Good passage, Ron. Laws was an intelligent individual for all times. Despite his support of the lost cause, his speech does touch upon capitalism, the power in a few hands, and much of what we face today as a nation. Excellent and thanks!
General Law was very perceptive to warn his colleagues about the dangers of great wealth concentrated in a few hands. I imagine he had first hand experience of that in the 1850s south.
Ron, sooo much Law in your recent reports- and I am thrilled, as he has been greatly overlooked among so many otherwise great names in the CSA in general and the Army of Northern Virginia in particular. Despite the many years, certain insights remain worthy of note, as Law reminds with a perspective worthy of attention as much today as yesterday. Much thanks as always :)
Law was an able commander, but I had never read much about his post war career. This was a very interesting talk about the butterfly effects of the war, and how they led to and effected the current events of the 1890s. Many people don't appreciate the fact that a good number of the generations of the mid-19th century survived as long as the 1940s. They often grew up knowing people who had been born in the last quarter of the 18th century, and thus served as a bridge between the generations of the American Revolution, the early republic, and the 20th century. Reading about their views of the state of the country in the latter part of their lives is very interesting!
@@beetlefang Tell that to people who will never make a million. We have a third of world millionaires in the USA with 5% world population. If you want to look at the concentration of wealth, look around the world first instead of the US.
The dilemma for the United States, and every other country in the process of rapid modernization between 1860 and 1900, was how to employ the surplus population on the farms. So long as the United States had a western frontier, the children of farmers could move to new lands, as could Southern slaveowners and their slaves. The virgin lands were being occupied in the USA and had long been occupied in Europe. So, where were the eight children of a farmer supposed to go when they matured? They could not divide the farm into 1/8ths as that was not enough land to support 8 families. They could only go to the cities and work for a pittance in factories, competing for jobs with millions of other domestic and foreign immigrants. The South wanted to leave the Union so they could keep expanding their slaveholding lands by conquering Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean; thereby keeping their rural way of life going a few more generations.
I am glad to see that Law was able to forget the past and disassociate himself from his past as a Confederate and he came to accept the new reality of a strong and untied union! This is something that probably many former Confederates were unable to do and they remained bitter about the present state of the union and the could never come to accept their past defeat and the fall of the confederacy!
I think most southern leaders accepted they lost the war. R E Lee accepted it and encouraged others to live in peace and do their best to be successful Americans. This doesn’t mean they don’t wish the outcome was different…they fought a deadly ass war for 4 years. They had to truly believe in their cause to sacrifice so much.
The winner of the War was Capital--the money interests and manufacturers of the North. The North allowed the states of the former Confederacy to handle its own racial issues. The Southern states decided on segregation and oppression and consigned themselves to continued poverty and status as a backwater of the U.S. The Planter class, as a class, went extinct. Their descendants may still be with us but there are no more slave-owning Planters; today we have Agri-Biz--the aforementioned Capital that won the war.
Fine speeches are, for the most part, simply infotainment; it is the every day minutia, the invisible behind the scenes little things that collectively make everything work. Yes, fine "principles" are just that, fine, but it is in the evolution of things that we get what we get. Yes, it is a great idea in principle that government is "hands off" in everything that isn't ABSOLUTELY necessary, but the very same people, calling themselves "Libertarians," who claim to staunchly hold that very principle, are the very ones (mostly men) who would deny a woman her choice in what to do with her own body. Yes, it is great that we let States and individuals decide for themselves on the Great Issues of The Day, but we should never forget that those issues have a powerful life of their own at times and that they are not always conclusively decided by majority votes or "the will of the people," but by blood and iron (to paraphrase a famous person).
The wiser Southerners saw how a weak government like the Confederacy could never have survived for long. Even if they won the war how long would it be before Virginia, North Carolina, Eastern Tennessee, Arkansas, or Texas seceded from the Confederacy? They were among the last to secede. The wiser Texans saw that Jeff Davis would fight to the last Texan. The "Free State of Winston" seceded from Alabama during the war and the 1st Alabama Cavalry fought for the Union. Many Tennesseans fought for the Union. The Southern economy was weak and could not support a modern war. They lacked public roads, heavy industry, and infrastructure. The Union was building a Transcontinental railway and a Land-Grant University system. The Union had scores of regiments which never saw battle while Confederate troops got few replacements after Gettysburg and were eating their own tail by the end of the war. Jeff Davis had no power to compel the states to send troops, money or supplies but had to beg for them. Neither the valor of their troops nor the cleverness of their generals could prevail against the powerful and well-organized Federal government that could raise, arm, train and deploy troops and materiel and pay for them with war bonds which sold out every issue.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 Which is a result of being better organized. The factories did not build themselves. The south had coal, wood, iron, water but did not use them well. The South had all the cotton but did not make anything of it.
@@carlmally6292 I would not agree that the existence or nonexistence of private companies/enterprises has anything to do with being organized. Today, Florida has a lot of orange groves, while Maine has few to none... doesn't mean Maine is less organized than Florida. Texas has a lot more oil fields than Florida... doesn't mean Texas is more organized. Heck, New York City has a lot more fashion boutiques than Nebraska does, don't mean one is more organized than the other.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 You missed the point. The south had resources of iron, coal, wood and cotton. They needed the products made from these resources. They failed to use them effectively. The things you describe are resources which are absent in a particular area or things which are not needed in that area. If Florida had access to oil reserves, needed it to survive and failed to drill that would be a failure of leadership and organization. If it was possible to grow oranges in Maine, they desperately needed them and did not do so that would be a failure of leadership and organization. If Nebraska needed fashion boutiques to win a war and did not establish them that would be poor leadership. Your failure to see the difference and arrogance about it is a prime example of what brought the south down.
OK. Just remember when you vote democratic remember what they stood for. Democrats were for slavery and now all they want is total control at the destruction of our rights and freedoms
Perhaps the problem is your lack of vocabulary. Thanks to the Southern loss, that "strong central government" is now in charge of education, which there is now a sorry lack of.
Excellent speech making many good points that are still relevant today.
Good passage, Ron. Laws was an intelligent individual for all times. Despite his support of the lost cause, his speech does touch upon capitalism, the power in a few hands, and much of what we face today as a nation. Excellent and thanks!
General Law was very perceptive to warn his colleagues about the dangers of great wealth concentrated in a few hands. I imagine he had first hand experience of that in the 1850s south.
Ron, sooo much Law in your recent reports- and I am thrilled, as he has been greatly overlooked among so many otherwise great names in the CSA in general and the Army of Northern Virginia in particular.
Despite the many years, certain insights remain worthy of note, as Law reminds with a perspective worthy of attention as much today as yesterday.
Much thanks as always :)
WOW, what a perspective and still today is very relevant.
Law was an able commander, but I had never read much about his post war career. This was a very interesting talk about the butterfly effects of the war, and how they led to and effected the current events of the 1890s. Many people don't appreciate the fact that a good number of the generations of the mid-19th century survived as long as the 1940s. They often grew up knowing people who had been born in the last quarter of the 18th century, and thus served as a bridge between the generations of the American Revolution, the early republic, and the 20th century. Reading about their views of the state of the country in the latter part of their lives is very interesting!
Exquisite. Thank you sir. Keep up this fine work!!
And we still suffer today from an overreaching centralized government and the wealth in the hands of a few.
24.5 million millionaires in the US today. Hands of a few?
@@scottw5315 Billionaires are the new standard of wealth, millionaires are now middle class unfortunately.
@beetlefang do you think the decline of the value of the dollar MIGHT have something to do with that?
So, these are still the good old days? 🤥
@@beetlefang Tell that to people who will never make a million. We have a third of world millionaires in the USA with 5% world population. If you want to look at the concentration of wealth, look around the world first instead of the US.
The dilemma for the United States, and every other country in the process of rapid modernization between 1860 and 1900, was how to employ the surplus population on the farms. So long as the United States had a western frontier, the children of farmers could move to new lands, as could Southern slaveowners and their slaves. The virgin lands were being occupied in the USA and had long been occupied in Europe. So, where were the eight children of a farmer supposed to go when they matured? They could not divide the farm into 1/8ths as that was not enough land to support 8 families. They could only go to the cities and work for a pittance in factories, competing for jobs with millions of other domestic and foreign immigrants. The South wanted to leave the Union so they could keep expanding their slaveholding lands by conquering Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean; thereby keeping their rural way of life going a few more generations.
God Bless America!
Why?
I always look forward to Ron's historical videos, so well researched and narrated.
And the answer is.... It's still being fought.
The question was answered in 1865 and the antebellum south had wealth concentration issues.
I am glad to see that Law was able to forget the past and disassociate himself from his past as a Confederate and he came to accept the new reality of a strong and untied union! This is something that probably many former Confederates were unable to do and they remained bitter about the present state of the union and the could never come to accept their past defeat and the fall of the confederacy!
I think most southern leaders accepted they lost the war. R E Lee accepted it and encouraged others to live in peace and do their best to be successful Americans. This doesn’t mean they don’t wish the outcome was different…they fought a deadly ass war for 4 years. They had to truly believe in their cause to sacrifice so much.
And present day Yankees remain bitter about the Confederate soldiers. Trying to vilify and cancel them every chance they get.
Excellent Ron! Love your real history.
Thank you.
Such flowerly prose by Evander Law, but nevertheless interesting. Thanks Ron.
The winner of the War was Capital--the money interests and manufacturers of the North. The North allowed the states of the former Confederacy to handle its own racial issues. The Southern states decided on segregation and oppression and consigned themselves to continued poverty and status as a backwater of the U.S. The Planter class, as a class, went extinct. Their descendants may still be with us but there are no more slave-owning Planters; today we have Agri-Biz--the aforementioned Capital that won the war.
The Union.
Fine speeches are, for the most part, simply infotainment; it is the every day minutia, the invisible behind the scenes little things that collectively make everything work. Yes, fine "principles" are just that, fine, but it is in the evolution of things that we get what we get. Yes, it is a great idea in principle that government is "hands off" in everything that isn't ABSOLUTELY necessary, but the very same people, calling themselves "Libertarians," who claim to staunchly hold that very principle, are the very ones (mostly men) who would deny a woman her choice in what to do with her own body. Yes, it is great that we let States and individuals decide for themselves on the Great Issues of The Day, but we should never forget that those issues have a powerful life of their own at times and that they are not always conclusively decided by majority votes or "the will of the people," but by blood and iron (to paraphrase a famous person).
The wiser Southerners saw how a weak government like the Confederacy could never have survived for long. Even if they won the war how long would it be before Virginia, North Carolina, Eastern Tennessee, Arkansas, or Texas seceded from the Confederacy? They were among the last to secede. The wiser Texans saw that Jeff Davis would fight to the last Texan. The "Free State of Winston" seceded from Alabama during the war and the 1st Alabama Cavalry fought for the Union. Many Tennesseans fought for the Union. The Southern economy was weak and could not support a modern war. They lacked public roads, heavy industry, and infrastructure. The Union was building a Transcontinental railway and a Land-Grant University system. The Union had scores of regiments which never saw battle while Confederate troops got few replacements after Gettysburg and were eating their own tail by the end of the war. Jeff Davis had no power to compel the states to send troops, money or supplies but had to beg for them. Neither the valor of their troops nor the cleverness of their generals could prevail against the powerful and well-organized Federal government that could raise, arm, train and deploy troops and materiel and pay for them with war bonds which sold out every issue.
It had nothing to do with being "well-organized" and all to do with most of the factories and resources being in the North.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 Which is a result of being better organized. The factories did not build themselves. The south had coal, wood, iron, water but did not use them well. The South had all the cotton but did not make anything of it.
@@carlmally6292 I would not agree that the existence or nonexistence of private companies/enterprises has anything to do with being organized. Today, Florida has a lot of orange groves, while Maine has few to none... doesn't mean Maine is less organized than Florida. Texas has a lot more oil fields than Florida... doesn't mean Texas is more organized. Heck, New York City has a lot more fashion boutiques than Nebraska does, don't mean one is more organized than the other.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 You missed the point. The south had resources of iron, coal, wood and cotton. They needed the products made from these resources. They failed to use them effectively.
The things you describe are resources which are absent in a particular area or things which are not needed in that area. If Florida had access to oil reserves, needed it to survive and failed to drill that would be a failure of leadership and organization. If it was possible to grow oranges in Maine, they desperately needed them and did not do so that would be a failure of leadership and organization. If Nebraska needed fashion boutiques to win a war and did not establish them that would be poor leadership.
Your failure to see the difference and arrogance about it is a prime example of what brought the south down.
EAST TENNESSEE ! 💥 🇺🇸 💥
Not "eastern" !!! 😅
undecipherable word salad.
Kamla's great grand uncle?
That's what I heard, too.
@colinglen4505
Undecipherable only to those lacking intelligence, a group to which you unfortunately appear to belong!😂
OK. Just remember when you vote democratic remember what they stood for. Democrats were for slavery and now all they want is total control at the destruction of our rights and freedoms
Perhaps the problem is your lack of vocabulary. Thanks to the Southern loss, that "strong central government" is now in charge of education, which there is now a sorry lack of.
Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo !!!!
@martinlafleur7916
Your comment sounds like a bunch of "dumbo" jumbo!