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 ...
No doubt our tax burden is higher now than in 1775, except for the people in Boston who were being starved to death by the British blockade in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party. Many people of Boston mostly left town.
No doubt our tax rate is higher now than in 1860/1861, which was higher than the tax rate of 1791.
Wikipedia article on the the Boston Port Act of 1774.
“The Boston Port Act (the Trade Act 1774) is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which became law on March 31, 1774, and is one of the measures (variously called the Intolerable Acts, the Punitive Acts or the Coercive Acts) that were designed to secure Great Britain’s jurisdictions over her American dominions.
The Act was a response to the Boston Tea Party. King George III’s speech of 7 March 1774 charged the colonists with attempting to injure British commerce and subvert the Constitution, and on the 18th Lord North brought in the Port Bill. It outlawed the use of the Port of Boston (by setting up a barricade/blockade) for “landing and discharging, loading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise” until such time as restitution was made to the King’s treasury (for customs duty lost) and to the East India Company for damages suffered. In other words, it closed Boston Port to all ships, no matter what business the ship had. It also provided that Massachusetts Colony’s seat of government should be moved to Salem and Marblehead made a port of entry. The Act was to take effect on June 1.
Even some of the best friends of America in Parliament at first approved the Act as moderate and reasonable, as the town could end the punishment at any moment by paying for legitimate merchandise destroyed by riot and allowing law and order to have their course. But the Whig opposition soon collected itself, and the bill was fought in its various stages by Edmund Burke, Isaac Barré, Thomas Pownall and others. In spite of them, the Act became a law 31 March, without a division in the Commons and by unanimous vote in the Lords.
Royal Navy warships subsequently began patrols at the mouth of Boston Harbor to enforce the acts. The Royal Army also joined in enforcing the blockade, and Boston was filled with troops, Thomas Gage, commander-in-chief. Colonists objected that the Port Act punished all of Boston rather than just the individuals who had destroyed the tea, and that they were being punished without having been given an opportunity to testify in their own defence. All the citizens of Boston were angered including the Loyalists (also known as Tories) and Patriots who all sought for aid from the other colonies.
As the Port of Boston was a major source of supplies for the citizens of Massachusetts, sympathetic colonies as far away as South Carolina sent relief supplies to the settlers of Massachusetts Bay. So great was the response, that the Boston leaders boasted that the town would become the chief grain port of America if the act were not repealed. This was the first step in the unification of the thirteen colonies. These colonies finally had a cause for them to work together. The First Continental Congress was convened in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, to coordinate a colonial response to the Port Act and the other Coercive Acts.”
I wouldn’t go by homosexual lobby propaganda to select who I thought was an homosexual.
Lincoln was cheap, and his wife and children were not low maintenance. As he traveled with the local circuit court he routinely offered to share a bed as there was a recurring shortage of hotel space. Generally his offer was not taken up, as he snored, and being a tall man took up a lot of space.
From that thin gruel the homosexual lobby choses to rebrand him as a homosexual. They did the same thing to Julius Caesar and Alexander. With greater justification they also claim the “Sacred Band” of Thebes. Of course ask them about pedophile priests who diddle little boys, and they will sniff and deny that pedophilia has anything to do with homosexuality.
A variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Another person who confuses reality with “How Few Remain”?
I personally could care less if Lincoln was a sodomite. I do care that he started an unnecessary war that resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 Americans and forever changed the country that our Founding Fathers fought and died for. The Southern states wanted self-determination and he murdered them wholesale to see that it would never happen.
Except that he didn’t start it. It was started by the forces of the insurrection.
By the way, the southern states in 1860 had self determination, at least for those who they didn’t deem as slaves.
They gave that over because the few were were very wealthy and owned many slaves wanted to benefit. The states pulled their representitives from the Senate and House, despite having no authority to do so.
They people of that place and time were not well served by the southern politicians who started the insurrection and the war.
Liar. You brought it up as a scumbag slander.
I'm not sure what you are implying here. Are you saying that the Northern businesses interests didn't want a war because it would hurt their business, but somehow Northern govoners pushed Lincoln into war because on their business interests?
Please explain.
Please show some documentation that Lincoln was a fan of Marx.
Lincoln was a power-mad socialist, the the great hero of LIBERALS and for those that are ignorant of American history.
The Republican Party of Lincoln would be the democrat party of today. BIG GOVERNMENT. All power centralized in the Washington, DC.
http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Marxists-Al-Benson-Jr/dp/158980905X
“Benson and Kennedy have provided an exhaustively researched treatment of the connections of Lincoln’s enthusiastic immigrant supporters with the communists’ movements of Europe, then and later. They have made a vital contribution to uncovering the true story of the War Between the States.” -Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor of history emeritus, University of South Carolina In the mid-nineteenth century, a group of radical socialists known as the Forty-Eighters brought their views to the United States, seeking to change its government and society. These advocates of big government supported the ideologies of Abraham Lincoln and endorsed him as a presidential candidate. This compelling book follows the rise of the early Republican Party, describing how a group of extreme socialists set the tone for today’s Leviathan government. Eighteen chapters offer an in-depth explanation of the Forty-Eighters, noting their origins in Europe, where the socialist revolutions took place; their influence on the election of 1861;
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world”.
***************
Sir:
I am directed to inform you that the address of the Central Council of your Association, which was duly transmitted through this Legation to the President of the United [States], has been received by him.
So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.
The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams
LOL! You spend a couple of posts trumpeting the bullsh*t about Lincoln being a fag and now you want us to believe you don't care???? You can't even lie effectively anymore.
Not surprised.
nkp uttered the “S” word and lured another bottom-feeder in. It’s sad how some are so unnaturally attracted to all things deviant - even if they have to make them up.
All part of that "heritage, not hate" stuff no doubt. </sarcasm>
No BS about it. Read the posts. Quit ignoring the documentation. If Lincoln were alive today he would be a member of the democrat party. Why do you think liberals love him so much.
There is as much evidence to support a claim that Jefferson Davis was a cross-dressing pedophile. Which, I suppose, would explain why Democrats are so high in gender-benders and NAMBLA members.
Indeed, it was actually Democrats, like Andrew Jackson, who were the freedom lovers. Republicans were the party that wanted to tell you whom you could and could not trade with via tariff policy.
None of which proves that Lincoln ever heard of Marx. Marx wrote a fan letter for his organization and was one of 58 signers. On the same day it was delivered, Adams wrote a thank you note. That’s it.
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.