The Official "RIU History" Thread

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Great president, but Lincoln abolished slavery in the south, (which technically was another country, so he didn't really do anything?), but not in the northern border states. Why do they leave that out? Slavery was legal AFTER the civil war and until the 13th was ratified, a full 8 months later.
The emancipation proclamation only applied to states in rebellion (the south) since it was a war order, the document he penned still led to total emancipation
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The emancipation proclamation only applied to states in rebellion (the south) since it was a war order, the document he penned still led to total emancipation
Funny that Lincoln is revered. He was a segregationist and anti free choice. He jailed people who resisted conscription, a form of slavery.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Nelson motherfucking Mandela



"Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (/mænˈdɛlə/; Xhosa pronunciation: [xoˈliːɬaɬa manˈdeːla]; 18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was South Africa's first black chief executive, and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid through tackling institutionalised racism, poverty and inequality, and fostering racial reconciliation. Politically an African nationalist and democratic socialist, he served as President of the African National Congress (ANC) party from 1991 to 1997. Internationally, Mandela was Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1998 to 1999.

A Xhosa born to the Thembu royal family, Mandela attended Fort Hare University and the University of Witwatersrand, where he studied law. Living in Johannesburg, he became involved in anti-colonial politics, joining the ANC and becoming a founding member of its Youth League. After the Afrikaner minority government of the National Party established apartheid in 1948, he rose to prominence in the ANC's 1952 Defiance Campaign, was appointed superintendent of the organisation's Transvaal chapter and presided over the 1955 Congress of the People. Working as a lawyer, he was repeatedly arrested for seditious activities and, with the ANC leadership, was unsuccessfully prosecuted in the Treason Trial from 1956 to 1961. Influenced by Marxism, he secretly joined the South African Communist Party (SACP) and sat on its Central Committee. Although initially committed to non-violent protest, in association with the SACP he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961, leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government. In 1962, he was arrested, convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the state, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Rivonia Trial.

Mandela served 27 years in prison, initially on Robben Island, and later in Pollsmoor Prison and Victor Verster Prison. An international campaign lobbied for his release, which was granted in 1990 amid escalating civil strife. Mandela joined negotiations with Nationalist President F. W. de Klerk to abolish apartheid and establish multiracial elections in 1994, in which he led the ANC to victory and became South Africa's first black president. He published his autobiography in 1995. During his tenure in the Government of National Unity he invited other political parties to join the cabinet, and promulgated a new constitution. He also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate past human rights abuses. While continuing the former government's liberal economic policy, his administration also introduced measures to encourage land reform, combat poverty, and expand healthcare services. Internationally, he acted as mediator between Libya and the United Kingdom in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, and oversaw military intervention in Lesotho. He declined to run for a second term, and was succeeded by his deputy, Thabo Mbeki. Mandela became an elder statesman, focusing on charitable work in combating poverty and HIV/AIDS through the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

Mandela was a controversial figure for much of his life. Denounced as a communist terrorist by critics, he nevertheless gained international acclaim for his activism, having received more than 250 honours, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Soviet Order of Lenin. He is held in deep respect within South Africa, where he is often referred to by his Xhosa clan name, Madiba, or as Tata ("Father"); he is often described as the "Father of the Nation"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Great president, but Lincoln abolished slavery in the south, (which technically was another country, so he didn't really do anything?), but not in the northern border states. Why do they leave that out? Slavery was legal AFTER the civil war and until the 13th was ratified, a full 8 months later.
is that what they tell you? what was the name of the country?



:lol:
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Great president, but Lincoln abolished slavery in the south, (which technically was another country, so he didn't really do anything?), but not in the northern border states. Why do they leave that out? Slavery was legal AFTER the civil war and until the 13th was ratified, a full 8 months later.
damn you whine like a little klanman bitch.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
He's technically right, bro
never said he wasn't, just said the tone of his rhetoric sounded a lot like a klan man talking about lincoln, desperately trying his best to taernish or diminish the man's reputation.

it's a common thing for the white power types to do, they hate lincoln for what he did.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
never said he wasn't, just said the tone of his rhetoric sounded a lot like a klan man talking about lincoln, desperately trying his best to taernish or diminish the man's reputation.

it's a common thing for the white power types to do, they hate lincoln for what he did.
I would have to agree with you there
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
The Confederate States of America. It was its own country.

Is that a GIF of you dropping the ball yet again?
n'awwwwwwwwww c'mon..i can have a little fun, can't i?:hug:

i know it's a sore subject..still, and you're sensitive.

question: do you have any 'south will rise again' paraphernalia?

we can talk about your country if you want..what you think it would be right now..
 

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
History of the Baseball

From the fields and stadiums, to the uniforms, to the statistics, baseball is good design. There’s no better evidence of that than the iconic white and red ball. With its pristine white surface and high contrast red stitching, today’s baseball is a beautiful union of form and function, an almost ideal Modernist object. But it didn’t start out that way. The baseball didn’t emerge fully formed when the first batter stepped up to the first plate. Like the football, it’s hard to attribute its invention to one person, especially considering that in those heady, mustachioed, pre-professional days of baseball, balls were made by cobblers from the rubber remnants of old shoes, with rubber cores wrapped in yarn and a leather cover – if you were lucky. In some regions, sturgeon eyes were used instead of melted shoe rubber. In the 1840s and ’50s, it was anything but an exact science and pitchers often just made their own balls. Obviously, there was some variety in size and weight that resulted just from the nature of the handmade process and separate regional developments.

The differences extended from the center of the core to the surface of the leather wrapping. One of the more prominent cover designs wrapped the wound core in a single piece of leather tied off with four distinct lines of stitching, earning it the apt nickname “lemon peel.” These balls were smaller –about six inches in circumference compared to today’s nine- and they were lighter (in weight), darker (in color) and softer (in softness) than those used today. And the game was a little different too. In the earliest games, runners could be thrown out by getting “soaked,” or hit directly with a ball by a fielder – a rule still occasionally practiced on playgrounds and sandlots. These light, compact balls with rubber (or fish-eye) cores were much “livelier” than today’s balls – that is to say, the could be hit further and bounce higher. The result was a scoreboard that looked like something from a basketball game.

In the mid 1850s, ball clubs in the New York area elected to standardize the ball’s weight at 5.5-6 ounces and its circumference at somewhere between 8 and 11 inches, resulting in a larger, heavier, less lively ball. There was obviously some room for variety, but it was the first step toward regulation.

Throughout the 1850s and ’60s, the ball (and the rules) continued to evolve but there was still plenty of room for variation – more rubber in the core and a tighter winding resulted in a “live” ball while less rubber and a loose wind yielded a “dead” ball. Of course, home teams made the balls best suited to their own strengths and style of play. Ball selection was a key strategy and a critical benefit of home-field advantage. Visiting teams with big hitters would, more often than not, find themselves playing with a “dead” ball.

There is some debate about the origin of the 2-part “figure 8” cover that we we know today. Some baseball historians say it was first developed by a shoemaker’s son named Ellis Drake, who supposedly put the design together with some of his father’s scrap leather in an effort to create a more resilient cover. If this is true, Drake failed to patent his idea and others started producing similar designs. Others give credit to Colonel William A. Cutler, who may have invented the familiar stitching in 1858 and sold it to one of the first baseball manufacturers, William Harwood. Regardless of who created it, the figure 8 became the dominant ball thanks to Harwood & Sons, who built the first factory dedicated to baseball production in Natick, Massachusetts, and was the first to mass-produce the figure 8 design.

The year 1876 welcomed the first game in the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and a standardization of rules and regulations – including a standard ball. That same year a Boston Red Sox pitcher by the name of A.G. Spalding retired after winning 241 of 301 games in just a four-year career. He pitched every game with balls he made himself. When he convinced the National League to adopt his ball as its standard, an empire was born. Spalding’s company would continue to produce the official baseball of the National League for 100 years.

Early professional baseball was marked by incredibly low-scoring games – thanks in large part to the ball. Balls were were soft and became softer during the course of a game and were used until they unraveled, resulting in fewer big hits and lower scores. This was the original “dead-ball” era of baseball.

In 1910 the cork-core ball was introduced into Major League play. As Popular Mechanics explained at the time, “the cork makes possible a more rigid structure and more uniform resiliency. It is said to outlast the rubber center balls many times over, because it will not soften or break in spots under the most severe usage.” More importantly though, it could be hit. With the introduction of the livelier cork ball, league-wide batting averages jumped almost immediately. After a few years, however, pitchers began to adapt (and develop a few tricks) and numbers began to level out – until Babe Ruth started hitting balls out of the park; dead-ball era came to a final, stunning end. Ruth started something and baseball enjoyed a live-ball renaissance that actually had nothing to do with the ball, despite popular conspiracy theories that a new, more lively “rabbit” ball was secretly introduced into play in 1920 to increase hitting.

The next big innovation came in 1925 when Milton B. Reach patented the “cushion cork” center, in which a a sphere of cork is surrounded by a black semi-vulcanized rubber, which is then surrounded by another layer of red rubber. In 1934, the American League, which favored live balls and big hitters, and the National League, known to use thicker, looser balls that favored pitchers, agreed on a standard ball. As noted in a great article on the baseball’s history from Bleacher Report, the composition of this new “medium ball” was revealed for the first time in The New York Times:

Major league baseballs start with a core of cork mixed with a small amount of rubber. This is covered by a layer of black rubber, then by a layer of red rubber. It is then ready for the winding process, where yarn is added to the core. This is done on a revolving machine…in a humidity- and temperature-controlled room.

Yarn windings consist first of 121 yards of rough gray wool, forty-five yards of white wool then 53 yards of fine gray wool and finally 150 yards of fine white cotton. After these layers have been added to the sphere, it is coated with rubber cement. Then two pieces of horsehide in the shape of the figure ’8′ are hand-stitched with red thread to cover the ball.

….Each ball has 108 hand-stitched double stitches in its cover. A finished ball weighs from 5 to 5 1/4 ounces and measures not less than 9, nor more than 9 1/4 inches.

Surprisingly, the process hasn’t changed much either. All 108 red stitches on Major League baseballs are all still stitched by hand, although ball consistency has improved with new technology – materials are now stored in temperature controlled facilities and balls are wound under constant tension to eliminate “soft spots” and guarantee a uniform surface. Also similar to years past: every season is different from the last. Some seasons see a lot of home runs while others see pitchers locked in battle. So far this year, teams have scored the fewest runs per game (4.22) since 1992, when it was 4.12. Granted, the hot summer months where the balls soar through the humid air have yet to come, but it looks like the men on the mound have the upper hand.
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
n'awwwwwwwwww c'mon..i can have a little fun, can't i?:hug:

i know it's a sore subject..still, and you're sensitive.

question: do you have any 'south will rise again' paraphernalia?

we can talk about your country if you want..what you think it would be right now..
No, I have no relics from the Civil War. I do have many books on the Civil War. I have many books on historical wars, period. I also have many books on other subjects that interest me, and that does include Texas history.

My two favorite historical books on my shelf at the moment are:

Sea of Glory(it's about an exploring expedition the U.S. undertook)
Three Roads To the Alamo(it's about Crockett, Travis, and Bowie, specifically, what brought them here, and how they ended up at the Alamo)

My country is the USA. The only soreness is getting history right. Not whitewashed.

Lincoln freed zero slaves in the USA. He issued an order freeing people in a foreign country(the CSA) and didn't bother freeing any slaves in the United States. That took a constitutional amendment. All the states that had slaves after the proclamation, kept them until the constitutional amendment.

None of this means the proclamation was bad. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.

I just wish we'd free all the slaves on our soil right now. It's sickening that slavery still exists in this country and the world.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
No, I have no relics from the Civil War. I do have many books on the Civil War. I have many books on historical wars, period. I also have many books on other subjects that interest me, and that does include Texas history.

My two favorite historical books on my shelf at the moment are:

Sea of Glory(it's about an exploring expedition the U.S. undertook)
Three Roads To the Alamo(it's about Crockett, Travis, and Bowie, specifically, what brought them here, and how they ended up at the Alamo)

My country is the USA. The only soreness is getting history right. Not whitewashed.

Lincoln freed zero slaves in the USA. He issued an order freeing people in a foreign country(the CSA) and didn't bother freeing any slaves in the United States. That took a constitutional amendment. All the states that had slaves after the proclamation, kept them until the constitutional amendment.

None of this means the proclamation was bad. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.

I just wish we'd free all the slaves on our soil right now. It's sickening that slavery still exists in this country and the world.
i find southerners have an interesting perspective especially, the thought of amanciproclamation..not thinking what it means..what are you saying?

what does this mean?
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
your "country" of slaveholding shitheads lost, get over it.

and god bless sherman.
i think his AE's beef is, the south had to give up slavery but the north still held? i didn't know slavery was held north of mason-dixon line..can anyone speak to this?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i think his AE's beef is, the south had to give up slavery but the north still held? i didn't know slavery was held north of mason-dixon line..can anyone speak to this?
there really wasn't much of it.

certainly, they didn't have a full third of their population in slavery, like the south did.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

in fact, only delaware had any slaves. antidis is crying some really bitter tears over a reality that didn't even exist anywhere except his own bitter, deluded mind.
 

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
History of Bitters
Bitters have a turbulent history, and it's not clear when and where it started. Initially invented as a medical treatment, bitters have developed to being a luxury drink in the western culture. As a result, bitters became an essential part of cocktails, but then were forgotten about, or banned. This is why only since recently, bitters are making their way back into the bars and restaurants all over the world.

Bitters as a medical treatment
Until the 19th century, bitters were mainly used as a medical cure-all. It is however, unclear where the idea of making bitters had its origin. Perhaps the first ever bitter was invented by a lucky accident, when certain foods containing bittern maybe fell into a container with strong alcohol, and were forgotten in it. The blend then must have macerated over time, and eventually resulted in a bitter drink.

Author David Wondrich, publisher of various books on cocktails and their history, supports a different theory that states that bitters were developed on purpose, because the knowledge of both herbs and alcohol being a medical remedy was already widespread in the 12th Century. In Wondrich's opinion, mixing both these compounds to create something new was no big step for alchemists. Trusting this theory, the birthplace for bitters would be Mesopotamia, which is now known as Iraq. In the 9th or 10th Century, the alembic for the distillation of alcohol was invented by Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi, who distilled pure alcohol from wine for the first time in history.

A significant and important chapter in the history of bitters is the invention of Angostura. In 1820, the German GP Johann G. B. Siegert started supporting freedom fighter and rebel Simón Bolívar in South America. In the town of Angostura, today known as Ciudad Bolívar, Siegert invented his so called “Amargo Aromatico” (Spanish for aromatic bitters) as a medical elixir for Bolívar's troops. This bitter became very popular amongst fighters, rebels and even seamen, who reached Angostura via Orinoco. Taken along by sailors and their ships, the famous Angostura bitter was quickly known all over the world. In 1850, Siegert focused entirely on the distribution of his product which by then had already reached a decent level of popularity in Europe. It's current reputation as a flavouring aid has slowly developed over time, and as mentioned before, Angostura is the most sold bitters in the world today.

Bitters as a flavouring agent
How was the former medical elixir discovered for the seasoning of meals? David Wondrich reports that in the 17th century, pharmacist Richard Stoughton from London advertised his „Magnum Elixir Stomachicum“ as a suitable flavouring agent in Canadian wine or sherry that could also cure a hangover. This story is similar to the history of Peychaud's bitters, which were invented by pharmacist Antoine Peychaud, and sold to be enjoyed with cognac. This means that historically, it wasn't bitters that were added to flavour spirits, but the other way around, in order to make bitters edible.
Also, this way the first ever cocktails were invented, and bitters became a seasoning add-on for drinks. Bitters are essential components of the most classic and famous cocktails, for example the Manhattan, Old Fashioned, and the Sazerac. We believe that these drinks would be ordered even more often, if bartenders and mixologists wouldn't keep forgetting to add bitters.

Until the Pure Food and Drug Act 1906 and the time of prohibition from 1919 until 1933, aromatic bitters used to be on the usual inventory list of every bar and restaurant in the US. This explains why they are often referred to as cocktail bitters. A huge variety used to be available everywhere, and bitters could have been used even daily. But this political engagement destroyed the country's bar and restaurant culture. Other trends developed, and most bitters, with just a few exceptions, were forgotten.

The credit for their revival goes to the few, passionate experts and enthusiasts for good taste. These connaisseurs preserved fragments of the bitter's tradition, and try to educate us about them. These people share their knowledge, and teach us that bitters aren't just special because they triggered the invention of cocktails, but because of their uniqueness as a flavouring agent. Since the beginning of this century, the production, use, and distribution of bitters is rising, and although they might have been forgotten about for a long time, bitters were never dead. Instead, they were simply having a long beauty sleep.

How and when bitters were first used as seasoning, can't be specified until this day. Perhaps a couple of experimental chefs or housewives tried out some cooking recipes when holding a bottle of bitters in their hands. Fact is, that only a small part of what is possible with bitters and food, has been discovered yet. This is also the reason why you can't call a bitters meal recipe a “classic” recipe – these recipes are simply too recent. In our recipe section however, we're going to try to give you some ideas on how you can use your bitters
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
i think his AE's beef is, the south had to give up slavery but the north still held? i didn't know slavery was held north of mason-dixon line..can anyone speak to this?
i think his AE's beef is, the south had to give up slavery but the north still held? i didn't know slavery was held north of mason-dixon line..can anyone speak to this?
Nope. My problem is the perception is not reality. Perception: emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves. Reality: just slaves in the CSA were freed and none were freed in the Union states.

States that had slaves AFTER the civil war:

Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. All were Union states.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Nope. My problem is the perception is not reality. Perception: emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves. Reality: just slaves in the CSA were freed and none were freed in the Union states.

States that had slaves AFTER the civil war:

Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. All were Union states.
but they are basically southern states..maybe lincoln was trying to ease them into?

is washington dc northern or southern?
 
Top