- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Real History with Matt Walsh - Season 1 - Episode 03: The Real History of the Civil War
Posted on 5/26/26 at 6:25 am to Auburn1968
Posted on 5/26/26 at 6:25 am to Auburn1968
The fact that the South was so dependent on imports at a time when the nation was growing and expanding daily and producing durable consumer goods doesn't tell you something about the overall economic stability of the South?
0
Posted on 5/26/26 at 6:38 am to JoeyP239
Matt Walsh conveniently omits how savage the settlers could be. Custer engaged in something of a terror campaign. Jackson literally forced the Cherokee at gunpoint to move a half continent away. Washington ordered Sullivan during the Revolutionary War to lay waste to Native Americans in upstate New York, burning crops and homes.
Savagery abounds on all sides in the relationship.
Savagery abounds on all sides in the relationship.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 6:59 am
Posted on 5/26/26 at 6:40 am to LSU Neil
quote:
Kinda like the whole societal issue of plantation homes, statues, reparations for slavery. All part of stuff that happened 150 years ago.
That's (D)ifferent
Posted on 5/26/26 at 6:43 am to JoeyP239
quote:
This is a documentary meant for 5th graders and discussed on a 5th grade level.
Appropriate level for the majority of our population.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 6:45 am to GREENHEAD22
You do realize that there was no scenario at the time that allows for Southern control of the lower Mississippi Valley and New Orleans. Why do you think that one of the first moves the North makes is to secure the rivers out west?
Posted on 5/26/26 at 6:46 am to Joshjrn
quote:
The Confederacy seceded over slavery; the Union fought to stop the Confederacy from seceding.
Over simplistic. It was about money. The South was making it on trade and the north was taxing it.
The Tariff of Abominations (1828), The Nullification Crisis (1832-1833) and the Morrill Tariff (1861) led to the Civil War. Slavery was the justification to invade neighboring states for the sake of the almighty dollar.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 7:44 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
“Grifter” = Leftist label for anyone online with an opinion they disagree with
I'm far from left and I use the term grifter. There are definitely some "conservative" personalities that are grifters. Candace Owens being the obvious.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 9:24 am to RedSoloSpitCup
quote:
Over simplistic. It was about money. The South was making it on trade and the north was taxing it. The Tariff of Abominations (1828), The Nullification Crisis (1832-1833) and the Morrill Tariff (1861) led to the Civil War. Slavery was the justification to invade neighboring states for the sake of the almighty dollar.
I’m just taking the southern states at their word. Are you saying the states that listed the institution of slavery as their primary impetus for secession were lying?
Posted on 5/26/26 at 9:31 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I’m just taking the southern states at their word. Are you saying the states that listed the institution of slavery as their primary impetus for secession were lying?
Not lying. Just like the North, they had to drum up a cause that their rich benefactors would support. They chose slavery to have access to the planters' capital. The majority of poor southern whites weren't going to war over a planter's right to own slaves.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 9:38 am to RedSoloSpitCup
quote:
Not lying. Just like the North, they had to drum up a cause that their rich benefactors would support. They chose slavery to have access to the planters' capital. The majority of poor southern whites weren't going to war over a planter's right to own slaves.
Now that’s simplistic. The 1960s clearly showed that people will viciously fight to protect a status quo that maintains their perceived standing in the social order, whether they get any further direct benefit or not. So while poor whites obviously didn’t give a shite about rich whites making more money, they had a significant interest in making sure they stayed above blacks in the social order.
Anyway, we are now in the realm of conjecture. As I said, I prefer to take the southern states at their very clearly stated word instead of assuming they were engaged in some form of propaganda based subterfuge
Posted on 5/26/26 at 11:28 am to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Fact of the matter is if you replace slaves with more modern Ag equipment the south would still have succeeded and the north still would go to war to stop it. Slaves just happen to be the wheel that turned the agrarian economy in the south at that time.
Lincoln was a unconstitutional tyrant who liked to get pegged. He should be remembered as fondly as LBJ.
No, they would not have seceded. Their consitutions explicitly stated the reason for secession was slavery.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 11:39 am to Klark Kent
quote:
yawn. we’re doing the thing where we take an old shock-jock radio segment (2011), paraphrase it into the creepiest possible sentence, leave out the actual argument, and then call that a direct quote? all of which has anything to do with the OP?
No, it wasn't taken out of context. He was clearly stating that 16 yo girls are adults, since that's what the expectations were for thousands of years - "13 yo were expected to act like they're 23". He then stated once they'd started their periods, they wanted to get married and have children. Of course, he kind of ignored the whole "women were property" thing, or "women had no other way to survice" thing.
And obviously, there are plenty of disgusting people like MW on the Left. It's just that you and your counterparts on the Left each worship your own bs narrative from your ideological masters. Walsh is creepy about girls, in the same way Biden was with his constant touching. Zero difference between them. Zero difference between you and the View.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 11:40 am to tide06
quote:
quote:
One of the countries biggest grifters
How specifically is Matt Walsh a “grifter”?
He has been able to monetize and clearly articulate how completely asinine and retarded all leftists' viewpoints are and he does it effortlessly and without hesitation. He has a special talent at pointing out how incredibly dangerous Progressive ideas are, how captured some of the people are by it in this country, and how stupid and gullible one has to be to actually believe some of the bullshite.
GRIFTER
Posted on 5/26/26 at 11:53 am to FliesByNight
quote:
I'm far from left and I use the term grifter. There are definitely some "conservative" personalities that are grifters. Candace Owens being the obvious.
I am in total agreement. I wasn’t clear in my meaning.
The term grifter has a definitive and useful meaning. Yes! And grifters do exist across time and all cultures as well as across both wings of the political spectrum.
I was trying to say that Leftists use “grifter” as a knee-jerk reaction to any opinion they don’t like by someone on a media platform. They don’t, or won’t, admit that people with differing views, especially those that threaten their worldview, can be sincere in those beliefs, and that the strong positive response their broadcast garners is indeed a natural response, and secondary to the importance of stating a true opinion.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 11:59 am to Pledge
quote:
Pledge
You never explained how Walsh is a grifter. Is he being dishonest, deceptive or fraudulent in any way? Please enlighten us.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 11:59 am to deltadummy
quote:If two 16 year old kids are mature enough to support themselves and raise a family, and that was true for centuries, why would it be sick today ? Who arbitrarily raised the number to 18, and why is that number so morally sacred to you, but 16 is an abomination? You aren't seeking truth, just a reason to complain.
No, it wasn't taken out of context. He was clearly stating that 16 yo girls are adults, since that's what the expectations were for thousands of years - "
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:03 pm to JoeyP239
quote:There was a lot of good info in that one. e.g. "Trail of Tears" didn't really enter the lexicon until the 1960s.
His one on Native Americans is even dumber. According to his research all of them were violent savages and were given a great deal by the US govt to move
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:03 pm to deltadummy
lulz. Nice attempt at playing the enlightened, above-the-fray Moderate. Very convincing.
You’ve complied is a nice heap of assumptions, but still manage to dodge the actual point.
Nobody said Walsh’s argument was above criticism. The point was that his broader argument got boiled down into the creepiest possible sentence, wrapped in quotation marks, and presented like a transcript. (and from Reddit of all places)
You can criticize the real argument all day. Fine. But “I think this is what he meant” is not the same thing as “this is what he said.”
Also, comparing “quote accuracy matters” to being The View is peak internet retardation.
You’ve complied is a nice heap of assumptions, but still manage to dodge the actual point.
Nobody said Walsh’s argument was above criticism. The point was that his broader argument got boiled down into the creepiest possible sentence, wrapped in quotation marks, and presented like a transcript. (and from Reddit of all places)
You can criticize the real argument all day. Fine. But “I think this is what he meant” is not the same thing as “this is what he said.”
Also, comparing “quote accuracy matters” to being The View is peak internet retardation.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:08 pm to Pledge
quote:
One of the countries biggest grifters
Love or hate Walsh, he's had an absolute curmudgeon view of the world for 10+ years and unchanged.
Candace Owens, grifter. Hasan Piker, grifter. Shapiro, grifter. Rubin, grifter. Jimmy Dore, grifter.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 5:37 pm to 3nOut
quote:
Love or hate Walsh, he's had an absolute curmudgeon view of the world for 10+ years and unchanged.
He brings documented facts that shine light on the parts of history that the left doesn't want anyone to see.
YouTube had a copy of this documentary, but one of the usual suspects made the picture like a sinewave. The voice was still there, but the video was unwatchable. That's how the left reacts to anything contrary to their propaganda views. Fortunately, they don't have the power to make free speech and cricticism a crime against the state.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News