- 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 5/27/26 at 1:54 pm to Auburn1968
Posted on 5/27/26 at 1:54 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
The tariffs of 1828 and 1832 protected budding Northern industry and triggered an economic boom but a great depression that lasted a decade in the South. That utterly destroyed the brotherhood between the regions that was forged in the Revolutionary War.
Add to that the great raft of immigrants in the North who had no such bond, the rift had grown wide and the distrust deep.
There were only about 250 extended families who made up America's colonies and fought the Revolutionary War. After that, the North had about an 8 to one ratio of 5 million or so immigrants who arrived in the early to mid-1800's. This played a role in the great weakening of the Revolutionary War bond between the North and the South.
Grok:
Total immigration (approx.): Between 1815 and 1860, more than 5 million immigrants arrived (mostly from Ireland, Germany, Britain, and other parts of Northern/Western Europe). Official US immigration statistics (starting 1820) show several million arrivals through 1860, with a sharp rise in the 1840s–1850s due to the Irish Potato Famine and German unrest. From 1840–1860 alone, ~4 million arrived.
uscis.gov
Regional split: An overwhelming majority—commonly cited as 7 out of every 8 (about 87.5%)—settled in the North/free states due to industrial jobs, factories, railroads, ports, and urban opportunities (e.g., New York, Pennsylvania, Midwest). Only about 1 in 8 went to the South.
0
Posted on 5/27/26 at 2:14 pm to Auburn1968
This shite is so good. Everyone in America needs to see this. It would completely change us for the better before it's too late.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:34 pm to Auburn1968
My issue is that Matt Walsh has the same amount of bias in what he will put in his doc as the people he is supposedly correcting just from the opposite POV.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:43 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
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
I too prefer to take government and bureaucratic institutions at their word as these are not the types that would ever feed us propaganda. In fact I dare say that these institutions speak for and represent full heartedly all of their constituents. Great point
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:48 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
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.
Is that conveniently omitted or is that the actual stated point
The above mentioned is the side of the story we are taught, the one we know. The atrocities of the white man and the white european settler. The trail of tears, "small pox blankets", wounded knee, the "genocide"
I believe the premise of the entire project is to speak of those things you were not necessarily taught, the premise is not to give equal voice to both sides of the argument
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:51 pm to ThePoo
quote:
I believe the premise of the entire project is to speak of those things you were not necessarily taught, the premise is not to give equal voice to both sides of the argument
You can't name the series "The REAL History" if you aren't gonna tell the whole story.
A more appropriate name would be "The stuff they left out of history". That would at least make sense. But to tell the Real History and omit the part we already know, insinuates that what we know isn't actually real.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:52 pm to ThePoo
quote:
I too prefer to take government and bureaucratic institutions at their word as these are not the types that would ever feed us propaganda. In fact I dare say that these institutions speak for and represent full heartedly all of their constituents. Great point
I assume you also consider th Declaration of Independence to be rank propaganda that doesn’t in any way reflect the actual thoughts and motivations of the founders?
Posted on 5/27/26 at 3:57 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
You can't name the series "The REAL History"
you confused the word can't with shouldn't
quote:
if you aren't gonna tell the whole story.
I have got a little news to break to you about literally the entire life span of written "history"
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:03 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I assume you also consider th Declaration of Independence to be rank propaganda that doesn’t in any way reflect the actual thoughts and motivations of the founders?
Reduction to Absurdity fallacy, being skeptical of government and bureaucratic institutions does not mean I believe they only produce lies and propganda
It is appropriate to take their actions with a degree of skepticism and retorospection, rather than simply say "I will take their word for it"
or to use your fallacy, do you simply "take their word for it" all the time because you are taking their word for it in this instance?
Or to put it my argument more succinctly, do not take anyone's word for it
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:04 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
Please there has been enough deification of Lee as it is despite him having an otherwise losing record in battles.
BTW the war had a lot to do with slavery because it was an economic issue not to mention a moral one. Southern planters and politicians were pissed that their prospects for expanding the institution was being stunted by the admission of new states out west that wanted nothing to do with it.
Also many state like Ohio objected to the Fugitive Slave Act that had given bounty hunters.....slavers almost carte blanche to go and kidnap black men/ women they thought fugitives from territory or states where slavery was outlawed like Ohio and New York,etc without due process.
BTW the war had a lot to do with slavery because it was an economic issue not to mention a moral one. Southern planters and politicians were pissed that their prospects for expanding the institution was being stunted by the admission of new states out west that wanted nothing to do with it.
Also many state like Ohio objected to the Fugitive Slave Act that had given bounty hunters.....slavers almost carte blanche to go and kidnap black men/ women they thought fugitives from territory or states where slavery was outlawed like Ohio and New York,etc without due process.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:09 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
Sorry Bert. I was replying to someone else
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:10 pm to ThePoo
quote:
I have got a little news to break to you about literally the entire life span of written "history"
Yeah bt the point of the Matt Walsh series is to tell you what ACTUALLY happened, not what they told you in school. BUT He is doing the same thing the people that wrote hostory books did which is tell the story that supports their POV and leaving out everything that doesn't.
Again, he should have named it something like "the rest of the story" or someting like that. Becuase its no more the "REAL" history than whats taught in school. Its just the opposite side.
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:16 pm to KiwiHead
I always return to the issue that Lincoln did not appear on the ballot in the Confederate states in the 1860 election. That was a very humbling circumstance of losing political power. While the central issue they wanted to protect and expand was chattel slavery, the common southern man who did not own slaves saw his voice completely eradicated.
Stonewall Jackson said it best, it is the prelude to anarchy, banks, war profiteers and income tax lol. The United States has drifted down its current path all the way back to 1865. The country is facing another balkanization along ideological lines.
The next civil war will be fought amongst you, in your homes.
Stonewall Jackson said it best, it is the prelude to anarchy, banks, war profiteers and income tax lol. The United States has drifted down its current path all the way back to 1865. The country is facing another balkanization along ideological lines.
The next civil war will be fought amongst you, in your homes.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:19 pm to ThePoo
quote:
Reduction to Absurdity fallacy, being skeptical of government and bureaucratic institutions does not mean I believe they only produce lies and propganda It is appropriate to take their actions with a degree of skepticism and retorospection, rather than simply say "I will take their word for it" or to use your fallacy, do you simply "take their word for it" all the time because you are taking their word for it in this instance? Or to put it my argument more succinctly, do not take anyone's word for it
This is solipsistic drivel masquerading as critical analysis. The context of the conversation you waded into was my saying that the southern states very clearly stated their reasons for secession and a fellow poster arguing that we should ignore their clearly stated reasons as propaganda. As that poster provided zero evidence as to why we should ignore it as propaganda, outside of an utterly baseless assertion that poor whites had no interest in maintaining their present social status, I stated that I’m inclined to take the southern states at their word. Apparently that hurt your feelings a bit, which is how we ended up on this utterly silly tangent.
But to get back on topic: do you believe that the southern states seceded primarily to preserve the institution of slavery or not?
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:21 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Again, he should have named it something like "the rest of the story" or someting like that. Becuase its no more the "REAL" history than whats taught in school. Its just the opposite side.
I am not disagreeing with you in theory if the premise is to say history is wrong and here is the actual history, but it seems to be more of a practice in contextualization of the existing "history" than anything, which on its face may seem similar but is in actuality different
I will admit that I have not listened to this project so I am not qualified to really say one way or another, I have only heard snippets and that's why I am framing a lot of this in question formats
Which I still belive your title would be more accurate, I think the best title would be something like "History- What they Didn't tell you" or something similar
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:23 pm to Joshjrn
Yes, the Southern states seceded primarily to preserve and protect the institution of slavery.
While arguments around "states' rights" or economic tariff disparities have been popularized over the years, historical analysis of the primary sources from 1860 and 1861 makes it clear that the specific "right" the seceding states were concerned with was the right to own enslaved people.
The immediate catalyst for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Lincoln and the Republican Party were not running on a platform to immediately abolish slavery where it already existed, but they were adamantly opposed to its expansion into new Western territories.
The Southern political elite understood that if slavery could not expand, slave states would eventually be outnumbered in Congress, leading to the gradual, political death of the institution. They seceded preemptively to protect it.
While arguments around "states' rights" or economic tariff disparities have been popularized over the years, historical analysis of the primary sources from 1860 and 1861 makes it clear that the specific "right" the seceding states were concerned with was the right to own enslaved people.
The immediate catalyst for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Lincoln and the Republican Party were not running on a platform to immediately abolish slavery where it already existed, but they were adamantly opposed to its expansion into new Western territories.
The Southern political elite understood that if slavery could not expand, slave states would eventually be outnumbered in Congress, leading to the gradual, political death of the institution. They seceded preemptively to protect it.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:29 pm to Auburn1968
It no longer matters why it happened. It did and we have lived with the consequences ever since. I bet there would have been a lot of full boats back to Wakanda had the slave owners had a clue what was in store for this country 150+ years later. Of course, there are always exceptions.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:34 pm to Joshjrn
relax my man
Sounds like you are projecting someone else's arguments to go after me
I neither stated what they said was factual in whole nor in part, I did not state that their reason was or was not propoganda. The only thing I take issue with is "take their word for it"
so I ask, do you always take these institution's word for it. My argument is simply should not go with something because they said so.
I have a feeling that your argument for your belief goes deeper than that, but you narrowed your side of the argument downt to "because they said so"
I probably should not have made my point the saracstic and condescending way I did, as I knew it would not be productive. I was just being antagonistic
And for the record, I do believe slavery and the circumstances surounding it financially, were very much a primary issue for southern states and secession
Sounds like you are projecting someone else's arguments to go after me
I neither stated what they said was factual in whole nor in part, I did not state that their reason was or was not propoganda. The only thing I take issue with is "take their word for it"
so I ask, do you always take these institution's word for it. My argument is simply should not go with something because they said so.
I have a feeling that your argument for your belief goes deeper than that, but you narrowed your side of the argument downt to "because they said so"
I probably should not have made my point the saracstic and condescending way I did, as I knew it would not be productive. I was just being antagonistic
And for the record, I do believe slavery and the circumstances surounding it financially, were very much a primary issue for southern states and secession
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 4:59 pm to ThePoo
quote:
relax my man
Sounds like you are projecting someone else's arguments to go after me
I neither stated what they said was factual in whole nor in part, I did not state that their reason was or was not propoganda. The only thing I take issue with is "take their word for it"
so I ask, do you always take these institution's word for it. My argument is simply should not go with something because they said so.
I have a feeling that your argument for your belief goes deeper than that, but you narrowed your side of the argument downt to "because they said so"
I probably should not have made my point the saracstic and condescending way I did, as I knew it would not be productive. I was just being antagonistic
And for the record, I do believe slavery and the circumstances surounding it financially, were very much a primary issue for southern states and secession
I'm not projecting anything; I have a feeling that your glee in launching into a sarcastic ad hominem caused you to force an interpretation of my post that no reasonable, rational reader would have come to otherwise. No, I obviously don't "always take these institution's word for it". But in this case, Occam's Razor would hold that absent some significant indicator to the contrary, we probably shouldn't wholesale ignore their very clearly stated motivations. And within that context, doing a drive by "hur dur you believe all governments" is a silly distraction at best and intentional obfuscation at worst, in my opinion
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:01 pm to ThePoo
The series is meant for idiots who really know nothing unlike history nerds like ourselves who have read in depth and take delight in studying it. Walsh's series is simplistic and presumes that people aren't taught both sides. I developed my view about the Civil War and North and South in school by 8th grade after my Dad was about to discard a book about Grant called Grant Moves East or something to that effect way before the Gingrich slop.
I could never understand the love and adulation for Lee who lost the fight and the vitriol I would hear about Grant who never lost a battle. We were taught both sides. I always boiled down the dispute to a question of survival. Lincoln had much more to lose if he allowed secession. The governing system being a big thing. It would have proved the Federal system to be less than weak and he did not want to be the President who presided over the dissolution and break up of the governing system and the failure of the country and the union
I could never understand the love and adulation for Lee who lost the fight and the vitriol I would hear about Grant who never lost a battle. We were taught both sides. I always boiled down the dispute to a question of survival. Lincoln had much more to lose if he allowed secession. The governing system being a big thing. It would have proved the Federal system to be less than weak and he did not want to be the President who presided over the dissolution and break up of the governing system and the failure of the country and the union
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 5:14 pm
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News