The Civil War movie 'every conservative needs to see' (Copperhead)

Politico ^ | July 29, 2013 | Patrick Gavin

[rockrr]

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." - William Seward

Why do you suppose he made that statement. Here's a clue: if you look beyond the limited resources of mises and dilorenzo you can find the answer.

Probably those in the North whom Lincoln didn't see fit to set free with his Proclamation.

Incorrect.

If the war was over slavery, why didn't they unilaterally end it when and where they could?

Because they recognized that they needed a constitutional amendment to do that. The irony here is that if the slavers had kept their pants on it likely wouldn't have happened the way it did and certainly could have happened without bloodshed. Selfish, impetuous bastards.

[DiogenesLamp]

Contrary to what some believe, seccession is not Constitutional, at least not without the permission of Congress.

Neither was Secession from England, without the permission of George III. BAD FOUNDERS! VERY VERY BAD FOUNDERS!

What gets me, is that in Lincoln's most Famous speech, ("four score and seven years ago"), if you do the math, he was talking about 1776, and the occasion when a bunch of Rebel States broke away from the English Union.

How is it okay for the States to break from England, but not okay to break from each other?

Further, the Habeas Corpus clause of Article 1/Section 9 makes it pretty clear that the Constitution intended the federal government to have the power to put down rebellions, which is what the Civil War was.

Didn't Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus? Or does that just apply when it suits the Government?

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it was in The United States

Does that mean Lexington and Concorde were part of England or something? Just trying to follow your thinking here.

Not for lack of trying.

The possibility that they weren't really trying is simply beyond your imagination. The fact remains, they DIDN'T kill anyone. Neither did the Union Forces. I'm pretty sure neither side was trying to kill anyone. You don't fire cannons at each other for 10 hours without killing someone unless you are deliberately not aiming at them.

who started the bloodshed?
The southrons

Yeah? Who did they kill? Nobody at Fort Sumter, that's for sure.

[rockrr]

*sigh*

We didn’t “secede” from Great Britain - we openly rebelled against their authority. The colonials did so for just cause and only as a last resort. There is no legitimate comparison between the patriots of 1776 and the insurrectionists of 1861.

[0.E.O]

Lack of sense of humour is a tell

Lack of sense of humor???? You didn't find 507 funny?

[rockrr]

You don't fire cannons at each other for 10 hours without killing someone unless you are deliberately not aiming at them.

Unless of course you're a really lousy shot.

[0.E.O]

You just don’t put me in the mood.

Rabid hate and sense of humor don't go together so you can understand how we can assume you have none.

[0.E.O]

He hasn’t replied either.

What am I supposed to reply to? If I deny it you won't believe it. If I admit it then I'm feeding your fantasy.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Does that mean Lexington and Concorde were part of England or something?

They were certainly British territory, ruled by the King, until victory in a war established them as something else.

You don't fire cannons at each other for 10 hours without killing someone unless you are deliberately not aiming at them.

Right, and when you lob hot shot into the fort, setting fires to the wooden buildings and gates, gutting the fort and threatening to set off the magazine, that was all carefully aimed so that no one could possibly be hurt.

The fact that no one was killed is no more a defense for southern actions than when a bank robber shoots at police but claims that he's innocent because he didn't hit anyone.

Here's what the inside of the fort looked like after Anderson surrendered:

[Fiji Hill]

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

To me, dissolving "the political bands" sounds like seceding.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

How is it okay for the States to break from England, but not okay to break from each other?

The founding fathers had no illusions that they wouldn't all hang for treason had they not won their war. It's the nature of revolution that it overthrows the old order and begins a new one. By winning their war, their break became legitimate in the strict sense of the word.

The south failed to win their rebellion (that's okay, it happens all the time) but instead of reacting with the usual actions seen worldwide throughout history after such an uprising, the United States showed remarkable mercy. And ever since, they south has been claiming that as some sort of vindication.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

They’d also been fighting a war for over a year by the time they issued the Declaration. You can’t claim that they thought they were peaceably seceding by issuing a joint statement of independence at that point.

[Fiji Hill]

Here's the right flag for 1776, the Queen Anne flag--slightly different from the Union Jack, which came later.

[GeronL]

Ooh, I will looking for that now when I see a Revolutionary War film. To see if they have the right flag.

[donmeaker]

The war was over slavery for the south.

The war was to put an end to the insurrection for the US government.

Where there was no insurrection, slavery was not affected by the EP, and absent an insurrection, the President had no power to end it.

Why not end it where they could? Most of the states not in insurrection had ended it where they could. The federal government had no authority to end slavery absent the insurrection, or absent a constitutional amendment.

[donmeaker]

Ft Sumter was built by the US government on a shoal, and was never part of the land area of South Carolina.

[Fiji Hill]

From the movie "The Patriot"

[GeronL]

Thanks. I am glad to see that one movie I did like had it right.

[donmeaker]

What part of slavery do you find attractive?

What part of rape do you find admirable?

What part of kidnapping is morally justified?

What part of torture do you think is appropriate?

What part of treason do you find legal?

What part of 750,000 deaths do you find reasoned?

Of course it is morally black and white!

[DiogenesLamp]

I can see there is no point in discussing this with you. You have your mind made up like a San Fransico transvestite on the issue of "gay marriage." You simply don't want to hear anything which doesn't fit your world view.