It's Confederate History Month in Dixie

Wow! This thread has been an interesting read. Many good points have been made. I shall add this point to consider. There is not a great nation in world history that has not had its time of exploitation of the weak, whether slave, poor, indignant, immigrant, or conquered in war. Should they all denounce their history, or the parts of it that are indigestible, and thereby deprive the world of the picture of the truth? I don't think that acknowledging the bravery of those who fought in the American Civil War for the South is wrong. There is no attempt in our country to deny the causes of the war in this act alone. While I find the acts of many countries in world history deplorable, I don't think I should take exception to a country, or a region within, of acknowledging its past.

We all, for the most part revel in our Total War games, many which "glorify" the conquest, enslavement, economic and social repression, and exploitation of the regimes of the past. Are we not somewhat hypocritical of the Virginian South for taking pride in there Antebellum past? I still can appreciate the French revolution, though it was a time of great depredation and murder. I still can wonder at the bravery of German soldiers fighting for survival against long odds, even though they fought for a deplorable regime. Slavery was wrong, will always be wrong, but is unfortunate; there are some ant species that practice this upon their brethren by the way. Forcing one's way of life down another peoples throat is wrong, yet it is still a common practice today.

I love my country, with all its failings, and hope that the young of my land will be able to learn the truth from such a celebration of the history of the Confederacy. I hope that such a celebration will engender more discussions such as this, so that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. If we don't are we not doomed to repeat it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was.

---

Actually, Germany officially didn't get a sqaure inch of land. In every occupied State (Russian Poland, Baltics and the Ukraine) puppet regimes were set up. So no, the Imperial German Government wasn't planning to extend into Ukraine.

Also, Germany (Prussia) was the first one to abolish child labor (somewhere in the 1830's) and make education compulsatory, while the US did this more then 100 years later, in 1938.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkullheadHQ

Also, Germany (Prussia) was the first one to abolish child labor (somewhere in the 1830's) and make education compulsatory, while the US did this more then 100 years later, in 1938.

---

Always thought it was 1918.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Couldn't the same be said for the Northern leaders? What did your average Union soldier stand to gain from fighting?

---

Saving the Union.

:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Always thought it was 1918.

---

Nope, Prussia wanted education for all for a quicker industrialisation, and they thought child labour was morally wrong (which it is).
1918 was the year the republic was proclaimed, before that it was a Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy.
The kaiser wanted to do even more social reforms, which is the reason he fired Bismarck, but he couldn't finish his job after the (failed) revolution in Germany.

But back on topic: Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding? :clown:

Quote:

---

Nope, Prussia wanted education for all for a quicker industrialisation, and they thought child labour was morally wrong (which it is).
1918 was the year the republic was proclaimed, before that it was a Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy.
The kaiser wanted to do even more social reforms, which is the reason he fired Bismarck, but he couldn't finish his job after the (failed) revolution in Germany.

But back on topic: Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding?

---

You misunderstand. I thought education in the United States was compulsory by 1918.

Quote:

---

Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding?

---

Perhaps, but that depends on who had the most to gain by the North winning the war. Surely the generation lost fighting all the battles gained little. Abolishonist civilians, perhaps. I think politicians who could enforce thier vision of what the south could be, did with war what could not be done in congress. They, in my opinion, gained the most. Sure, blacks were free, but it took another 100 years for any slight sense of equality.

Did the South do the Union a favor by seceding? No, but they did the Republican Party agenda a snot-load of good. Having a 70% majority will do that for your legislation ability.

In addition to the war, the Railroad decision was made (and the Southern Route discarded) and the homestead act was put into law, both sentencing Amerind culture to destruction. The Republicans also succeeded in shifting the American political "center" towards the West (then defined as Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, etc. and away from the brahmins of the Northeast.

Confederate history month... what a joke. What's even more of a joke is people defending slavery in the 1800s because it was lawful and culturally accepted.

Hey now, slavery is very progressive.

"Government is the creature of society, and may be said to derive its powers form the consent of the governed; but society does not owe its sovereign power to the separate consent, volition or agreement of its members. Like the hive, it is as much the work of nature as the individuals who compose it. Consequently, the very opposite of the doctrine of free trade, result from this doctrine of ours. It makes each society a band of brothers, working for the common good, instead of a bag of cats biting and worrying each other. The competitive system is a system of antagonism and war; ours of peace and fraternity. The first is the system of free society; the other that of slave society. The Greek, the Roman, Judaistic, Egyptian, and all ancient polities, were founded on our theory. The loftiest patrician in those days, valued himself not on selfish, cold individuality, but on being the most devoted servant of society and his country.
......
The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism."

-George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, 1854.

Slavery is clearly the original form of socialism.