The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: Jeremy E. on June 19, 2015, 05:27:28 PM
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
-
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/list/201110/bad-investments-star-athletes
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
Yes, that one stands out as the"one of these things is not like the others"!
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
Yes, that one stands out as the"one of these things is not like the others"!
This was playing in my head when I saw it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FClGhto1vIg
-
I can get the appeal of buying something like a shark tank...I've sadly spent more hours than I should looking at customized saltwater tanks. What I don't understand, and can't understand, is having $50M and investing it all in a game company, without having any clue how to run that game company. From what I understand, he didn't know that most workers take the weekend off. $50M is enough to live extremely well and still not need to touch the principal.
-
On a side note, The Gronk appears to be doing things the right way!
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rob-gronkowski-hasnt-spent-penny-200150156.html
-
On a side note, The Gronk appears to be doing things the right way!
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rob-gronkowski-hasnt-spent-penny-200150156.html
Well, it has to be somewhere, right? His "I haven't touched one dime" statement makes me wonder if it's all snoozing away in a bank savings account. ;)
-
I can get the appeal of buying something like a shark tank...I've sadly spent more hours than I should looking at customized saltwater tanks. What I don't understand, and can't understand, is having $50M and investing it all in a game company, without having any clue how to run that game company. From what I understand, he didn't know that most workers take the weekend off. $50M is enough to live extremely well and still not need to touch the principal.
Someday, if we manage to FIRE in the right location, I want an outdoor habitat for water monitor lizards that I can swim in.
I know this is insane exploding volcano shit, but the dream has persisted for years and years. We'll see.
-
I can get the appeal of buying something like a shark tank...I've sadly spent more hours than I should looking at customized saltwater tanks. What I don't understand, and can't understand, is having $50M and investing it all in a game company, without having any clue how to run that game company. From what I understand, he didn't know that most workers take the weekend off. $50M is enough to live extremely well and still not need to touch the principal.
Someday, if we manage to FIRE in the right location, I want an outdoor habitat for water monitor lizards that I can swim in.
I know this is insane exploding volcano shit, but the dream has persisted for years and years. We'll see.
You should totally try to crowd fund this and set up a camera feed for at least a few hours a day.
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
Yes, that one stands out as the"one of these things is not like the others"!
I took that entry to be very tongue-in-cheek.
The only one I can't knock is Bubba. First of all the guy is so damn likable. Secondly - and this is a horrendous thing to say in light of recent events - who wouldn't want to buy the General Lee given millions and millions of dollars? I would buy that sucker, rename it the General Grant and put the American Flag on the roof. Woot!
-
The most painful part of the article is that with sums of money as large as these you could invest REALLY conservatively and still be totally set for life. Hell, you could hide it in a mattress and STILL be set! They're going so far out of their way to ensure financial loss.
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
Yes, that one stands out as the"one of these things is not like the others"!
I took that entry to be very tongue-in-cheek.
The only one I can't knock is Bubba. First of all the guy is so damn likable. Secondly - and this is a horrendous thing to say in light of recent events - who wouldn't want to buy the General Lee given millions and millions of dollars?
<raises hand>
No matter how much I had, I could find so many better uses for that money. If I wanted a special car it would be a Tesla.
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
Yes, that one stands out as the"one of these things is not like the others"!
I took that entry to be very tongue-in-cheek.
The only one I can't knock is Bubba. First of all the guy is so damn likable. Secondly - and this is a horrendous thing to say in light of recent events - who wouldn't want to buy the General Lee given millions and millions of dollars?
<raises hand>
No matter how much I had, I could find so many better uses for that money. If I wanted a special car it would be a Tesla.
Fair enough. Must... fight... anti-mustachian... urges... facepunch facepunch facepunch
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
Yes, that one stands out as the"one of these things is not like the others"!
I took that entry to be very tongue-in-cheek.
The only one I can't knock is Bubba. First of all the guy is so damn likable. Secondly - and this is a horrendous thing to say in light of recent events - who wouldn't want to buy the General Lee given millions and millions of dollars? I would buy that sucker, rename it the General Grant and put the American Flag on the roof. Woot!
you could easily find a similar '69 charger for under $20,000 and put $5,000 into it to have it look any way you'd like... But Robert E. Lee was a much better general than Grant, just saying.
-
Al Jefferson's bed is probably a good investment. There are some things money can't buy, and a bed like that could accommodate them...
-
Al Jefferson's bed is probably a good investment. There are some things money can't buy, and a bed like that could accommodate them...
Oh, money can definitely buy those things.
-
Al Jefferson's bed is probably a good investment. There are some things money can't buy, and a bed like that could accommodate them...
Oh, money can definitely buy those things.
Yeah, not sure what you're trying to say. I mean, Al Jefferson's bed was likely created in return for money, unless you're saying that someone gifted it to him?
-
Al Jefferson's bed is probably a good investment. There are some things money can't buy, and a bed like that could accommodate them...
Oh, money can definitely buy those things.
Yeah, not sure what you're trying to say. I mean, Al Jefferson's bed was likely created in return for money, unless you're saying that someone gifted it to him?
Not the bed--the "things" a bed can accommodate.
-
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-dumbest-athlete-purchases-in-history/
Silly that they call out Shaq for only spending $235k on his reasonably priced house. It doesn't belong in the rest of this article's examples. That article should get its own antimustachian call-out.
I'm quite sure that it was ironically included.
-
But Robert E. Lee was a much better general than Grant, just saying.
Interesting. Remind me which one of us won the war?
-
But Robert E. Lee was a much better general than Grant, just saying.
Interesting. Remind me which one of us won the war?
The one that had more soldiers, better equipment, better supplies and was able to sustain their economy. What does that have to do with the comparison of a General?
-
But Robert E. Lee was a much better general than Grant, just saying.
Interesting. Remind me which one of us won the war?
The one that had more soldiers, better equipment, better supplies and was able to sustain their economy. What does that have to do with the comparison of a General?
Can you prove that Lee was a better general than Grant? Lee was an excellent general, but Grand was also fairly good. The problem with the Union was that they had shitty generals prior to Grant that squandered great opportunities and could have ended the rebellion earlier.
-
But Robert E. Lee was a much better general than Grant, just saying.
Interesting. Remind me which one of us won the war?
The one that had more soldiers, better equipment, better supplies and was able to sustain their economy.
And the moral high ground of fighting to end slavery...
-
But Robert E. Lee was a much better general than Grant, just saying.
Interesting. Remind me which one of us won the war?
The one that had more soldiers, better equipment, better supplies and was able to sustain their economy. What does that have to do with the comparison of a General?
Can you prove that Lee was a better general than Grant? Lee was an excellent general, but Grand was also fairly good. The problem with the Union was that they had shitty generals prior to Grant that squandered great opportunities and could have ended the rebellion earlier.
I'll go ahead and call it a succession rather than the rebellion.. And look at times when Grant and Lee faced off, Lee almost always had less soldiers that had crappier equipment and supplies, yet with great positioning and tactics, he was able to "win" almost every time. It is actually a fairly well known fact that Lee was a better general... Look at how he held Virginia. Lincoln actually asked Lee to be his primary general but Lee had to refuse because he couldn't fight for the Union, he had to fight for the confederacy.
But Robert E. Lee was a much better general than Grant, just saying.
Interesting. Remind me which one of us won the war?
The one that had more soldiers, better equipment, better supplies and was able to sustain their economy.
And the moral high ground of fighting to end slavery...
Also they weren't really fighting to end slavery, they were fighting to reunite the United States.
-
That's some seriously revisionist history you've got there.
-
That's some seriously revisionist history you've got there.
How so?
-
It seems to me that the South was fighting to preserve slavery, and the North was fighting to keep the South in the Union, which everyone knew would lead to the end of slavery. So one can give some credence to the idea that the North didn't have a fundamentally moral motivation, but the South certainly had an evil one.
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
-
I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
Amen. They fought and died for the right to treat human beings as property. Fuck those folks, and I say that as a man with much southern ancestry myself. No one needs to be proud of their racist ancestors.
The north would have struggled without them, sure, but it would have recovered eventually. The south would have become a second Mexico, just another impoverished neighbor and primary source of hopeful immigrants.
Didn't this thread used to be about professional sports?
-
I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
Amen. They fought and died for the right to treat human beings as property. Fuck those folks, and I say that as a man with much southern ancestry myself. No one needs to be proud of their racist ancestors.
The north would have struggled without them, sure, but it would have recovered eventually. The south would have become a second Mexico, just another impoverished neighbor and primary source of hopeful immigrants.
Didn't this thread used to be about professional sports?
Maybe the tie-in is that most of the amazing athletes profiled would have been property back in the day? You know, because of their inferior genetics and laziness.
-
Fuck those folks, and I say that as a man with much southern ancestry myself. No one needs to be proud of their racist ancestors.
That's a bit harsh. We're all products of our environments. It's just as true today as it was 150 years ago. How many southerners do you think would have signed up for the Confederacy had they been raised among northern, pacifist, abolitionist Quakers? We're fortunate today to live in an age where we can be exposed to many different points of view if we so choose, and society has advance because of this exchange of ideas. Most people feel more comfortable their own personal echo chambers, but at least today those echo chambers are self-imposed, and not so much imposed by society at large.
Southern heritage is an interesting topic for me. I was born an raised in the South. I have Southern ancestors dating back to at least the early 1700s. As far as I know, none of them were slave owners - certainly none were plantation owners - but some of them did fight for the Confederacy. They probably attended churches whose pastors and sermons were bank-rolled by the wealthy plantation owners. Their politicians were slave owners. I have a hard time faulting them for the side they fought on. I'm not convinced they fought so much for slavery as they did for the status quo. For the life that they knew and were comfortable with. That may make them lazy or closed-minded, but not evil.
I also have ancestors who fought for Nazi Germany. I know their names. I've seen their pictures. I don't know that they were evil. Maybe? Or maybe they, along with the rest of their generation, were simply led astray by a powerful and oppressive regime. Who knows what they could have done with their lives had they been born in a different time or place. But that misplaced potential doesn't make me proud of what they did. And I would no more proudly display a Confederate flag than I would a swastika. But I chose to step outside the echo chamber that I grew up in. This shit is complex, and change takes more time that most of us would like.
-
This shit is complex, and change takes more time that most of us would like.
It is, but that's why I stand by my assertion that I wish they had been allowed to leave. Every time Governor Perry made some comment about Texas leaving, my thought was always, "Good, can you take a few more states with you?" Their loss would hurt of course, but we would be ok.
-
That's a bit harsh. We're all products of our environments.
Yes it is. Not quite as harsh as owning people, though.
I don't dispute that people do evil things because they are products of their circumstances. I also don't excuse them for doing evil things, regardless of their justifications.
-
That's a bit harsh. We're all products of our environments.
Yes it is. Not quite as harsh as owning people, though.
I don't dispute that people do evil things because they are products of their circumstances. I also don't excuse them for doing evil things, regardless of their justifications.
We may be products of our environments, but does that excuse a poor person for not trying to achieve more than his/her parents? The fact that this "battle" is continuing today, more than 150 years afterwards, tell me that many aren't trying to get beyond their environment, but are proud of it and want to continue it.
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
-
[Mike Tyson] once made a grizzly attempt to bite another man's ear off.
And now I'm picturing Mike Tyson trying to convince a grizzly bear to attack someone. Admittedly it's an awesome mental image - if I could draw I would definitely illustrate that. But nonetheless, this is why writers should know the difference between "grizzly" and "grisly."
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
That's a separate issue from the Civil War. Lincoln's assassination prevented the agenda of the Radical Republicans from being enacted. They were planning lots of measures to ensure civil rights for African-Americans that Johnson prevented from going through.
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
That's a separate issue from the Civil War. Lincoln's assassination prevented the agenda of the Radical Republicans from being enacted. They were planning lots of measures to ensure civil rights for African-Americans that Johnson prevented from going through.
True, but I also don't believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The Union wanted to keep the country together and to bring the south back into the fold. I think (in hindsight of course, I wasn't alive back then), that it was an enormous cost in humans and capital to do so.
-
We have the grammar-nazi thread in off topic for tidbits like these.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/grammar-nazi/ (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/grammar-nazi/)
And what a grizzly can do is definitely grisly.
[Mike Tyson] once made a grizzly attempt to bite another man's ear off.
And now I'm picturing Mike Tyson trying to convince a grizzly bear to attack someone. Admittedly it's an awesome mental image - if I could draw I would definitely illustrate that. But nonetheless, this is why writers should know the difference between "grizzly" and "grisly."
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
That's a separate issue from the Civil War. Lincoln's assassination prevented the agenda of the Radical Republicans from being enacted. They were planning lots of measures to ensure civil rights for African-Americans that Johnson prevented from going through.
True, but I also don't believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The Union wanted to keep the country together and to bring the south back into the fold. I think (in hindsight of course, I wasn't alive back then), that it was an enormous cost in humans and capital to do so.
the south was a source of raw materials including cheap cotton and crops. the union wanted the south for their economic needs. please don't believe it was for some grand idea of a Union united, nor truly for slavery. the south wanted to keep slavery the north didn't really want it to end per se. however slavery was a cheap form of labor for the south, while in the north they were forced to actually pay people. you need to look at it as two different forms of industry. the south sold unfinished goods to the north and the north sent expensive finished goods back down. people migrating from the south also provided a labor pool. slavery was made illegal after the war, as a way to cripple the south. notice the states that didnt rebel were allowed to keep their slaves. people love forgetting that.
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
That's a separate issue from the Civil War. Lincoln's assassination prevented the agenda of the Radical Republicans from being enacted. They were planning lots of measures to ensure civil rights for African-Americans that Johnson prevented from going through.
True, but I also don't believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The Union wanted to keep the country together and to bring the south back into the fold. I think (in hindsight of course, I wasn't alive back then), that it was an enormous cost in humans and capital to do so.
the south was a source of raw materials including cheap cotton and crops. the union wanted the south for their economic needs. please don't believe it was for some grand idea of a Union united, nor truly for slavery. the south wanted to keep slavery the north didn't really want it to end per se. however slavery was a cheap form of labor for the south, while in the north they were forced to actually pay people. you need to look at it as two different forms of industry. the south sold unfinished goods to the north and the north sent expensive finished goods back down. people migrating from the south also provided a labor pool. slavery was made illegal after the war, as a way to cripple the south. notice the states that didnt rebel were allowed to keep their slaves. people love forgetting that.
the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in the entire country
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
That's a separate issue from the Civil War. Lincoln's assassination prevented the agenda of the Radical Republicans from being enacted. They were planning lots of measures to ensure civil rights for African-Americans that Johnson prevented from going through.
True, but I also don't believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The Union wanted to keep the country together and to bring the south back into the fold. I think (in hindsight of course, I wasn't alive back then), that it was an enormous cost in humans and capital to do so.
the south was a source of raw materials including cheap cotton and crops. the union wanted the south for their economic needs. please don't believe it was for some grand idea of a Union united, nor truly for slavery. the south wanted to keep slavery the north didn't really want it to end per se. however slavery was a cheap form of labor for the south, while in the north they were forced to actually pay people. you need to look at it as two different forms of industry. the south sold unfinished goods to the north and the north sent expensive finished goods back down. people migrating from the south also provided a labor pool. slavery was made illegal after the war, as a way to cripple the south. notice the states that didnt rebel were allowed to keep their slaves. people love forgetting that.
the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in the entire country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
really?
-
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
That's a separate issue from the Civil War. Lincoln's assassination prevented the agenda of the Radical Republicans from being enacted. They were planning lots of measures to ensure civil rights for African-Americans that Johnson prevented from going through.
True, but I also don't believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The Union wanted to keep the country together and to bring the south back into the fold. I think (in hindsight of course, I wasn't alive back then), that it was an enormous cost in humans and capital to do so.
the south was a source of raw materials including cheap cotton and crops. the union wanted the south for their economic needs. please don't believe it was for some grand idea of a Union united, nor truly for slavery. the south wanted to keep slavery the north didn't really want it to end per se. however slavery was a cheap form of labor for the south, while in the north they were forced to actually pay people. you need to look at it as two different forms of industry. the south sold unfinished goods to the north and the north sent expensive finished goods back down. people migrating from the south also provided a labor pool. slavery was made illegal after the war, as a way to cripple the south. notice the states that didnt rebel were allowed to keep their slaves. people love forgetting that.
the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in the entire country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
really?
Yeah, I've always viewed the Emancipation Proclamation as PR move to divide the South away from Europe. That's why the 13th amendment was important, also the EP was a war-time measure.
That said, I don't disagree that the North was buying crops and cotton from the South. The North allowed Kentucky, Maryland, and other border states to keep their slaves, but in a time of war there has to be compromises. I repeat, the war was not about slavery but about keeping the union together, so they did what they had to. At the end of the day, slavery was abolished, including the states that didn't rebel, so I'm not quite sure what your point was.
-
my point was to agree with you, and clarify more on the "preserve the union" theory.
it was economic; the war and the EP
in one swoop you gain more troops and cripple the rebels economically.
any more antagonism?
My issue with the Civil War is that the South comes across as a bunch of losers. They had what, 10 straight southern, slave-holding presidents. The moment that a northerner gets elected, Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even a radical, they bolted. I kinda wish that they were led go. Nearly all of the former slave states take more in federal taxes than they pay in.
You wish slavery had continued? You might want to rethink that.
Did slavery end?
Conditions for many of the African Americans didn't improve all that much in the aftermath of the Civil War, though slavery was abolished. Instead, rules were put in place that turned many of the former slaves into serfs.
Additionally, slavery hasn't truly ended. Though estimates vary widely, there are over 20 million slaves around the world, with some estimates stating the figure could be higher than 30 million.
To answer your question, no I do not want the continuation of slavery, then or now. But to say that the Civil War ended slavery in the South is technically correct. We know that slavery ended because slavery was declared illegal. Whether or not it truly ended is something that I dispute.
That's a separate issue from the Civil War. Lincoln's assassination prevented the agenda of the Radical Republicans from being enacted. They were planning lots of measures to ensure civil rights for African-Americans that Johnson prevented from going through.
True, but I also don't believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The Union wanted to keep the country together and to bring the south back into the fold. I think (in hindsight of course, I wasn't alive back then), that it was an enormous cost in humans and capital to do so.
the south was a source of raw materials including cheap cotton and crops. the union wanted the south for their economic needs. please don't believe it was for some grand idea of a Union united, nor truly for slavery. the south wanted to keep slavery the north didn't really want it to end per se. however slavery was a cheap form of labor for the south, while in the north they were forced to actually pay people. you need to look at it as two different forms of industry. the south sold unfinished goods to the north and the north sent expensive finished goods back down. people migrating from the south also provided a labor pool. slavery was made illegal after the war, as a way to cripple the south. notice the states that didnt rebel were allowed to keep their slaves. people love forgetting that.
the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in the entire country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
really?
Yeah, I've always viewed the Emancipation Proclamation as PR move to divide the South away from Europe. That's why the 13th amendment was important, also the EP was a war-time measure.
That said, I don't disagree that the North was buying crops and cotton from the South. The North allowed Kentucky, Maryland, and other border states to keep their slaves, but in a time of war there has to be compromises. I repeat, the war was not about slavery but about keeping the union together, so they did what they had to. At the end of the day, slavery was abolished, including the states that didn't rebel, so I'm not quite sure what your point was.
-
Okay vivophoenix, the 13th amendment abolished slavery, so we were both wrong.
-
Okay vivophoenix, the 13th amendment abolished slavery, so we were both wrong.
that wasnt petty AF
-
my point was to agree with you, and clarify more on the "preserve the union" theory.
it was economic; the war and the EP
in one swoop you gain more troops and cripple the rebels economically.
any more antagonism?
My mistake, I misread your messages. Can we be friends?
-
my point was to agree with you, and clarify more on the "preserve the union" theory.
it was economic; the war and the EP
in one swoop you gain more troops and cripple the rebels economically.
any more antagonism?
My mistake, I misread your messages. Can we be friends?
depends, do you have cookies? if so, let the peace talks commence!
-
my point was to agree with you, and clarify more on the "preserve the union" theory.
it was economic; the war and the EP
in one swoop you gain more troops and cripple the rebels economically.
any more antagonism?
My mistake, I misread your messages. Can we be friends?
depends, do you have cookies? if so, let the peace talks commence!
You two are doing the internet all wrong. You're supposed to be making Hitler comparisons by now.
-
[Mike Tyson] once made a grizzly attempt to bite another man's ear off.
And now I'm picturing Mike Tyson trying to convince a grizzly bear to attack someone. Admittedly it's an awesome mental image - if I could draw I would definitely illustrate that. But nonetheless, this is why writers should know the difference between "grizzly" and "grisly."
Haaaaaaa! Some well-timed humor in this thread.
-
my point was to agree with you, and clarify more on the "preserve the union" theory.
it was economic; the war and the EP
in one swoop you gain more troops and cripple the rebels economically.
any more antagonism?
My mistake, I misread your messages. Can we be friends?
depends, do you have cookies? if so, let the peace talks commence!
You two are doing the internet all wrong. You're supposed to be making Hitler comparisons by now.
I don't have any, but wouldn't mind making some.
-
I am frankly mystified why people still take the North/South thing so personally at this stage of the game. It happened 150 years ago. Interesting history, but that is about it.
-
my point was to agree with you, and clarify more on the "preserve the union" theory.
it was economic; the war and the EP
in one swoop you gain more troops and cripple the rebels economically.
any more antagonism?
My mistake, I misread your messages. Can we be friends?
depends, do you have cookies? if so, let the peace talks commence!
This was seems pretty civil.
-
That's a bit harsh. We're all products of our environments.
Yes it is. Not quite as harsh as owning people, though.
I don't dispute that people do evil things because they are products of their circumstances. I also don't excuse them for doing evil things, regardless of their justifications.
I don't want to belabor this point, but I'm not completely convinced that you or I are completely free of beliefs and actions that won't be viewed as ridiculous, backwards, or just evil through by people 150 years into the future. What if the consensus liberal opinion in the unified socialist nation of EurAmeriChina 150 from today is that capitalism was completely evil - oppressive to the poor, destructive towards the earth - unconscionably and obviously evil. Yet the vast swaths of the middle class simply accepted it, and defended it, fought for it, even though we knew its benefits were heavily tilted towards the rich elite. How do we, as people who meet here every day to glibly discuss how we profit from this system, appear through the lens of time if this system is one day declared as untenable as slavery, serfdom, or all the other systems of economic oppression that have been employed over the years?
Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I'm convinced that you're underthinking it. That is all.
-
I'm convinced that you're underthinking it. That is all.
That's not an accusation I hear very often.
-
Hell, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly opposed gay marriage in 2008, and now that view would be outrageous for any Democrat.
(I encouraged my parents to vote against Texas's gay marriage ban in the mid-2000s when I was in high school, so I guess I was substantially more tolerant than the national Democratic party until 2013 or so.)
-
I'm convinced that you're underthinking it. That is all.
That's not an accusation I hear very often.
Haha. I like that you have a very different perspective than most people on the forum regarding certain topics, and I appreciate that you're willing to share, even when you invite criticism. I disagree with you on this point, but you're no stranger to disagreement :)
Hell, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly opposed gay marriage in 2008, and now that view would be outrageous for any Democrat.
(I encouraged my parents to vote against Texas's gay marriage ban in the mid-2000s when I was in high school, so I guess I was substantially more tolerant than the national Democratic party until 2013 or so.)
It's really incredible how quickly public opinion has changed on that topic in less than a decade. I think the tipping point was when the millenials started coming of voting age. At least they're good for something, amiright?
-
That's a bit harsh. We're all products of our environments.
Yes it is. Not quite as harsh as owning people, though.
I don't dispute that people do evil things because they are products of their circumstances. I also don't excuse them for doing evil things, regardless of their justifications.
I don't want to belabor this point, but I'm not completely convinced that you or I are completely free of beliefs and actions that won't be viewed as ridiculous, backwards, or just plain evil through by people 150 years into the future.
Mud, I think sol's statement would find more sympathy if the root words "excuse" and "justify" were swapped:
"I also don't justify them for doing evil things, regardless of their excuses."
-
I am frankly mystified why people still take the North/South thing so personally at this stage of the game. It happened 150 years ago. Interesting history, but that is about it.
I agree. Granted, my ancestry in this country only goes back two generations before me, and I have lived in the north, south and in between so I have no personal connection, but I have never quite understood my friends who hold such strong views on the topic.
-
Amen. They fought and died for the right to treat human beings as property. Fuck those folks, and I say that as a man with much southern ancestry myself. No one needs to be proud of their racist ancestors.
Whereas the northern ones who merely exterminated the indigenous population as part of their manifest destiny to control and exploit the new lands were humanitarian idealists ?
That's a bit like claiming the British empire fought the Boer war to pre-emptively solve apartheid
-
I am frankly mystified why people still take the North/South thing so personally at this stage of the game. It happened 150 years ago. Interesting history, but that is about it.
Just give it time.
People in my corner of sweden sometimes takes a warlike situations from 4-500 years ago personally or make it part of their cultural identity...
(for the swedes/danes here, I'm talking about people from Skåne and Småland now...).
-
I don't want to belabor this point, but I'm not completely convinced that you or I are completely free of beliefs and actions that won't be viewed as ridiculous, backwards, or just evil through by people 150 years into the future.
I am absolutely certain this is true. Whether it's capitalism, inequality, callous disregard for the health of people in other nations, starting wars at will, burning fossil fuels, filling the ocean with plastic, filling the world with toxic chemicals, etc, there are many, many things that future humanity will look back on with disgust.
-
I don't want to belabor this point, but I'm not completely convinced that you or I are completely free of beliefs and actions that won't be viewed as ridiculous, backwards, or just evil through by people 150 years into the future.
I am absolutely certain this is true. Whether it's capitalism, inequality, callous disregard for the health of people in other nations, starting wars at will, burning fossil fuels, filling the ocean with plastic, filling the world with toxic chemicals, etc, there are many, many things that future humanity will look back on with disgust.
Our criminal justice system is another thing that could be added to the list.