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 ...
Okay, here’s one closer to home you might know about. Cuba wants Guantanamo back. They claim that the treaty signed with the previous government is null and void, they refuse to cash annual rent checks and have repeatedly demanded the US leave what they consider Cuban soil. If they begin shelling the fort, are they justified? Is it an act of war?
My understanding of what they mean by a Rebellion is something short of a collection of states. We already know that they regarded a confederation of states as an entity of sufficient legitimacy as to assert a right of separation.
Recall also, the Original governing document was the Articles of Confederation.
South Carolina was too small to be a state, and to large to be an asylum. Slaves were a majority. They needed other states, particularly Virginia, the slave state with the largest population.
By starting the war, they knew that the president would have to respond by calling up the militia. They had a deal with the slave power in Virginia, if a war started, they would not use Virginia militia to fight against the slave power. Politically Virginia needed the war for secession, as they had reasonably refused secession because the US government had done nothing that violated the constitution. So the slave power started the war.
So again, you claim there's a magic number below which it's not okay to declare that you're another country now, and above which it is okay to do that. What is that number and where is it defined?
You simply sound like an echo chamber, and you just keep repeating yourself.
Since we don't have anything like a dialogue going on, I suppose I might as well interject something completely off the wall as well.
Why did Lincoln invoke the memory of a rebellion in 1776 where a collection of States Broke away from a government with which they disagreed, in support of his contention that such should not be allowed?
If he is opposing the right to do so, he's certainly picking a weird example to make his point.
As poorly as you argue for the con-feds?
I'll go into what he told me in a later message, it's a bit long to include in this one. Needless to say, I had a different way of looking at Lincoln after what he dropped on me.
How progressive of you.
So you’re granting that the War of Independence was a rebellion?
If they are squatters, and it's your house, and you are willing to accept the damage, then maybe so. I would think there are better ways, but some people are not so cool headed as myself.
Ft. Sumter was a United States fort, built with federal money, on land deeded to the federal government by South Carolina.
I don't hear you making a case for remuneration to the British for their forts. How about we use an objective standard for all this stuff?
Behavior which is acceptable for the Rebellion against the English Union, ought to be likewise acceptable for Rebellion against the American Union.
Secession, even if legal (which it wasn't) doesn't magically transfer property rights. And isn't property rights what this was all about?
Imminent Domain Baby!
But this isn't even about property rights or a particular fort. I'm pretty sure the Yanks didn't give a tinker's D@mn about the fort, After the war, they didn't use it for sh*t.
The real issue at hand was having their toy taken away from them.
You may think the Civil war was fought over high principals and lofty goals, but from my perspective it was nothing but an Ego driven pissing contest by both sides. It was merely an American re-creation of the never ending European wars between belligerent princes.
The real tragedy of the Civil war was that so many people really died for nothing. It was simply a farce that became rationalized after the fact into something "noble".
In the meantime it left us with this massive Federal Leviathan and no means of escape from it.
Worse! I'd be arguing for a side which was hypocritical, and doesn't even make sense.
How can the war be about Slavery when we were willing to let them keep slavery? Does our willingness to let them keep slavery make us evil too?
Your simplistic understanding of the issues is revealed in your constant use of non sequiturs. No wonder you gave up one POV for the losing one.
The colonials didn’t secede from the Brits (but you already knew that).
The Colonies made war on their own country. They were pretty belligerent about it.
But it wasn’t “their country” - they were continually denied a seat at the (Parliament) table. Remember the whole “taxation without representation” thing?
The British ceded their forts by negotiated treaty, not by us shelling them until they left. And they held on to several forts until long after the Treaty of Paris, until Jay's Treaty was signed in 1794.
After the war, they didn't use it for sh*t.
After the war, the fort was in ruins. It was rebuilt, though, and 100 pound Parrott Rifles were installed. During the Spanish-American War, further improvements were made. It did what it was built to do, protect Charleston, and it eventually went the way of scores of other massive coastal fortifications all along the US seaboards and become obsolete.
Because the USA operated under a different paradigm than did England. The USA asserted the right of expatriation, then failed to respect it after having used up it's benefit.
The South was foolish to believe that they had a right to leave. The actual rule was "do as I say, not as I do."
I believe that King George's position was armed rebellion against the Crown was completely illegal. And I don't think the Founding Fathers disagreed with him.
But George III wasn't in control after the war, they were, and they asserted that it was natural law that gave them the right. They fought for this natural law right to form their own nation, and subsequently some of their descendants fought against it.
As the founders and their descendants took opposite positions, one of them is necessarily wrong.
And in order to do that they fought and won a war of independence. The Confederacy accomplished 50% of that.
Once again, had Lincoln been in charge of England, We would be the United Kingdom of England. England could have beaten us if they were determined to do so. In 1812, they very nearly did, and with a tiny fraction of their forces.
Game, set, match.
I think your words speak for themselves.
"Another decent thread that the Lost Cause Losers have waddled in and crapped all over..."
Your attempts to interpret them for our benefit are called "walkback."
Transplanting a comment and then claiming contextual continuity is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
As these were the only words you wrote in that comment, asserting that there are others from which context can be taken is not intellectual dishonesty, it is actual dishonesty.
I'm not going to get anything approaching honesty from you anyway so you're free to leave anytime.
And I believe this is "projection" and "dismissal."
"Monkey logic", I call it. A lot of people are swayed by monkey logic though.
You appear to be transfixed by it.
Anything coming will not be a “Civil war”.
It will be Revolution II.
It will be the people VS the corrupt controlling ruling class government.
Just nearly exactly like what happened in Revolution I.
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.