RACISM] Offer no deal to Byrd and his allies

You (Byrd) and Garner can go get fucked even more.

Longists:
[X] [LONG] Offer no deal to Long

No deal for Reed and no deal for Long.
 
Last edited:
Remove ads
Vote closed
  • Voting
    • Scheduled vote count started by Jeeshadow on Jan 12, 2022 at 12:19 AM, finished with 74 posts and 53 votes.
    Click to expand...
     
  • Voting
    • Looks like everything passed except Long, Byrd, and Reed. All i'll say is some bullets were dogged... for now. The next update might take a few days although I have a very free weekend. Its just a really big one as you can probably guess. That said I finally sat down and figured out Olson's cabinet so standby for a mini that will detail a cabinet that is totally not mostly stolen from FDR (thank you for such a bipartisan government FDR, made my life so much easier).
     
    Last edited:
    Remove ads
    The Olson Cabinet
  • Threadmarks

    • The Olson Cabinet​


    The Olson Cabinet was perhaps the most important and powerful cabinet in quite some time. Its composition and Olson's commitment to governing by Cabinet consensus were some of the most crucial parts of the negotiations that led to the formation of the National Unity coalition. Considering as well the massive historical consequences of the decisions the Olson Administration made, it is worth examining those who made the decisions.

    The most prestigious and senior position with the cabinet had long been the Secretary of State. When it came to the selection of the Secretary of State, Cordell Hull was the only practical choice. Hull's support had been vital in securing the coalition and he provided an important behind the scenes figure in keeping the wide, and not particularly cohesive, coalition together through the long election. He also was from Tennessee and while Olson had many enemies in the south, breaking a crucial promise was something he could ill afford.

    The head of the Treasury Department seemed to be a far more difficult question to solve. In order to get Garner and other Southern Democrats onboard, the Treasury was one of the senior cabinet posts Senator LaFollette had to promise them. Yet Olson would have a hard time enacting his reforms if he was opposed by his own Treasury. Fortunately, Garner would provide the perfect candidate. When Hoover had established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932, he had asked Garner for a name of a democrat and that name had been     Jesse H. Jones. Jones had served with distinction while also criticizing Hoover for failing to go nearly far enough. When Olson had asked Garner for who to name to the Treasury, his fellow Texan proved a perfect choice, appeasing Southerners, progressives, and business leaders.

    For Secretary of War, Olson would make one of his more unusual choices. He needed a Republican but considering the deteriorating situations both domestically and abroad, Olson felt he needed to maintain at least some continuity with the Hoover Administration. So he decided to return the then Secretary of State     Henry Stimson back to the Department he had led decades before under the Taft Administration. Stimson would prove to be a voice for conservatism when it came to domestic affairs, bringing balance Olson needed politically while also ensuring that the War Department was in experienced hands at such a crucial time.

    The Department of Justice was the other of the major cabinet posts promised to the Republicans but after losing Byrd during the election, it was crucial to Olson that he keep the support of Republican Conservatives and so he would select     Lester J. Dickenson, a respected lawyer and Senator from Iowa, a state that had been crucial in the election. While a firm voice against much of the Fair Deal, the "big, friendly, white-thatched Iowa lawyer" was happy to accept the decisions of the cabinet after a fair hearing and focus on running the Justice Department.

    The Postmaster General position has long been an interesting cabinet position. Controlling a large chunk of the Federal patronage jobs, President's tended to appoint campaign managers or other close allies to the position. That was one of the reasons Progressives had insisted they get that cabinet spot. Senator La Follette had played a crucial role in negotiating the original deal but he was far too necessary an ally in the Senate, so instead Olson would tap his brother     Philip La Follette, former Governor of Wisconsin, to serve as his closest ally in the Cabinet and to also set about trying to establish a national Progressive party.

    For Secretary of the Navy, Olson would choose another progressive Southern Democrat, former Governor and Senator of Virginia,     Claude A. Swanson. Long an advocate for naval expansion, Swanson was a solid choice to both appease the Democratic leadership that he wasn't trying to intentionally alienate the South but also Swanson wasn't someone who would oppose the Fair Deal.

    Interestingly, the choice of Secretary of Interior would prove somewhat troublesome. Initially Olson had wanted to name Vice President Curtis to the position, considering Curtis had been so crucial in establishing the coalition and campaigning in the midwest. Curtis though would decline the position, citing his deteriorating health. With his first choice out, Olson set about trying to find another progressive Republican to fill the spot. Senator Johnson of California, a strong progressive ally to Olson, would recommend his friend     Harold Ickes, who also offered a chance for Olson to have an ally from the heart of Reed's support. Ickes would prove a strong progressive on social and economic issues, pushing for a strong Fair Deal, ensuring all programs he had oversight over were desegregated and proved crucial in convincing the Administration to throw its full weight behind the Gavagan-Wagner Anti-Lynching Bill.

    Considering their strength in the midwest, Progressives ensured they managed to secure the Department of Agriculture as their second spot in the cabinet.     Henry Wallace, a long time supporter of the La Follettes as well as supporter for Agricultural relief was the natural choice for the spot and Wallace's time as Secretary of Agriculture would propel him to national fame and establish him as a major leader within the young Progressive Party.

    With progressives controlling most of the economic positions already, Olson would choose to give business leaders a bone while also awarding a crucial ally by naming     Alf Landon as Secretary of Commerce. Landon had been assumed by many to be the likely 1936 Republican nominee and his willingness to stand aside had been crucial in the smooth formation of the coalition. He had also campaigned hard for Olson in the election and so Olson saw him a fitting representative for business interests in his cabinet.

    The final, and youngest, cabinet position was Secretary of Labor and considering the strike was arguably the most important. Despite Olson being a firm ally of labor, he didn't want his labor secretary to seemingly be a puppet of labor. Despite the spot being promised to Democrats, he turned to Roosevelt for advice. Roosevelt would, in consultation with New York Democrats, suggest     Frances Perkins. Perkins was a known social reformer who had pushed New York to implement a slew of regulations following the Triangle Wasteshirt family and also continued to have ties with the Roosevelt family considering her friendship with Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of the McAdoo's first Navy Secretary, as well as an active campaigner for women's rights. The appointment also made history, with Perkins being the first woman to hold a cabinet position. She would work closely with the La Follete brothers and Wagner in drafting the NLRA.

    The Olson Cabinet was a politically diverse and well credentialed body, staffed with newcomers and experienced hands. Yet it faced a crisis not seen since Lincoln's Cabinet and it was unclear if they could solve it.
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top