Remove ads

This Mighty Scourge of War: A Reconstruction-Era Quest

Reader mode
[X] Demobilize the Union Army immediately

wave the bloody shirt for our brave boys in blue!
 
Adhoc vote count started by Whenyouseeyou on Mar 24, 2024 at 12:10 AM, finished with 57 posts and 55 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Guys don't demoralize immediately it will bring back the white supremacy again do it gradually so it doesn't come back and also this allows our military to keep watch if the citizens if they do trouble
 
[X] Demobilize the Union Army immediately

Time to bring the boys (and their radical anti-slavery attitudes) home and give more power to the militias
 
Whenyouseeyou said:
Guys don't demoralize immediately it will bring back the white supremacy again do it gradually so it doesn't come back and also this allows our military to keep watch if the citizens if they do trouble
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The army isn't leaving entirely in either case. A garrison will be left behind to shoot Klansmen. What this vote is fundamentally about is whether DC or local loyalist leaders should set the agenda of the next phase of Reconstruction.
 
Kirook said:
This will result in a swift but hands-off start to Reconstruction, allowing for a more rapid recovery in a manner determined by local material conditions. It will also increase general militancy as large numbers of soldiers return home all at once.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is something I DON'T want to happen but apparently some don't even think (or care) about...
 
I mean, I think an increase in general militancy is good? Being militant about Reconstruction is Good, Actually.

The only problem is if you think the local leaders in the South that have been empowered by Reconstruction so far will immediately slip back into sharecropping or whatever and I don't think that's a reasonable fear? IRL Reconstruction saw a number of black politicians getting elected while troops were present; I don't think a Reconstruction that is being pushed forward in the long term by way of shattering organized white supremacy will permit something like that to form.
 
Militancy helps Reconstruction not get watered down into compromises with white supremacy and revanchist southerners and all the stuff that wrecked its legacy in OTL. It's not all good but it's far from bad.

The gradual approach is also explicitly worse for the economics of Reconstruction, which is flagged in our statblock as a current major problem for it.
 
[X] Demobilize the Union Army piecemeal.
TheArcanist said:
I mean, I think an increase in general militancy is good? Being militant about Reconstruction is Good, Actually.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Potato Anarchy said:
Militancy helps Reconstruction not get watered down into compromises with white supremacy and revanchist southerners and all the stuff that wrecked its legacy in OTL. It's not all good but it's far from bad.

The gradual approach is also explicitly worse for the economics of Reconstruction, which is flagged in our statblock as a current major problem for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Militancy for Reconstruction is good but that's not the language of the text, it just says "increase general militancy". That could mean a wide variety things that we don't have control over, and it's likely the a decent portion of these soldiers are less interested in Reconstruction and more interested in punishing the South. We also just took the Mass Treason trial option which "generally increase radicalism for good and for ill", so I don't think lack of militancy is a problem now. But we know explicity that the status of Reconstruction is "hampered by economic devastation", and so I think the main question here is whether the gradual or faster approach is better, and I do not see how the gradual approach is explicitly worse.
 
EagerListener said:
[X] Demobilize the Union Army piecemeal.


Militancy for Reconstruction is good but that's not the language of the text, it just says "increase general militancy". That could mean a wide variety things that we don't have control over, and it's likely the a decent portion of these soldiers are less interested in Reconstruction and more interested in punishing the South. We also just took the Mass Treason trial option which "generally increase radicalism for good and for ill", so I don't think lack of militancy is a problem now. But we know explicity that the status of Reconstruction is "hampered by economic devastation", and so I think the main question here is whether the gradual or faster approach is better, and I do not see how the gradual approach is explicitly worse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, if we're talking the specific texts of the vote:

This will result in a swift but hands-off start to Reconstruction, allowing for a more rapid recovery in a manner determined by local material conditions. It will also increase general militancy as large numbers of soldiers return home all at once.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Emphasis mine. Demobilizing the army more quickly will free up resources and make it easier to even start the process of an economic recovery.
 
This is the explicit tradeoff presented by the vote: the piecemeal approach makes the recovery slower but gives us more control, the rapid approach means a faster recovery but less control, with accompanying different implications for militancy.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top