Posted on 07/30/2013 7:15:08 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
Conservatives are grabbing popcorn and lining up to catch a new historical drama with modern connections.
“Copperhead,” the new film from director Ron Maxwell, focuses on the Northern opponents of the American Civil War and stars Billy Campbell, Angus MacFadyen and Peter Fonda.
At least one conservative — Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com — emailed his audience to tell it about the movie “that every conservative needs to see.”
“[W]hile Copperhead is about the Civil War, believe me, it will hit close to home for every conservative fighting to preserve our Constitution and our American way of life,” Viguerie wrote. “Because Copperhead is about standing up for faith, for America, and for what’s right, just like you and I are doing today. In fact, I’ve never seen a movie with more references to the Constitution, or a movie that better sums up our current fight to stand up for American values and get our nation back on track.”
The movie, which is based on the novel by Harold Frederic, follows Abner Beech, a New York farmer who doesn’t consider himself a Yankee, and is against slavery and war in general.
Asked about whether he sees his film as conservative, Maxwell told POLITICO, “I think if ‘Copperhead’ has any relevance at all, in addition to illuminating a time and place from our common heritage, it’s as a cinematic meditation on the price of dissent. I’ve never thought of dissent as a political act belonging to the right or left. It’s an act of liberty, expression of the rights of a free person — free not just in law but free from the confines and pressures of the tyranny of the majority.”
Maxwell said while the concept of dissent is as “old as time,” in the U.S., “it’s protected in the Constitution.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Rather, the congress under the Articles of Confederation arranged for the elections that established the new government, and transferred its authority to the federal government as it was established. The president under the Articles of Confederation stood next to Geo. Washington as he took his oath of office.
The continued union was still perpetual, but more perfect in the words of the Constitution.
After so many great sins, Mr. Ruffian might as well write another hate filled screed. May he rot in hell next to Davis, enduring the vile servitude that they wished to foist on others.
I would point out that Britain has already fought many wars to end Scottish independence.
Scottish independence would be an amusing example. England has for years subsidized Scotland. With the price of (north sea) oil due to drop due to fracking, Scottish independence is just now a bad bet. Not that Scotland won’t bet that way, just that it will run out of other peoples’ money even more quickly as an independent minor state.
"The People" doesn't mean the people of one state, but rather the people of the entire nation. Just as "the People" in the preamble, and the first, second, fourth and various amendments refers to the people of the entire US.
The combination of the EP and advancing US armies freed nearly all the slaves. Only about 60,000 remained to be freed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Lincoln was opposed to expansion of slavery to the territories, and that was part of his platform. He had debated against Douglas on that. He thought that the president, in peacetime, had no legal authority to end slavery in the various states, just as no president had authority to inflict slavery on the states that had ended it.
Potentially.
You are aware that Canada is not covered by the U.S. Constitution aren't you?
He didn't have cancer, just the decency to end his worthless, hate-filled life by blowing his own head off.
The war was over States Rights.
State's right to do what?
Lincoln didn’t give a damn about a black man. His real feelings about blacks are historical fact. He thought the white man was superior to blacks and never wanted them to have the right to vote.
Robert Lee, Jefferson Davis, Thomas Jackson, and every other Southern leader you would care to name thought whites were superior to blacks and never wanted them to vote, either. Additionally, they thought blacks were suited for slavery and nothing else. If you condemn Lincoln for his views then shouldn't your condemnation of them be even greater?
The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves who left their owners and fled to Union lines would disagree with you.
Lincoln had no authority in the CSA where the majority of the slaves lived and certainly didn’t “free” any slave in border states that were fighting for the union.
Sure he did, for those states in rebellion.
All the Founding Fathers believed in the right of secession.
Quotes please? From all of them; don't miss anyone.
The only reason Jefferson Davis was not put on trial is because his trial would have shown secession was legal and Lincoln acted unconstitutionally when he sent his armies South to put down the rebellion.
Nonsense.
Yes,just as you're surely aware of the basic point I'm trying to make.But then,if you subscribe to the Eagles' philosophy that "you can check out any time you like but you can never leave",perhaps you *don't* understand.
Nice song though...
The anti-secessionist propagandists do not believe in the individual’s right of independence and freedom from the intrusions of the majority. And they criticize secession by bringing up slavery. Yet they support the power of the centralized federal government to enslave the states and the people of the states. Talk about irrational!
http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/product-reviews/1565540247
“....”The South was Right!” is dedicated to shedding light on these long-accepted beliefs. The Kennedys show that Abraham Lincoln’s sole aim was to force the seceded Southern states back into the Union, by whatever means possible, including making pitiless war against Southern civilians. They quote from speeches where Lincoln plainly stated that he was not a believer in racial equality, and that, as he said to Horace Greeley, what he did about slavery and the black race he did in order to “save the Union”. However, the Kennedys also demonstrate that the constitutional Union established by our founding fathers was actually overthrown by Lincoln’s war, not saved, and that we owe today’s aggressive, runaway federal machine to Lincoln’s ideology. Secession, as it happens, was not unconstitutional at all, but was a reserved power of the states and their people, as defined by the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Having studied and written about the issues associated with the Constitution and secession myself, I can testify that the Kennedys’ defense of states rights and the compactual nature of the Constitution is one of the strongest parts of the book.
Overall, “The South was Right!” is a convenient single volume re-assessment of the “Civil War”, and serves well as an introductory read for those who are curious about the things most of us have been taught since elementary school. The Kennedy brothers bolster their controversial claims with an impressive battery of quotations and via extensive documentation; the book’s end notes and bibliography run thirty-six pages, combined. A number of interesting appendices are also provided.
On a critical note, I have to say that I believe the book’s overall tone borders on hostility. I understand the authors’ frustration in combating more than a century’s worth of lies and obfuscation, but I’m willing to bet that many who might otherwise be interested in the material might be tempted to dismiss it as a rant because of that tone. The issues in question here are sensitive, for many reasons, and I think they should be handled a bit more even-handedly if persuasion is the end goal. We have to remember that this is very much an ‘underdog’ approach to history, and thus those who argue in favor of it have to be more careful in their presentation, if they wish to be taken seriously. I know that many people have been positively influenced by “The South was Right!”, and I’m glad of it; however, I think that many more could have been influenced had its tone been a bit more mellow.
All in all, I highly recommend “The South was Right!” to students of history, particularly those who have caught the whiff of a strange and disturbing odor emanating from the ardent Lincoln camp. I should know; that’s how I started down the ‘revisionist’ road myself. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address didn’t make sense to me given how he proclaimed that he was fighting for “government of the people”, when the truth was that his armies were obviously fighting to deny the right of self-government to the Southern states. It seemed to me that any country based on the sanctity of self-government had no business denying that right to states that preferred to go their own way (remember the Declaration of Independence? It was really a joint ordinance of secession - and the British were quick to point that out to northerners during the war). Lincoln’s rhetoric sounded very patriotic because he claimed to be ‘defending America’, and that’s why so many continue to swallow it to this day, but it was anything but a reflection of the ideals that brought the United States of America into existence and promised to differentiate it from the other nations of the world. Lincoln’s approach could be summarized as “You can have your self-government as long as it’s this government,” and “you can have your freedom as long as it’s not freedom from us.”
Yes, you are irrational. Now go back to sleep.
What revisionist hogswaggle!
No, I'm afraid I'm not. What the governments of Canada or the United Kingdom can do has absolutely no bearing on what the President of the United States can do under the Constitution.
But then,if you subscribe to the Eagles' philosophy that "you can check out any time you like but you can never leave",perhaps you *don't* understand.
You can check out any time you want, so long as it's with the agreement of a majority of the other states. Or do you believe that only the leaving states have any rights under the Constitution and the remaining states have none?
I've read it. It was a very funny book, highly amusing.
Excellent post with clear logic and factually based......refreshing on this thread.
Noticed that all responses to it were opinion without any reference to the Constitution or legal reasoning.
I love it when you whip them like a bad dog.
You wouldn’t know legal reasoning if it bite you on the, well you know where ;-)
Which business interests were those? The shipping companies and textile mills looking forward to being shut off from southern cotton? The banks that didn't want the southerners to repay their loans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.