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 ...
Like I said, it is utterly POINTLESS to debate with this sort of intellectual dishonesty.
Again, intellectually dishonest. You want to believe what you want to believe.
Perhaps if you could come up with some quote from any of the Founding Fathers that indicated they thought their actions against the Crown were legal then that would certainly make your case that their actions were secession rather than revolution, and that would shut us all up?
So it's okay if you win? Moral principles are validated by force? Got it. Good to know. But wait. Isn't that the same principle the slavers used?
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.
It seems to me that if I wanted to get people to leave without killing them outright, setting fire to wooden structures might be a pretty good way to do it. Once again, I point to the fact that nobody was killed by either side. Nobody WANTED to kill anyone on either side.
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.
Except that these weren't the police, they were more akin to squatters who stubbornly insisted on remaining on land where they were not welcome. They had already given up Fort Moultrie, so the principle that they would evacuate was already established.
Here's what the inside of the fort looked like after Anderson surrendered:
Doesn't look Gutted to me. And your point is?
Once again, no bloodshed till the North decided to retaliate, and it is my impression that it had more to do with hurt feelings over being humiliated than anything else.
It has long been my suspicion that the entire civil war was nothing but a stupid pissing contest, to which the claim of "Freeing the Slaves" was added after the fact to justify why a bunch of @$$holes ramped up a war which killed 3/4ths of a million people.
Once you've shed that much blood, you better come up with a D@mn good reason for doing it. Unfortunately the truth is real ugly. They didn't have a good reason other than hurt egos.
Does that mean that you’ll go away now, since you obviously have nothing to offer but insults?
Don’t go away mad...
Once again, you have identified "might makes right" as the salient principle involved. Moral authority comes from the barrel of a gun.
In truth, England decided to stop fighting. Had they been possessed of a maniacal obsession such as governed the Union forces, there would be no United States, and you would not now be lecturing me how the Colonies were right because they won.
Objectivity and Intellectual honesty appear to be very rare nowadays, especially in this sort of discussion.
The south failed to win their rebellion (that's okay, it happens all the time)
They put up a bigger fight than the colonies ever did against England, but King George III was more Reasonable than was Lincoln. He stopped the bloodshed and let those Rebellious states go.
but instead of reacting with the usual actions seen worldwide throughout history after such an uprising, the United States showed remarkable mercy.
Really? , and what would they have done had they NOT restrained themselves as you seem to think they did? Should they have killed everyone they conquered? Might have blurred the narrative about "We did this for freedom" or something.
All I hear from you is "Rah Rah" for your side. You are simply a cheerleader, not someone trying to be objective. The Union side is right BECAUSE it's your side, not because you have an objective or even consistent standard.
You talk about "worldwide throughout history" but you show little sign of having such a broad comprehension of human History.
If Abolition of Slavery is the Casus belli, and the overriding moral principle involved, than common sense would dictate that it should override every other consideration.
It didn't. Ergo, it was NOT the overriding moral principle involved.
As a matter of fact, Lincoln said he would keep slavery as long as the South would rejoin the Union.
Did you know that? Did you know that Lincoln was willing to KEEP slavery?
What's your next argument?
Thanks for that. When I was looking for a flag for the United Kingdom, my biggest problem was finding one that wasn't 2000 pixels long. I settled for the first one I found which wasn't.
Something i've noticed over the years is that if you introduce a mistake into a discussion, sometimes people will fall all over themselves to correct you. The good part about this is that they will actually look up the information you wanted them to see anyway.
England was still a Union. :)
I'm sure the same theory would apply to Manhattan.
Why do you want to control women's bodies?
What part of rape do you find admirable?
Why are you against civil rights for Gay people?
What part of kidnapping is morally justified?
Why do you hate the environment?
What part of torture do you think is appropriate?
Why are you such a racist?
What part of treason do you find legal?
Why are you against universal healthcare?
What part of 750,000 deaths do you find reasoned?
Why do you support polices which kill women and children and old people?
In case you are too dense to get the subtly of my response, my point is that you are shrieking and shouting out crap slogans which don't resemble the truth even slightly.
If this is to be your methodology, then I would no sooner see the point to arguing with you than with a liberal emotion driven kook.
One can support the concept of independence from a Government one no longer wishes to be a part of without supporting the policy of Slavery. Once again, I point out that the States which Rebelled from the English Union also supported slavery, but they weren't the bad guys in your estimation and the topic of slavery did not dominate discussions on the war of Independence.
Ratchet back your emotion, and work at being honest.
It is only the Lost Cause Losers who incorrectly claim that “Abolition of Slavery is the Casus belli” for the north (and then use it in an intellectually dishonest manner to attempt to build an accusation of logical fallacy).
The north went to war to save the union and ended up saving the slaves from slavery. The south went to war to slave slavery and ended up losing everything.
And yes, everyone knows Lincoln’s views on slavery and the black man. Your gotcha got no one. But your simplistic “understanding” of those views does a disservice to both Lincoln and you.
I’m sure you would think so...
Try it yourself.
Okay, how about this one from Thomas Jefferson:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
Beyond that, I didn't know we were supposed to play by the rules of the Crown, rather than the rules of the Rebelling Colonies. Which side were we on again? According to the rules as outlined by the Rebelling Colonies, people have a right to dissolve the political bounds which join them to another people.
Yes, it's illegal under English law, but it was supposed to be the foundation Principle of our own nation.
From my reading, collective expatriation would seem to be a right, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
To claim that body's of people have a right to break from a Monarchy but no right to break from a Republic is hypocrisy.
I have plenty of facts and reasoned arguments to offer which are not insults, but you seemingly have no interest in those.
Don’t go away mad...
Just stop harshing the mellow of your own little world view? Yeah, I know. People believe what they want to believe, and really don't like it when other people attempt to point out the inconsistencies.
The Northern people who kept slaves, beat the Southern people who kept slaves, because the Northern people were against slavery, but they did not end it until it became embarrassing to their claim of fighting to end slavery.
Leading by example would have made the claim of moral superiority more believable.
Then I take it from your response that you don't regard the "Abolition of Slavery" as the casus belli? Good. We are making progress.
The north went to war to save the union and ended up saving the slaves from slavery.
That was the claim, but i'm not certain that it is the exact truth, but it is closer to the truth than anything i've seen on this thread so far. I'll take it. Now we can move on to discussing whether saving the union was a legitimate cause of war, though I don't think it was the actual cause.
The south went to war to slave slavery and ended up losing everything.
Slavery wasn't in Jeopardy. All sorts of promises from people in the Federal Government assured them of this. Must be more to it than just saving slavery.
And yes, everyone knows Lincoln’s views on slavery. Your gotcha got no one. But your simplistic “understanding” of those views does a disservice to both Lincoln and you.
Really? How do you put Lincoln's willingness to tolerate slavery into a positive light? It would seem to me that this circumstance sort of blows your whole argument.
It's rather hard to argue that the South was fighting for slavery when Lincoln made it clear that he was willing to give it to them.
Claiming that a shoal or Island sitting in your harbor should remain the property of another sovereign nation is obviously a ridiculous argument. You couldn't see how ridiculous it was until I pointed out how it would look as applied to Manhattan.
Had the British kept it, you would have been okay with it?
I don't think so. Spain is still bitching about Gibraltar.
If i'm being emotional, i'm certainly unaware of it. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out an example of where i'm being emotional? I'm pretty good at the clinical detachment sort of thing.
Issued while the Colonies were engaged in an armed conflict to impel that separation that Jefferson spoke of. That doesn't sound like the Colonists thought their actions were legal to me.
Now if you want to equate the Southern cause with that of the Founding Fathers, and agree that both resorted to rebellion to acheive their aims then that's a start in the right direction. But your position seems to be that the Southern acts of secession were legal, and it was Lincoln in the wrong to oppose them. That is like the Founding Fathers being surprised that King George got all ticked off over that Lexington and Concord kerfluffel.
You assert that anyone who offers an alternate POV is being emotional and then couple that with a non sequitur about honesty. In other words you project your own emotion-based “arguments” onto others and then preemptively dismiss any response from them as unworthy or regard.
Bravo on the classic troll posts. Sure beats knowing anything about what you post.
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.