• An addendum to Rule 3 regarding fan-translated works of things such as Web Novels has been made. Please see here for details.
  • We've issued a clarification on our policy on AI-generated work.
  • Our mod selection process has completed. Please welcome our new moderators.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

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

Reader mode
Woo, Uncle Sam is back! But staggering a bit.

Can't wait for Dr. Balewa to jack Johnny Reb up.

iamnuff said:
Noteworthy that Alan had a lot less trouble cutting those chains than Paul did. Hope over greed, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hope helped slaves get free, go on the underground railroad, and fight the Confederacy. Greed supported the institution. Not a surprise there that Alan has an easier time.
 
Eh at the root the Civil War was about 1 thing. Its the economy stupid. Or Money is the root of all evil.

This includes the states Rights, Slavery, and pretty much everything else. If you look at the Taxes during the Civil War you will see the North taxed its population quite heavily and the South very lightly. Slavery while an issue was at little risk of being overturned due to needing an amendment to the constitution to change. (Though laws could be passed to further restrict it.) A more immediate concern was the matter of Tariffs to protect Northern Manufacturing which at the time was lagging behind its overseas competition. The South which imported much more of its goods and had little manufacturing would be disproportionately effected. Also in cold political calculus many in the North didn't want the South to free the slaves as that would increase the representation of the South in congress. As the roughly 4 million enslaved would suddenly not be counted as 2.4 Million (Which would net the south roughly 16 more representatives in the house).

TLDR. The war was about Money. The image of either side fighting for a noble cause is just a magnification of side issues for the sake of propaganda. Slavery was certainly an issue and a major one but more in the context of economics then actual human rights.
 
Chojin Patriarch said:
Up yours, Tin man.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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

kerleth said:
2) There's also a really good slam-dunk that flat out disproves the argument that it was really about states rights and not slavery.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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.
 
Stsword said:
So lacking the local support network and opportunities, Africans were unfortunately easier to victimize.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Mr Zoat said:
Why?

Dr. Balewa has never been a U.S. citizen. In his youth he owned plenty of slaves, though he's glad that the custom has largely vanished from the world.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Mhmm. One of the things oftentimes less frequently discussed is how Africans straight up sold other Africans into slavery and to interested slave owners. The American and European slave traders in many cases were more middlemen in the whole process, and did not always need to do the work of, you know, actually capturing and sourcing slaves.

As a concept, slavery is arguably something in one form or another something as old as humanity itself.

The person mentioning it's the economy stupid is also really right on the money, pun intended, regarding one of the most essential real motivators of the Civil War.

The South was perpetuated on slavery in order to make their economy work. The North had more or less monopolized the industrial machines needed to develop that sector of the economy, meaning the South was extra touchy about the issue of slavery.

Well that, and residual feelings about the Federal Government staying the fuck out of State decisions, which was an enduring battle that went all the way back to the Revolutionary War.
You know, I do wonder what percentage of global attitudes towards slavery changing had more to do with the moral dimension in people's assessment of the situation changing, versus factors like industrialization and technology essentially removing a significant amount of the need and pressure for slavery to continue as an institution.

And that new gap created between need and reality developing the moral considerations.
 
Xepeyon said:
You know, I do wonder what percentage of global attitudes towards slavery changing had more to do with the moral dimension in people's assessment of the situation changing, versus factors like industrialization and technology essentially removing a significant amount of the need and pressure for slavery to continue as an institution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Moral progress is always easier when your livelihood isn't on the line. This doesn't mean it isn't legitimately moral progress; Jeremy Bentham anticipated basically all of modern liberalism centuries early from first principles, and the Catholic Church, on paper, disapproved of slavery for even longer - so there clearly was a picture of what morality should do. But it's far easier to get people to go along with your radical agenda of treating everyone as people and being nice to them when their salary depends on not doing that. England didn't need slaves, and so England was the main instrument of abolition.
 
Yeah, I've seen arguments that labor saving technology also helped with Women's Liberation too. If a year's worth of spinning can be done in a day, then that frees up a year's worth of labor. If cooking doesn't take all day, that frees up a day's worth of labor.

On the other hand as others pointed out about the cotton gin, well...

And we're getting off track. Anyone else curious about the long term effects this will have on poor Uncle Sam?
 
Windona said:
And we're getting off track. Anyone else curious about the long term effects this will have on poor Uncle Sam?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well seeing as he's now free, I'm betting that he may get back into action and potentially change a lot about American politics and culture.

Though I am worried about what potential changes the kaahuite could potentially bring.
 
Sorry to ask, but a few months ago MrZoat posted a link to a skit on YouTube about Sisyphus in one of his chapters? Any idea where I could find that?
 
Darko said:
Well seeing as he's now free, I'm betting that he may get back into action and potentially change a lot about American politics and culture.

Though I am worried about what potential changes the kaahuite could potentially bring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, the Kaahuite is a wild card. That's what concerns me.
 
Mr Zoat said:
"…bled you out, your damnyankee!"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mr Zoat said:
No, if Harry Turtledove taught me anything it's that 'damnyankee' is a single word.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Perhaps so, but the other part of the correction was still valid -- "you" instead of "your".

Mr Zoat said:
"A million gallons for defence, but not one drop in tribute."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
American, so "defense"

Mr Zoat said:
You have stuck me down
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"struck"



Getting an accurate read on the motivations behind the Civil War in the 21st century is difficult because of the political implications on current issues. But in truth, humans were no different then than they are now. Yes, it was about slavery, but it wasn't about slavery. Yes, it was about states' rights, but it wasn't about states' rights.

It was about "us" versus "them."

It was, at the core, all about power. It was about the people of one region resenting the way the people of another region wanted to control them. The South was a threat to the North not because of slavery but because they had both the population and the wealth to exercise a TON of political power in the federal government. The North was a threat to the South because they could levy taxes against the massive wealth of the South and use it for their own benefit. The North used slavery as a way to claim the moral high ground. The South used states' rights as a way to claim the moral high ground. But if you look at history, how often are nations actually honest about their casus belli instead of coming up with an acceptable justification for their existing desire to wage war?

Yeah, it's true that there were a lot of blatant racists in the South, but as had already been mentioned in the thread, the North wasn't attacking the South just because slavery was some unforgivably immoral act. The North made a big deal about slavery in their propaganda, because that kept foreign powers from wanting to be seen supporting the South. But slavery wasn't even illegal in the North, and it wasn't even all that unusual for Northerners to own slaves. It just wasn't economically relevant in the North like it was in the South. The South's entire economy was built on slave labor, while in the North slaves were more likely to be house servants.

The proof that slavery was a propaganda issue more than the true reason for the American Civil War can be seen in the Emancipation Proclamation itself. The Emancipation Proclamation in practice didn't free very many slaves at all! It only applied to states or parts of states who were "in rebellion". It was economic pressure, commanding the Southern states to fall in line with the North's demands or else they would have their economic base ripped out from underneath them. But of course, everyone at the time understood that the South would never accept Lincoln's authority to issue such a proclamation and would therefore not free their slaves. Meanwhile, the rich people in the North were never under any threat of losing their slaves as a result of the proclamation, because they weren't in rebellion.

But I will reiterate: This isn't to say that the South wasn't full of racist bigots. It certainly was. But the North didn't go to war over racism. They went to war over who would control the government -- the same as the South.
 
Coda said:
Perhaps so, but the other part of the correction was still valid -- "you" instead of "your".


American, so "defense"


"struck"



Getting an accurate read on the motivations behind the Civil War in the 21st century is difficult because of the political implications on current issues. But in truth, humans were no different then than they are now. Yes, it was about slavery, but it wasn't about slavery. Yes, it was about states' rights, but it wasn't about states' rights.

It was about "us" versus "them."

It was, at the core, all about power. It was about the people of one region resenting the way the people of another region wanted to control them. The South was a threat to the North not because of slavery but because they had both the population and the wealth to exercise a TON of political power in the federal government. The North was a threat to the South because they could levy taxes against the massive wealth of the South and use it for their own benefit. The North used slavery as a way to claim the moral high ground. The South used states' rights as a way to claim the moral high ground. But if you look at history, how often are nations actually honest about their casus belli instead of coming up with an acceptable justification for their existing desire to wage war?

Yeah, it's true that there were a lot of blatant racists in the South, but as had already been mentioned in the thread, the North wasn't attacking the South just because slavery was some unforgivably immoral act. The North made a big deal about slavery in their propaganda, because that kept foreign powers from wanting to be seen supporting the South. But slavery wasn't even illegal in the North, and it wasn't even all that unusual for Northerners to own slaves. It just wasn't economically relevant in the North like it was in the South. The South's entire economy was built on slave labor, while in the North slaves were more likely to be house servants.

The proof that slavery was a propaganda issue more than the true reason for the American Civil War can be seen in the Emancipation Proclamation itself. The Emancipation Proclamation in practice didn't free very many slaves at all! It only applied to states or parts of states who were "in rebellion". It was economic pressure, commanding the Southern states to fall in line with the North's demands or else they would have their economic base ripped out from underneath them. But of course, everyone at the time understood that the South would never accept Lincoln's authority to issue such a proclamation and would therefore not free their slaves. Meanwhile, the rich people in the North were never under any threat of losing their slaves as a result of the proclamation, because they weren't in rebellion.

But I will reiterate: This isn't to say that the South wasn't full of racist bigots. It certainly was. But the North didn't go to war over racism. They went to war over who would control the government -- the same as the South.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh. The North went to war over power, and The South did too. But, for the South, that was a specific power: the power of the White man. Not just maintaining slavery, but maintaining the social hierarchy slavery represented, of the Black Man as inferior to the White man, naturally destined for subordination. While it wasn't about slavery for the north, it certainly was for the South, in my book.
 
Just to add my 2 cents about full motivations of the Civil War, Harry Turtledove wrote a sci-fi book about a group of time travelers who tried to help the union win. It presented a very realistic version of the South without preaching about good and evil. A great read, and not just because of the subversive presentation of the war, but the story is told by the people who meet the time travelers instead of by them.
 
woweed said:
Eh. The North went to war over power, and The South did too. But, for the South, that was a specific power: the power of the White man. Not just maintaining slavery, but maintaining the social hierarchy slavery represented, of the Black Man as inferior to the White man, naturally destined for subordination. While it wasn't about slavery for the north, it certainly was for the South, in my book.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Corwin Amendment passed congress which stated "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

The only reason the 13th amendment doesn't basically proclaim "Slavery now! Slavery forever!" is because that wasn't good enough for the South, they decided to start the American Civil War instead of ratifying iit.

And yes, they started it. In the so called "War of Northern Aggression," the South fired first.

But I guess admitting it was really the War of Southern Aggression would have been too honest.

Personally, I think assuming the leadership of the South cared their fellow whites pretty damn unlikely, considering they started a war that got hundreds of thousands of them killed.

And if that war hadn't happened, as I've already mentioned, they already had plans to wage wars of conquest to spread slavery.

The Confederacy instituted the draft. Slave owners were exempt.

Even southerners knew that the Civil War was a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight.

Governor Brown of Georgia "I have heard it remarked that this is a rich man's quarrel and the poor man's fight, and that the abolition of slavery would not injure the poor, who are not slaveholders."
 
PDV said:
Moral progress is always easier when your livelihood isn't on the line. This doesn't mean it isn't legitimately moral progress; Jeremy Bentham anticipated basically all of modern liberalism centuries early from first principles, and the Catholic Church, on paper, disapproved of slavery for even longer - so there clearly was a picture of what morality should do. But it's far easier to get people to go along with your radical agenda of treating everyone as people and being nice to them when their salary depends on not doing that. England didn't need slaves, and so England was the main instrument of abolition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

England never had that many slaves on it's shores, but the Empire sure made a lot money off the slave trade and slavery in it's colonies.

Stsword said:
The Corwin Amendment passed congress which stated "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
The only reason the 13th amendment doesn't basically proclaim "Slavery now! Slavery forever!" is because that wasn't good enough for the South, they decided to start the American Civil War instead of ratifying iit.
And yes, they started it. In the so called "War of Northern Aggression," the South fired first.
But I guess admitting it was really the War of Southern Aggression would have been too honest.
Personally, I think assuming the leadership of the South cared their fellow whites pretty damn unlikely, considering they started a war that got hundreds of thousands of them killed.
And if that war hadn't happened, as I've already mentioned, they already had plans to wage wars of conquest to spread slavery.
The Confederacy instituted the draft. Slave owners were exempt.
Even southerners knew that the Civil War was a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight.
Governor Brown of Georgia "I have heard it remarked that this is a rich man's quarrel and the poor man's fight, and that the abolition of slavery would not injure the poor, who are not slaveholders."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, champion of the "states' rights" and one third of the Great Triumvirate/Immortal Trio along with Henry Clay as well as Daniel Webster, asserted that slavery, was not a "necessary evil" but instead was a "positive good" that benefited both slaves and owner. He was also a champion minority rights against majority rule as well as Nullification (which is basically the idea that any one state can overrule/ignore the federal government).
Basically, he was the grandfather of the confederacy and of Confederate ideology.
 
Last edited:
Dear John (part 23)
7th November 2012
11:20 GMT -5

Uncle Sam looks awkwardly at Zauriel.

"I shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, sir."

"Neither does the Most High. It is possible for an omnipotent being to remove the human capacity for moral failure, and yet the Most High would not countenance it. However, you have recently had considerable exposure to a substance Orange Lantern had called 'ground evil'."

Uncle Sam pats the left side of his chest with his right hand. "That what it was. Stung a little."

"I should be able to remove any lingering influence. This is something I offer freely, without requiring that you follow any particular religion or to encourage others to do so."

"You can?" I smile curiously. "How does that work? I thought that kaahuite accumulated around the one place in creation where God had no presence. That's why it works against angels."

Zauriel nods solemnly. "Yes, but the rest of Uncle Sam's body does fall within the auspices of Creation. It is simply a matter of excluding everything that I cannot touch."

I look around at the crowd gathered around the real Washington Monument, being politely encouraged not to approach closer by the local police. I awkwardly wave my right hand, and am greeted by a volley of clicks as tourists from all over make sure to get a picture.

"Go ahead, then. And make it snappy; I need to haul my ugly brother to jail where he belongs."

Zauriel nods and screeches a note
Zauriel nods and screeches a note​
And it's like the universe skips sideways for a moment. Sam jerks in apparent alarm as a cloud of dust drops out of him, but as far as I can tell he isn't harmed in any way.

"Allow me."

A vacuum cleaner construct sucks it all up, and I get to replenish my reserves of kaahuite ammunition.

Sam nods. "Now, just one thing-"

The eagle flies out of the still-fuzzy Memorial, hat still in his claws. He slows as he approaches Uncle Sam, backwinging in order to deliver the hat into his outstretched right hand.

Sam looks at it, frowning.

"Now, why would anyone want to do a thing like that?" He raps his left knuckles against the stovepipe, causing it to invert once more. He smiles. "Much better. Now."

He carefully restores the hat to its place upon his head.

"Is there something I can do for you gentlemen by way of thanks?"

"Undo whatever Johnny was up to and give Boss Smiley a black eye."

"I was planning on doing that anyway."

"The only other thing is… You haven't seen John Constantine, have you?"

"I can't say I know who that is."

Drat.

I sigh. Still, Sam's back and hopefully Boss Smiley is… Whatever he's up to is set back a little.

Dr. Balewa considers the portal at the Memorial. "Should we not do something about that foul realm, or the beings who live within?"

Sam shakes his head. "Impossible. Every civilization has its failings. Pretending they're not there doesn't help. No, it's confronting them that reminds you why they have to be fought, and lets you build the will to fight them."

He scoffs.

"Hn. Do you really think that killing a bunch of worms would prevent dishonest politicians taking bribes? If it were that simple I'd have done it right at the start."

"Thet, I understand. But I could seal the doors with stronger bindings than occur naturally. It would prevent a great deal of the leakage thet has been occurring."

Sam nods. "That doesn't sound-. Do you fellows need to ask Johnny any questions?"

"Mister Reb, do you know where John Constantine is?"

He just glowers at me. The gag probably isn't helping, but I doubt that he'd want to share either way.

And… He's a magical being whose reaction to the orange light I can't reasonably predict, especially given that those chains of his could drain it right out of whatever touched it. And there isn't an urgent need in the way there was with Uncle Sam.

"His aid will not be necessary. The Demon Constantine became somewhat helpful after you left."

"You know where John Constantine is?"

"I believe that I know how to find him."

"And I doubt that he'll tell us anything about Boss Smiley. I don't have anything. Zauriel?"

Zauriel walks closer to Johnny Reb. "Would you like me to hear your confession?"

"'o."

"Alan?"

"I just wanna go home and take a shower."

He flashes blue for a moment, sweat and grime vanishing from his body.

"Oh. In that case, let's go."

Sam makes eye contact with Mr. Reb. "I've been out of the loop for half a century, but since we're locking the door anyway, is there a reason we can't just throw him through and forget about him?"

"It would violate the fifth amendment. We do have a prison for holding magic users, now. Though I admit it would be really convenient."

Sam smiles. "Time was, folks were a bit more rough and ready about that kind of thing. I approve. If we don't treat everyone equally before the law then we're not better than him." He thinks for a moment. "Though you're right about-."

A huge talon reaches through the portal, grabbing Johnny Reb and pulling him through!

"Mwu-?"

Alan's quickest off the mark but I'm right on his tail as we fly through the portal-.

Just in time to watch the gigantised vulture peck Mr. Reb's head off.

She tosses her head back to swallow it, then looks down at us.

"What? He was defenseless, and I was hungry. And you weren't going to die."

"That wasn't the point."

"I'm a scavenger. It's an important part of the ecosystem. I clean things up. And I've got a lot of worms to eat."

Alan and I look at each other, but I'm not exactly sad that he's finally dead, and I don't want to stay here a moment longer than I have to.

We walk back through the soon-to-be-locked portal as the vulture throws her head back to swallow the rest of him.
 
Last edited:
Handlewithcare said:
Aww, no beatdown :(

But wait, the Vulture was...what, opportunism? Predatory market practices?

Why would she kill the worms and Reb?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
why not

every thing is fair game for such practice

even thing that should be on the same side as you

cause at the end of the day

food is food and money is money, who the fuck care where it come from
 
Handlewithcare said:
Aww, no beatdown :(

But wait, the Vulture was...what, opportunism? Predatory market practices?

Why would she kill the worms and Reb?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Z000 said:
why not

every thing is fair game for such practice

even thing that should be on the same side as you

cause at the end of the day

food is food and money is money, who the fuck care where it come from
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, I don't think a lot of the things from the Badlands have much loyalty to each other.
 
Handlewithcare said:
Aww, no beatdown :(

But wait, the Vulture was...what, opportunism? Predatory market practices?

Why would she kill the worms and Reb?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, we can interpret the metaphor as capitalists don't exactly have much love for politicians that can't offer them anything. But I think at the end of the day, the vulture was just hungry.
 
Handlewithcare said:
Aww, no beatdown :(

But wait, the Vulture was...what, opportunism? Predatory market practices?

Why would she kill the worms and Reb?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They're locking the door to the Badlands, so there'll be less crossover between it and the real world. They're doing it for the good effects on the real world, but that goes both ways; less corruption in the real world, less energy flowing to the Badlands, less for the worms to eat, and that means a lot of dead worms. Bad times for the Badlands, but good times for a certain scavenging vulture.

As for Reb... he was helpless, and his captors didn't really want him, and they weren't about to pick a fight over his corpse after the sneak attack.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 3 more.
    • Total: 87 (members: 16, guests: 71)
    Back
    Top