With This Ring (Young Justice SI) (Thread Fourteen)

[Mr Zoat]

That long? Most bodies start to begin that decline as early as thirty.

Click to shrink...

Obsolete, not depreciating.

I've been… Old, for more than half my life.

Click to shrink...

Thank you, corrected.

Great. Next, he'll be de-fermenting cheeses.

Click to shrink...

American chocolate comes first.

 

[RichardWhereat]

You are wrong if only because Slavey was seen as so integral a part of Southern Society/Way of life, you can't be a "Gentleman of leisure" and a member of a sort of aristocracy as the elites of the Anti-bellum south saw themselves as if you don't have people to lord over as well as do all the actual work for you.
Also, basically EVERY state that left the union stated in plain language that they were leaving the union over slavery. Because they were convinced that Lincoln would take their slaves and knew that he would prevent the slavery from expanding any further.

The South left the union illegally and Fort Sumter was a federal military installation. They also didn't try diplomacy at all and the first half of the war took place almost entirely in Union Territory because the South invaded the North. Famous major battles were fought in freaking Pennsylvania!! Which doesn't border a single state that joined the Confederacy!

Click to shrink...

Your having to argue this may be part of the reason Johnny Reb persists today.

 

[_The_Bomb]

"I guess that's reasonable. And since I know you're… Planning on nudging me about it, it's gonna be… Be a long time before I… Ah. Before I do anything like that."

Click to shrink...

That's okay. Diana is not going anywhere.

 

[Windona]

Excellent denouncement! OL/Alan bonding is always great. And, well

"I wouldn't worry about it." Alan shrugs. "One thing I've learned about that sort of seal? It always stops working when it's most inconvenient."

Click to shrink...

I suppose after decades of superheroing, one becomes genre savvy. I bet Alan has trouble meeting people who have a word in their name without raising an eyebrow and pinning them as a future costume wearer.

Obsolete, not depreciating.

Thank you, corrected.

American chocolate comes first.

Click to shrink...

I had a boss that used to work for Hershey's. Given what she described about the smell of the fermented milk, I agree there.

 

[Mr Zoat]

I had a boss that used to work for Hershey's. Given what she described about the smell of the fermented milk, I agree there.

Click to shrink...

What sort of person deliberately makes their chocolate taste like a dog's arse?

 

[kerleth]

No, no, Zinc man, he's brass, not bronze.



It was about slavery, but also state's rights. The Tariff of Abominations nearly provoked the Civil War 30 years earlier, and that said nothing about slavery. There was legitimately a strong disagreement about the proper extent of federal power, dating back to the Constitutional Convention; slavery was the primary flashpoint where the southern states disagreed with the Feds's majority, but not the only one.

It came down to economics, but that's hardly notable; war almost always does. War is expensive and destructive and so it generally only happens when there is a whole lot of wealth to be won and lost.

Click to shrink...

Certainly it was about multiple issues. But I will note you didn't actually address the bulk of what I said. Which was evidence in the confederate constitution that when slavery and states' rights came into conflict, they prioritized slavery. I can say I value honesty and I value my family. But when they come into conflict the one I choose shows where my priorities are. The confederate constitution, through the use of multiple different clauses working in concert, specifically limits the ability of confederate states to outlaw slavery, even if the state decided to. So slavery was more important than states rights. Just like if I chose family over honesty in my other example. That is flat out proof that slavery was more important than states rights. Because in their own laws they prioritized slavery over the rights of the confederate states. People can say what they want, but the evidence of what they actually made law is right there to see.

So while, yes, the American Civil War had a whole bunch of complicated issues, it is still clearly shown by the Confederacy's own laws that slavery mattered more to them than states' rights. These aren't mutually exclusive. A situation can be complex, and still have evidence that one part is being treated as a higher priority than the others. Which the Confederacy did, by making laws that limited states rights when it came to slavery where the two were in conflict.

 

[hkim]

The South wanted to protect their power. The fact that their power came from slavery is secondary. The North could have chosen to put a high tariff on cotton and tobacco instead. The North could have pushed to increase the power of the Senate compared to the power of the House of Representatives. Those would have been effective at restricting the economic and/or political power of the South, but it wouldn't have given the North the appearance of the moral high ground -- indeed, it might have made the South's rebellion look more justifiable to outside observers. The South wasn't fighting to protect the institution of slavery because they thought slavery was a moral good (whether they actually thought so or not) -- they were fighting to protect their autonomy. Slavery was the battleground.

Click to shrink...

"we didn't fight the evil sorceror because of his dark powers, we fought him because the source of his dark powers was ritual human sacrifice" dude what the fuck is this hair you're splitting, like yes things are more detailed on the geopolitical layer but if they hadn't been getting power from ritual human sacrifice are we saying the war would have happened anyway? prolly NOT

 

[Enochi]

You are wrong if only because Slavery was seen as so integral a part of Southern Society/Way of life, you can't be a "Gentleman of leisure" and a member of a sort of aristocracy as the elites of the Anti-bellum south saw themselves as if you don't have people to lord over as well as do all the actual work for you.
Also, basically EVERY state that left the union stated in plain language that they were leaving the union over slavery. Because they were convinced that Lincoln would take their slaves and knew that he would prevent the slavery from expanding any further.

The South left the union illegally and Fort Sumter was a federal military installation. They also didn't try diplomacy at all and the first half of the war took place almost entirely in Union Territory because the South invaded the North. Famous major battles were fought in freaking Pennsylvania!! Which doesn't border a single state that joined the Confederacy!

Click to shrink...

Wow. Um your WAY off on that 2nd paragraph. 1. As I mentioned earlier the Guy who took over Fort Sumter wasn't actually in charge of Fort Sumter. He just took it over cause it was more defensible. 2. The they didn't try Diplomacy at all... Is a big fat lie. In fact the south sent Ambassadors to the North and offered to pay for the Federal land it took but Lincoln refused to recognize them as officials. 3. The first half of the war taking place in Union Territory is... Honestly I have no earthly idea where the hell you are getting that. The Maryland Campaign (Aka Lee's First invasion of the North) was in late 1862 and had 2 battles fought in Maryland. Lee's 2nd invasion that ended in Gettysburg was in 1863 and was the only one that made it to PA. Also PA at the time Did border VA. (Remember WV was considered part of VA at the time) Can I ask where you are getting most battles were fought in Union territory? Cause I really really have no clue where in the world you are getting that.

Also not every state left over slavery. Lincoln's call for volunteer's to put down the rebellion... was ill-advised. That action cause more states to succeed. Including VA and NC who provided the majority of the CSA's man power.

Now in regards to Slavery. Yes the south did think it was a critical institution. But the issue was much more nuanced then just racial superiority. 1. It had become very profitable. See until the late 1700s and early 1800s slavery was on the decline until the gotton gins wide adoption which made cotton an amazing cash crop. 2. The hatian revolution specifically the Massacre of the French in 1804. That was very scary for the south and the impetus for many of the restrictions placed on the southern slave population. 3. The fear was further heightened by the Nat Turner Rebellion in 1831.

 

[Tyrantviewer]

Wow. Um your WAY off on that 2nd paragraph. 1. As I mentioned earlier the Guy who took over Fort Sumter wasn't actually in charge of Fort Sumter. He just took it over cause it was more defensible. 2. The they didn't try Diplomacy at all... Is a big fat lie. In fact the south sent Ambassadors to the North and offered to pay for the Federal land it took but Lincoln refused to recognize them as officials. 3. The first half of the war taking place in Union Territory is... Honestly I have no earthly idea where the hell you are getting that. The Maryland Campaign (Aka Lee's First invasion of the North) was in late 1862 and had 2 battles fought in Maryland. Lee's 2nd invasion that ended in Gettysburg was in 1863 and was the only one that made it to PA. Also PA at the time Did border VA. (Remember WV was considered part of VA at the time) Can I ask where you are getting most battles were fought in Union territory? Cause I really really have no clue where in the world you are getting that.

Also not every state left over slavery. Lincoln's call for volunteer's to put down the rebellion... was ill-advised. That action cause more states to succeed. Including VA and NC who provided the majority of the CSA's man power.

Now in regards to Slavery. Yes the south did think it was a critical institution. But the issue was much more nuanced then just racial superiority. 1. It had become very profitable. See until the late 1700s and early 1800s slavery was on the decline until the gotton gins wide adoption which made cotton an amazing cash crop. 2. The hatian revolution specifically the Massacre of the French in 1804. That was very scary for the south and the impetus for many of the restrictions placed on the southern slave population. 3. The fear was further heightened by the Nat Turner Rebellion in 1831.

Click to shrink...

I am glad the discussion about this is being so reasonable so far, but part of the reason people keep bringing up slavery as the focus is because of the myth of the lost cause



In short from the beginning the focus on slavery was obvious and prominent in the reasons confederate leaders gave for the war, but after they lost people tried to retroactively justify the war by recontexualizing it as being about state rights. This and the glorification of confederate leaders, and the downplaying of the horrors of slavery, is a dangerous historical revision that encourages racism and ignorance to this day.

 

[Vaermina]

"Not… Not really? I know that most people think of green as the 'right' colour, but as soon as my scan showed me that it was just the copper patina I couldn't think of that as the 'right' colour any more. It'll change back in twenty or so years."

He rolls his eyes and glances my way.

Click to shrink...

Sure is nice LePaul is going to suffer none of the negative consequences that come from destroying a loved American landmark...

"I don't think that purgatory actually exists as a distinct place. It's more… That you're further away from unity with the Source if you were a bit of a low level sinner as a matter of degrees." I shake my head. "I'm a little concerned that he'll get stuck in there when Doctor Mist seals the entrances."

Click to shrink...

And this is just full up wrong.

 

[Wivk]

The war didn't end slavery, it just made everyone into equally indentured servants to an over powered federal government that no longer need fear legal secession as a consequence of its constant over reach.

 

[PDV]

. This is a dangerous historical revision that encourages racism and ignorance to this day.

Click to shrink...

Pretending that it was entirely a myth is also dangerous historical revisionism. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence; reversed lies are not truth. The philosophy of state's rights has very clear antecedents dating from before the Revolutionary War and was a glaring, consistent, and continuous dispute from Jefferson forward. Disputing federal power vs. state independence was a political war that did not end until the shooting war did, and remained a low-key active political struggle even afterward. The success of the abolitionists made the prime battle of that political war laws about slavery for several decades. Jim Crow followed it, which is predictable, but then abortion became the primary battleground, which is not. If you assume there is no truth to the claim of "state's rights" you will fail to predict or understand what happened after the Civil War ended.

 

[Stsword]

Pretending that it was entirely a myth is also dangerous historical revisionism. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence; reversed lies are not truth. The philosophy of state's rights has very clear antecedents dating from before the Revolutionary War and was a glaring, consistent, and continuous dispute from Jefferson forward. Disputing federal power vs. state independence was a political war that did not end until the shooting war did, and remained a low-key active political struggle even afterward. The success of the abolitionists made the prime battle of that political war laws about slavery for several decades. Jim Crow followed it, which is predictable, but then abortion became the primary battleground, which is not. If you assume there is no truth to the claim of "state's rights" you will fail to predict or understand what happened after the Civil War ended.

Click to shrink...

Oh please.

"States have the right to nullify laws they don't like" while at the exact same time they made the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that allowed them to just legally kidnap people out of Free States, ignoring a state's actually legal right to determine if they were a free or slave state.

So if you somehow missed the real argument is "You can't tell us what to do but we can tell you what to do" then you are the one with a failure to understand or predict.

 

[Coda]

Now in regards to Slavery. Yes the south did think it was a critical institution. But the issue was much more nuanced then just racial superiority. 1. It had become very profitable.

Click to shrink...

This person gets it.

As I said before: Yes. It was about slavery. But it wasn't about slavery.

When modern people say that the American Civil War was about "slavery," they're almost universally viewing it through the lens of modern social mores. They're thinking that it was a battle fought over slavery as a moral issue, They're thinking that the South wanted to defend the institution of slavery because they were white supremacists that thought that black people were subhumans whose only value was to serve their masters.

While it's true that lots of people in the South were that kind of white supremacist, that's not why they went to war.

Slavery was the core of the Southern economy. The articles of secession, the Confederate constitution, and all of the other defenses of slavery were written because sudden emancipation would have been horrifically destructive. It would have unilaterally harmed Southerners on a scale of what would today be the equivalent of billions if not trillions of dollars in seized property, lost revenue, and damages.

Imagine if the government of the US issued a proclamation tomorrow saying that, because car-related accidents and diseases are among the leading causes of death in the nation, it is now illegal to own a car. All existing titles of car ownership are null and void. Anyone caught in possession of a car would be charged with a crime. How well do you think that would be received?

Would people fight to keep their cars because they're driver-supremacists? Because owning cars is good and proper? Because driving cars is the way things should be?

Or do you think they would fight to keep their cars because without a car they can't go to work so they can't make money to buy food? Because their cars are their property that they invested in? Because the government shouldn't be allowed to take your belongings without giving you something in return?

 

[Enochi]

I am glad the discussion about this is being so reasonable so far, but part of the reason people keep bringing up slavery as the focus is because of the myth of the lost cause



In short from the beginning the focus on slavery was obvious and prominent in the reasons confederate leaders gave for the war, but after they lost people tried to retroactively justify the war by recontexualizing it as being about state rights. This and the glorification of confederate leaders, and the downplaying of the horrors of slavery, is a dangerous historical revision that encourages racism and ignorance to this day.

Click to shrink...

I too am glad about that. However I believe even in my original post about this issue I stated that the state's right argument was about money in the end. Same as the slavery issue. The political elite was made up of the Plantation Class by and large. Their wealth required cheap labor and they thought slave labor the easiest form of that. So they made sure that in their new constitution no one would be able to take that away.

 

[Windona]

What sort of person deliberately makes their chocolate taste like a dog's arse?

Click to shrink...

From what I understand they once accidentally made chocolate with fermented milk, then the customer liked it so they kept on doing it. (I know, I would assume it was a way to keep milk lasting longer before use).

I suspect it's part of why Belgian and Swiss chocolate are associated with higher quality in the US.

And everyone in the US grows up with Hershey's so that's how chocolate tastes, so it continues.

 

[Stsword]

Or do you think they would fight to keep their cars because without a car they can't go to work so they can't make money to buy food? Because their cars are their property that they invested in? Because the government shouldn't be allowed to take your belongings without giving you something in return?

Click to shrink...

Cotton picking remained an industry in the South for the following 80 years after the war without slavery.

Oh noes, people would have to actually pay for services rendered, the horror, the horror! Here let me play the world's smallest violin.

And the number of families who owned slaves is about the same as the percentage of people who own luxury vehicles nowadays.

So a more honest analogy is that the South went to war so that SUV owners wouldn't have to take the bus.

As I've already mentioned, it was a rich man's war while it was a poor man's battle, and even the poor schmucks going to war and dying so that rich people wouldn't have to GASP! pay wages knew it.

 

[woweed]

This person gets it.

As I said before: Yes. It was about slavery. But it wasn't about slavery.

When modern people say that the American Civil War was about "slavery," they're almost universally viewing it through the lens of modern social mores. They're thinking that it was a battle fought over slavery as a moral issue, They're thinking that the South wanted to defend the institution of slavery because they were white supremacists that thought that black people were subhumans whose only value was to serve their masters.

While it's true that lots of people in the South were that kind of white supremacist, that's not why they went to war.

Slavery was the core of the Southern economy. The articles of secession, the Confederate constitution, and all of the other defenses of slavery were written because sudden emancipation would have been horrifically destructive. It would have unilaterally harmed Southerners on a scale of what would today be the equivalent of billions if not trillions of dollars in seized property, lost revenue, and damages.

Imagine if the government of the US issued a proclamation tomorrow saying that, because car-related accidents and diseases are among the leading causes of death in the nation, it is now illegal to own a car. All existing titles of car ownership are null and void. Anyone caught in possession of a car would be charged with a crime. How well do you think that would be received?

Would people fight to keep their cars because they're driver-supremacists? Because owning cars is good and proper? Because driving cars is the way things should be?

Or do you think they would fight to keep their cars because without a car they can't go to work so they can't make money to buy food? Because their cars are their property that they invested in? Because the government shouldn't be allowed to take your belongings without giving you something in return?

Click to shrink...

OK, but hear me out: that's a bad thing to want, and no nation calling itself a democracy should allow slavery. I don't give a rat's ass about their economy: if your economy can only sustain itself via the keeping's of other humans in bondage, your economy doesn't deserve survival, it deserves disinfection. Also, seriously, stop equivocating. "Some of them may have been White supremacists", they were. The war was about perserving not just slavery, but the hierarchy of Whites as superior it represented.

 

[Megaolix]

The war didn't end slavery, it just made everyone into equally indentured servants to an over powered federal government that no longer need fear legal secession as a consequence of its constant over reach.

Click to shrink...

I would strongly suggest you keep it to the civil war instead of current times... Even if I lack context as to why people are talking about the civil war here anyway.

 

[Darkstep]

Great chapter man.
Btw how long have Paul and Jade been together now?

 

[thebishop8]

Great chapter man.
Btw how long have Paul and Jade been together now?

Click to shrink...

They pretty much got together when Paul got back from his first trip into space. That was in episode 64, more than a year ago in the story.

 

[Mr Zoat]

Even if I lack context as to why people are talking about the civil war here anyway.

Click to shrink...

An incarnation of Confederate America turned up in the story a few days ago.

 

[Megaolix]

An incarnation of Confederate America turned up in the story a few days ago.

Click to shrink...

...

Your story go in strange places, Zoat.

 

[Darko]

...

Your story go in strange places, Zoat.

Click to shrink...

You just noticed that now?

 

[Chaoswind]

...

Your story go in strange places, Zoat.

Click to shrink...

Blame DC writers and their nonsense.

 

[ForeverShogo]

Hmm. For some reason it's looking like some people have started falling over themselves trying to defend the Confederacy.

Also, because someone else mentioned the spirit of Liberty there's a question I've been meaning to ask.

So for whatever reason the Japanese pantheon is just able to poach things outside their purview. Whatever. They have Liberty because some comic said Liberty was one of the things they poached. Also whatever.

What I've been trying to figure out is why she went along with it. Like, I get what the Shinto gods get out of it. She's one more thing for them to leech off of for their own benefit, but what the hell does she get out of the deal? She didn't magically become a Japanese goddess worshipped by the followers of Shinto. They're leeching off of whatever she gets just by being an American symbol. It sounds like it benefits them to her detriment.

 

[Deadring]

"States have the right to nullify laws they don't like" while at the exact same time they made the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that allowed them to just legally kidnap people out of Free States, ignoring a state's actually legal right to determine if they were a free or slave state.

So if you somehow missed the real argument is "You can't tell us what to do but we can tell you what to do" then you are the one with a failure to understand or predict.

Click to shrink...

This is the main point right here, and has always been a big issue with the argument of "State's rights", even when you ignore literally everything else. Slave states have always made themselves out to be better than everyone else, race be damned, and it makes it abundantly clear that those who argue for those state's positions don't actually practice what they preach. You know, slavery aside.

 

[Vaermina]

Hmm. For some reason it's looking like some people have started falling over themselves trying to defend the Confederacy.

Also, because someone else mentioned the spirit of Liberty there's a question I've been meaning to ask.

So for whatever reason the Japanese pantheon is just able to poach things outside their purview. Whatever. They have Liberty because some comic said Liberty was one of the things they poached. Also whatever.

What I've been trying to figure out is why she went along with it. Like, I get what the Shinto gods get out of it. She's one more thing for them to leech off of for their own benefit, but what the hell does she get out of the deal? She didn't magically become a Japanese goddess worshipped by the followers of Shinto. They're leeching off of whatever she gets just by being an American symbol. It sounds like it benefits them to her detriment.

Click to shrink...

An excellent question.

That is not at all addressed in story.

 

[Chaoswind]

Hmm. For some reason it's looking like some people have started falling over themselves trying to defend the Confederacy.

Also, because someone else mentioned the spirit of Liberty there's a question I've been meaning to ask.

So for whatever reason the Japanese pantheon is just able to poach things outside their purview. Whatever. They have Liberty because some comic said Liberty was one of the things they poached. Also whatever.

What I've been trying to figure out is why she went along with it. Like, I get what the Shinto gods get out of it. She's one more thing for them to leech off of for their own benefit, but what the hell does she get out of the deal? She didn't magically become a Japanese goddess worshipped by the followers of Shinto. They're leeching off of whatever she gets just by being an American symbol. It sounds like it benefits them to her detriment.

Click to shrink...

You missed the explanation...

She gets protection from one of the largest non monotheistic pantheons.

She is a minor elemental of flavored liberty, there are a large amount of things that would love to eat her and we saw exactly how fucked the American afterlife is. The Shinto gods/spirits aren't top tier, but they are very numerous and willing to accept outsiders, so by joining them she gets a fuck ton of low tier gods and a few high tier ones to get lost in the crowd.

Low powered elementals are little more than semi exotic ritual sacrifices.

 

[Coda]

From what I understand they once accidentally made chocolate with fermented milk, then the customer liked it so they kept on doing it. (I know, I would assume it was a way to keep milk lasting longer before use).

Click to shrink...

It wasn't accidental, and it wasn't to make the milk last longer. A preservative was added to make the chocolate last longer in military rations, but that preservative had the side effect of souring the flavor of the milk. The soldiers got used to the flavor, and the chocolate provided one of the few morale boosts they could get in a war zone, so they kept buying it when they got back home.

So a more honest analogy is that the South went to war so that SUV owners wouldn't have to take the bus.

Click to shrink...

That's... not more honest at all. :/ That kind of comparison trivializes the impact. Switching from driving yourself to work to taking the bus to work is something that isn't really all that hard, just inconvenient. It was a serious kind of bankruptcy that required heavy restructuring and a lot of losses along the way. Yes, overall, they were able to survive, but it isn't an exaggeration to say that the South was reduced to bartering because they were so bankrupt by the end of the war. Cotton production didn't halt, but it was dramatically reduced. And the only reason it wasn't worse is because both white people and black people had no choice but to enter into landlord-tenant relationships to keep the fields (both food crops and cash crops) from going unplanted and starving everyone. The resulting system was little better than the slavery that it replaced, and it took decades to end the cycle of poverty that the Civil War created.

OK, but hear me out: that's a bad thing to want, and no nation calling itself a democracy should allow slavery. I don't give a rat's ass about their economy: if your economy can only sustain itself via the keeping's of other humans in bondage, your economy doesn't deserve survival, it deserves disinfection. Also, seriously, stop equivocating. "Some of them may have been White supremacists", they were. The war was about perserving not just slavery, but the hierarchy of Whites as superior it represented.

Click to shrink...

I'm not going to disagree that it's a bad thing to want. Yes, of course it's bad. And you are entitled to your opinion of what the parties involved "deserve" -- though you need to recognize that it's an opinion.

But what's also bad is to misrepresent people you disagree with, whether they're in the present or in the past. It's intellectually dishonest.

People are people. You may disagree with them, but they're still people, with strengths and flaws, with sins and virtues, with lives and needs and desires and values of their own. If you want to understand what happened, you need to look at it from the perspective of those complex, nuanced people in their own context.

Hmm. For some reason it's looking like some people have started falling over themselves trying to defend the Confederacy.

Click to shrink...

I'm not defending the Confederacy; I've been quite careful to point out their problems. I'm defending an accurate understanding of the events that transpired and the mindsets that motivated it. Knowing the historical events but attributing them to the wrong reasons leads to drawing incorrect conclusions. If we're going to learn a lesson from what happened in the past, we need to be honest about what happened instead of just reacting to it out of context.