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 ...
Apparently, the Democrat slavers of the south thought so.
BTW, more accurate analysis indicates total number of Americans dying in the war was upwards of 750,000, not 600,000.
Equivalent numbers today would be in the 8M range.
To be fair, the great majority of them did not die in combat or of wounds. They died of diseases that have been eradicated today.
Don't underestimate what was at stake. Slaves were considered by many to be the single most valuable asset class in the world. The so-called "Mississippi Declaration of Secession" didn't pull any punches:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
So, from the point of view of the folks who owned that asset class, was the protection of that asset worth fighting a war? They thought so.
An unbiased account of events leading up to Ft Sumter would be a good movie. Heck, call it "Sumter". I volunteer to play the role of Edmund Ruffin.
And what is ironic is that now the North is what the South used to be, Democrat slavers!
I thought you guys said the North went to war with the South because the South attack Ft Sumter, that the South started the war, but here you are claiming they waged war with the South to end slavery.
I watched it here: http://tvseries.net/movieplay.php?id=125_2387482
I thought that Copperheads were pro-slavery, Demoncrats in the North. How conservative is that?
In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln did not win even 40% of the votes. Only the fact that he had three opponents enabled him to receive a plurality of the vote and win the election.
In 1861 the war was only peripherally about slavery. By 1863 ending slavery was an explicit goal of the war.
Here’s your post to which I responded. “I don’t recall anyone in the North claiming to be waging war with the South to end slavery.”
Even in 1861 this wasn’t entirely accurate, though it was largely right. Over the course of 1862 this changed, and by 1863 it was completely inaccurate.
Revolutions (and wars) have a tendency to get out of the control of those who initiate them, and very often wind up leading to results not originally intended.
For instance, in our own Revolution, in early 1775 few had any desire for independence, but by the middle of 1776 they promulgated the Declaration of Independence. So by your criteria, if those who fought the British in April, 1775 were not doing so to gain independence, then independence wasn’t a reason for the war.
So if we’re going to talk about war goals, it is necessary to define which period we’re talking about.
That isn’t his claim.
The north went to war to save the union and ended up saving the slaves. The south went to war to save slavery and ended up losing everything.
Place each of us and our families here TODAY ... Does anyone not think obama and hillary do not want a higher body count than four. Remember FRiends, an army is being massed outside of our Military and National Guard. I would prefer that our Military and National Guard stand with the People this time, if the Time should come. Hold your Fire ... Hold Your Fire! or kill me, because in your heart you know I'm right. Jim asking for your Blessing once more.
Incorrect. Had all the popular votes gone to a single opponent, he would still have won the electoral college and the presidency.
If you think about it, the better solution is to EXPELL the NE states from Maryland to Maine, including WDC, & Kalifornia. Move the new capitol to the center of the country where it should be. That would give the US a clear conservative majority. Remaining liberal states would see the Federal payoffs to the states dry up, forcing them to either be productive & prudent, or starve.
Geography has to be seriously considered in any secessionist plan. Part of the strength of this nation is that it touches 2 oceans. Loss of either or both would be costly.
I realize that expulsion is about as likely as winning the lottery, so it isn't gonna happen. Still, it is the BEST solution to the problem, as liberalism is the problem in this country, not conservatism. Shouldn't we rid ourselves of a problem rather than removing the solution from the country?
At the time, it was universally considered the conservative position. IMO, it was so only because of a misunderstanding of what true American conservatism means, but there is no doubting that the abolitionists were radicals intent on overturning the established system. In that one aspect, anyway.
It was an interesting election to be sure. But you have to temper Lincoln’s low totals with the fact that he wasn’t even on the ballot in most of the south. In the north, the election was between Lincoln and Douglas (who carried only New Jersey and Missouri). In the south, it was between Breckenridge and Bell. Only in the in-between states was it a true four-way contest and some very interesting stuff happened. Breckenridge and Bell each took 3 of the seven border states. Breckenridge was runner-up to Lincoln in Pennsylvania and Oregon, losing PA by 19%, but OR by less than 2%.
I’ll have to examine the data.
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.