Burgundy LaRue Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 To touch on Aaron Eckhart, EVA makes a strong point: he seems to be cut from the Eisenhower Era cloth, which makes him perfect for TV but a supporting actor at best in movies. Patrick Wilson has a similar issue, but he's found some good footing in playing everyman/every father types in horror films. It doesn't help that in the ages 35-45 range, there are 20 guys that would get offered a role before a director thought of Eckhart.
Antacular Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 This is where I could take a hard turn to the left and argue that the war was REALLY about the profitability of an elastic wage labor system being instituted by the Northern capitalists via the U.K. versus the involuntary servitude system preferred by the South (whose supply of labor was more or less fixed at a certain number, thus unable to respond quickly and efficiently to the supply/demand dictates of the marketplace), but Fowler makes the point much more succinctly: the writing was on the wall for years that the slave system was on it's way out. 1
Kuetsar Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 This is where I could take a hard turn to the left and argue that the war was REALLY about the profitability of an elastic wage labor system being instituted by the Northern capitalists via the U.K. versus the involuntary servitude system preferred by the South (whose supply of labor was more or less fixed at a certain number, thus unable to respond quickly and efficiently to the supply/demand dictates of the marketplace), but Fowler makes the point much more succinctly: the writing was on the wall for years that the slave system was on it's way out. See this is a much more satisfying answer, and ties into the states rights concept, in that a state had a right to determine its own economic system. It was a war as much about the industrial revolution and adjusting to its new realities as anything. If you want to go even more meta, you could argue that it was the classic Jefferson vs Hamilton argument, about whether the power should be concentrated in washington vs the several states. . .
Kuetsar Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Abolitionist viewpoints may have still been a minority view when Lincoln won, but they were growing fast in the North, and had been ever since Harper's Ferry (the extremist argument: It was no longer radical to support abolition, now it was radical to kill for it) and a strong abolitionist from the party that back abolition did win the presidency. The South could see the writing on the wall, that the *ahem* "peculiar institution" *ahem* was headed to the dustbin of history, and that is, beyond any historical debate, the main cause of the secession. Hell, the will of the Southern populace started to crack about the same time they started offering freedom to slaves who fought in the confederate army, undercutting the "it's their natural place and they are happy" bullshit argument. The Republicans were against the expansion of slavery, and would have abolished slavery entirely if they had the votes, but they could never have pushed it through Congress or dreamed about doing it prewar. Watch Lincoln(its not without hollywood "polishing") and you can see that even after four years of war Congress could barely pass the antislavery amendments. Slavery would have eventually died out, but it could have been extended alot longer. . .
Antacular Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 This is where I could take a hard turn to the left and argue that the war was REALLY about the profitability of an elastic wage labor system being instituted by the Northern capitalists via the U.K. versus the involuntary servitude system preferred by the South (whose supply of labor was more or less fixed at a certain number, thus unable to respond quickly and efficiently to the supply/demand dictates of the marketplace), but Fowler makes the point much more succinctly: the writing was on the wall for years that the slave system was on it's way out.See this is a much more satisfying answer, and ties into the states rights concept, in that a state had a right to determine its own economic system Not when said economic system is supported only by classifying one class of people as property. In this case, the argument that federal power is overbearing on states sovereignty is moot when it's the states that are subjecting an entire race to involuntary servitude.
Kuetsar Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 This is where I could take a hard turn to the left and argue that the war was REALLY about the profitability of an elastic wage labor system being instituted by the Northern capitalists via the U.K. versus the involuntary servitude system preferred by the South (whose supply of labor was more or less fixed at a certain number, thus unable to respond quickly and efficiently to the supply/demand dictates of the marketplace), but Fowler makes the point much more succinctly: the writing was on the wall for years that the slave system was on it's way out.See this is a much more satisfying answer, and ties into the states rights concept, in that a state had a right to determine its own economic system Not when said economic system is supported only by classifying one class of people as property. In this case, the argument that federal power is overbearing on states sovereignty is moot when it's the states that are subjecting an entire race to involuntary servitude. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending slavery, I'm merely articulating the argument I've read in various history books through years. Politically I'm an FDR democrat, so I'm not sympathetic to the Southern view at all, but that's how it was framed. Personally I tend to think the less power to the states the better, as minority views(not necessarily racial; political as well) are not usually defended with gusto, and thus need a stronger federal government to keep them in line.
Antacular Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Fair enough, but just because the losing side picks a particular frame for their cause in terms of sovereignty and autonomy, doesn't mean we have to give it legitimacy. 1
Kuetsar Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Fair enough, but just because the losing side picks a particular frame for their cause in terms of sovereignty and autonomy, doesn't mean we have to give it legitimacy I see your point, but generation of historians are the ones that frame the debate, I'm merely repeating the arguments weighed during my study of the subject. In any case its really hard to frame historical theories in posts on thread like this when it really takes hundreds of pages. Since when has that stopped any of us though? Hey Rippa(or other moderators) is there a way to start a history/politics thread, or is it just asking for trouble?
piranesi Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Hey Rippa(or other moderators) is there a way to start a history/politics thread, or is it just asking for trouble?
Kuetsar Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Hey Rippa(or other moderators) is there a way to start a history/politics thread, or is it just asking for trouble? I thought as much. . . .
jaedmc Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Well, despite being waaaay off topic that was the most interesting discussion in forever. 6
Brian Fowler Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Abolitionist viewpoints may have still been a minority view when Lincoln won, but they were growing fast in the North, and had been ever since Harper's Ferry (the extremist argument: It was no longer radical to support abolition, now it was radical to kill for it) and a strong abolitionist from the party that back abolition did win the presidency. The South could see the writing on the wall, that the *ahem* "peculiar institution" *ahem* was headed to the dustbin of history, and that is, beyond any historical debate, the main cause of the secession. Hell, the will of the Southern populace started to crack about the same time they started offering freedom to slaves who fought in the confederate army, undercutting the "it's their natural place and they are happy" bullshit argument. The Republicans were against the expansion of slavery, and would have abolished slavery entirely if they had the votes, but they could never have pushed it through Congress or dreamed about doing it prewar. Watch Lincoln(its not without hollywood "polishing") and you can see that even after four years of war Congress could barely pass the antislavery amendments. Slavery would have eventually died out, but it could have been extended alot longer. . . I'm aware of all that, and it doesn't contradict what I said at all. The election of Lincoln and the growing tide of abolitionist thought in the North was they main reason the south seceded. Had they not, slavery would have limped on longer than it did in this country, but the tide was against it, and they acted when they had the will of the people, scared by the election of Lincoln, to do so. There were other reasons, but the key was slavery, and any statement otherwise is full of shit, and doesn't match up to the contemporary record at all. 1
caley Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Hey, you know what was a good movie? Pacific Rim. Also, it has nothing to do with history class... 1
Antacular Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Don't act like this wasn't a fun, informative, and CIVIL (see what I did there?) deviation from the usual daikaiju discussion. 1
Antacular Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Trying to figure out how to weave in a Hobsbawn quote regarding the relationship between the kaiju in Pacifc Rim and their surface location being proximate to the "East Asian Miracle" states.
Brian Fowler Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I did watch Trading Places today, so I briefly considered delving into the socio-economic issues of that film. 1
Antacular Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Only thing lower on the totem pole than stock broker is a commodities broker.
elizium Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I met Jim Jarmusch today. I think that makes me today's Coolest Board Member. For the record, his hair is even more impressive in person (I, too, rock the High Hair, so it's good to see what I should be shooting for). Also, he will make self-deprecating jokes about it being terrible, if you tell him that Broken Flowers made you cry.
MarcosLoura Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Will he say he's sorry, when asked about Limits of Control?
Elsalvajeloco Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Hey, you know what was a good movie? Pacific Rim. Also, it has nothing to do with history class... You get a 0 for today's participation grade. 2
J.T. Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I got Fruitvale Station at the Redbox at lunch. I will probbaly need to kill shit in Mass Effect 3 or GTA5 by about 6PM EST because I will be mad as hell.
Randy Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I watched Fruitvale Station last night. It was really good. The only thing is... and I know it's a true story, but a lot of the things seemed too coincidental.
caley Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Hey, you know what was a good movie? Pacific Rim. Also, it has nothing to do with history class... You get a 0 for today's participation grade. That's why I'm not in history class!
Recommended Posts