- 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 5:25 pm to Joshjrn
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:25 pm to Joshjrn
quote:I was just being a sarcastic a-hole
I'm not projecting anything; I have a feeling that your glee in launching into a sarcastic ad hominem
You suggesting I take "glee" in ad hominem attacks is closer to being an ad hominem attack
You suggesting I am not a rational reader is much closer to an ad hominem attack
Narrowing what I have said to simply "Hur dur" is much closer to an ad hominem attack
Also I did not say you believe all governments or take every institutions word for it, i ASKED if you do, mostly knowing you do not., which iimplies discernment and that there is a reason for this instance outside of Occam's Razor that may have been more pertinent
I saw "taking their word for it" as a set up for the person you were speaking to, implying that not taking their word for it would be wholey without merit or precedent, that suggesting otherwise would be preposterous, which i disagree with. Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone, and instead of responding more constructively, I replied in an admittedly sarcastic antagonistic manner. Now I have been trying since that post to be a bit more polite in tone but that does not seem to be helping with the condescension in your tone
quote:welcome to internet message boards
a silly distraction at best
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 5:27 pm
0
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:27 pm to Breauxsif
Correct, and here's the thing, both sides were willing to fight tooth and nail for their position. We saw a preview of it in Kansas 5-6 years before. Southern planters were never going to accept restrictions even if the rest of the country said they could not accept slavery. Likewise the northern interests who had encouraged settlement for poorer folks back East that they recruited as well as new immigrants were never going to accept being tenant farmers scraping by while a few rich cotton farmers crowd them out like they did in the Deep South.
The Confederacy had to be defeated. A new nation was not going to necessarily accept the North's claims to the territories and the civil war would end up being awar between two countries over land in the west which ultimately would have been fought in some of the same places because fighting would not be constrained to mere territories out west
The Confederacy had to be defeated. A new nation was not going to necessarily accept the North's claims to the territories and the civil war would end up being awar between two countries over land in the west which ultimately would have been fought in some of the same places because fighting would not be constrained to mere territories out west
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:35 pm to KiwiHead
quote:agreed
Walsh's series is simplistic
quote:I honestly think that is a fair presumption to an extent
presumes that people aren't taught both sides
quote:i agree to a degree, although I do not know what is being taught today. i think much of what we have to learn about history has to be, as you mentioned, self taught. As what we were taught, particularly at a young age, was very shallow and surface level, which admittedly it often times had to be out of time contraints and the sheer amount that had to be covered, and that fact that the nuances were for the most part not able to be appropriately contextualized or understood by elementary or middle school kids. A simplistic approach is much more efficient in getting through the syllabus without confusion or getting into the mud
We were taught both sides.
I do not think the average person has the inclination to learn about vast swaths of history beyond what they are required to
We should view projects like this more as a tool to strengthen whatever your side of the debate would be rather than simply accepting it as fact or fiction. The more perspectives you can gather the stronger your argument can be forged and for that reason i do not find this project to be without value
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 5/27/26 at 5:36 pm to deltadummy
Your handle is fitting.
You are thinking slaves on a personal level. They were an economic tool and thought of as one.
You are thinking slaves on a personal level. They were an economic tool and thought of as one.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News