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

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.”

You have a quote or something?

"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention

History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. -- Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. --Mississppi Declaration of the Causes of Secession

"[Recruiting slaves into the army] is abolition doctrine ... the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." - Editorial, Jan 1865, North Carolina Standard

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?

The fate of the British forts - and who owned Manhattan and all your other analogies - was settled by the Treaty of Paris signed by the U.S. and Great Britain in 1783 after negotiations between the two. What similar transaction switched ownership of Sumter from the U.S. government to the state of South Carolina?

Imminent Domain Baby!

Assuming that you mean eminent domain, that does not allow the states to seize federal property any more than it allows the federal government to seize state property. It applies to private property only. And even if it did allow for the seizure of federal property there is that little matter of 'without just compensation' that you're ignoring.

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".

I can't really argue with you on that one. A rebellion over slavery? Hundreds of thousands dead as a result? I can't think of another instance where a section rebelled over something that trivial.

Only because they wanted a war -- and wanted one more than Lincoln did.

The belligerent and foolhardy among them did. The others did not. It's been some time since I looked up this information, but one high ranking Confederate official pleaded with them not to fall into this trap. He recognized it for exactly what it was.

But this is not to dismiss how much that Lincoln wanted a war. Lincoln NEEDED a war. To let the South leave peacefully would leave him as the jilted bridegroom of history. Lincoln was a canny fighter, and It is a reasonable assertion that his dander was up over Southern states seceding.

Once again I will assert the number one cause of the war was Egos.

Lincoln had to take some kind of stand -- if only on paper -- to avoid the reproach that he'd stood idly by while the country tore itself apart.

Taking a stand to avoid reproach is a manifestation of Ego.

War didn't have to be the result. It turned out that way because Davis was even more willing to risk war than Lincoln did.

Pompous posturing. As I mentioned, not unlike the belligerent princes of Europe. The Confederates were foolish to have attacked Sumter. If they had merely sat on their hands, in a decade it would probably have been abandoned voluntarily.

It sounds like you're letting one college experience carry more weight in your thinking than it deserves to.

I have been made aware of subsequent information that reinforces the narrative. Wasn't really looking for it, but you stumble over things from time to time.

I see a modern parallel to previous history. I see economic and social foolishness emanating from Washington DC as evolving into a dire threat to my property, my savings, my life, my future, and that of my children.

Right now, the idea of chopping off all the Liberal States is VERY APPEALING to me. We simply cannot match the Liberal brainwash machine that is the Liberal Democrat Control of the Media. Unfortunately the notion of peacefully going separate ways has been poisoned by previous history, but despite that, I see commentary from a lot of people arguing that secession would be a better alternative than what we will eventually be facing.

The Dollar is the one ring to rule us all.

They inflate it and we can't stop it. A dollar earned ten years ago is not worth a dollar earned today. My savings and earnings are being eroded by foolish governmental Fiscal and Social policy but I am helpless to combat it.

The idea that there is some way out of this downward spiral ought to make a secessionist out of any sane person. It's certainly looking more and more attractive to me.

You think you are against slavery? Keep watching what is happening.

I looked up this information, but one high ranking Confederate official pleaded with them not to fall into this trap. He recognized it for exactly what it was.

You're probably thinking of Robert Toombs. Here's what he said: "Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."

So Toombs, at least, recognized that attacking Sumter wasn't just stupid, it would put them in the wrong.

The problem was that some of the southern states were already rethinking secession, and Virginia had already turned it down once. Jefferson Davis NEEDED a war to buck up the others and to swing Virginia into their column when the United States reacted to the shelling of its fort.

They subsequently withdrew from that fort, no need for military action by the US against it.

I do not dispute that the Confederacy was stupid to have provoked the Union. Had they a lick of sense, they would have sat on their hands as many among them urged them to do.

We had and have a long border with Canada, and haven’t felt the need to invade the fort at St. Johns on the Champlain since 1814 or so.

Well, it IS on their side, isn't it?

No, there was no need. Anderson wasn’t interdicting traffic in the harbor. Proximity does not mean evil intent.

I'll concede that it was of no consequence other than symbolic. They should have simply asked for it back, offered to buy it, or left it at that.

Once again, it was Pride that they have it, and Pride that it should have been taken back. The war was fought over ego and pride, to which noble sounded causes were latter rationalized.

That's it for me people. I'm done for the day. I have responsibilities to which I must see.

That is it exactly, I distinctly remember the "hornet's nest" comment.

So Toombs, at least, recognized that attacking Sumter wasn't just stupid, it would put them in the wrong.

So did Lincoln, and according to the opinion of my friend, he was counting on it.

Everybody trying to manipulate everybody else. Pride and arrogance are the roots.

Moral. They knew what they were doing was illegal under English law. Hence Franklin's comment about hanging.

But after they won, the presumption is that everyone was under the new law, you know, the one extolling the virtues of collective expatriation.

"Natural Law" is a very slippery thing to define and tends to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean.

I disagree. That the Kingdom of England regarded it as "natural" that you would owe allegiance to them at birth is perfectly understandable, but the premise is based on the theory that the King rules by divine right.

When looked at from the perspective of men being individuals and therefore entitled to controlling their own destiny, (rights of man) it becomes apparent that some things are objective and self evident natural rights, such as the right to breathe, the right to defend oneself from attack, the right to move freely without restraint, the right to earn a living, and so forth.

Disputes generally arise when one system and it's assumptions are confused with another system which relies on different assumptions.

Indeed. And there are constitutional means for that, i.e., a vote of congress similar to the one that admitted the state, or by constitutional amendment.

You mean the constrained group must be released from captivity, something along the lines of freeing a slave.

Failing those, all people have the right of rebellion.

So Captured people have a natural right to fight against their captors for their freedom? Funny, that sounds exactly like the principle invoked in the Declaration.

But invoking a right of rebellion doesn't mean those opposing your rebellion are obliged to bend over.

Ramses sent his army to reclaim their former servants, so obviously there is precedent.

Ah yes, Mind control Lincoln.

Manipulating and predicting people is a talent, but it isn't mind control. You simply put that forth in an effort to mock the point.

Lincoln was a very clever and Canny man. If you've read any of his history, you learn quickly that he was very shrewd, and could generally out fox his opponents.

He forced Beauregard to fire on Ft. Sumter.

It appears he fully intended that Beauregard should do exactly that. That was one of the pieces of evidence my friend was chortling about. Anderson had orders informing him that he would likely be attacked, and that he was to take precautions to preserve life, and to surrender the fort if he should think it necessary.

My friend regarded this as evidence that Lincoln knew full well what was likely to be the Confederate response to his other letter, and that it was his intent to provoke exactly the response he got.

My friend told me at the time, that most of the North was dead set against intervening in Southern Secession, and they simply were not on board for any action to prevent it. Northern Newspapers were wishing the Southern cause well, and urging them to "go in peace."

Lincoln had a serious political problem with convincing anyone in the North to take any sort of action to stop the secession of Southern states. He was faced with the problem of becoming the jilted Bridegroom and with no way to stop it.

Sumter was exactly what he needed to justify a response. If he didn't engineer it, he should have. My friends claim was that he did.

And when did the insurrection start? Long before Lincoln did anything to the legislature of Maryland.

But Maryland was not having a rebellion or an insurrection. Supposedly they still possessed the same rights as any other Union State, yet Lincoln sent troops to arrest the state legislature and prevent them from conducting state business because he was afraid of the possibility they MIGHT vote for secession.

At that point, the Union was no longer a Democracy. It was an authoritarian system with Democratic trappings.

Maryland had not joined it, but the insurrection was started, and the president used some of his broad powers in the face of the insurrection to fight it, even in states which were not in insurrection.

"Broad powers" meaning any thing he wanted whether it was legal or not. Whether it was constitutional or not.

Just as the US Army was able to fight the forces of the insurrection in Maryland and Pennsylvania.

"Because Democracy is okay only so long as I get what I want." Right? Given his actions, if all 22 Union states had been against intervention, Lincoln would have simply decided what was better for them.

At what point does the Will of the President trump the will of the people?

So there's some critical mass of people that allows an area to declare itself a separate country along with all of its inhabitants, whether they wanted to or not? What is that number?

Well, Judging by the last election, I would say the number is around 52%.

Surely you can't believe that. That would mean that it's only pure popularity that allows such actions, and not any principle of human or natural law.

Popularity is based on the ability to enforce will. It is generally acknowledged that on average, one man is generally a match for another, and that equal numbers of men contesting with each other will leave the outcome as a matter of luck.

A majority skews the probabilities away from luck towards the will of the majority. By long history of agreement, it has been decided that a simple majority is sufficient to drastically change the nature of a society.

Numbers win the contest of wills, and it doesn't matter if the majority supports an evil position or not. Majorities elected both Reagan and Obama. It is indisputable that a majority will naturally tend to win a victory in combat, and so we agree to abide by a majority so as to avoid the consequences of a real test of wills.

There are certain things we call "divorce laws" and "divorce courts" that regulate how marriages are ended, how property is divided, and who owes who what.

Formalities which are inconsequential to this discussion.

So let's ask the question a different way: If a wife suddenly announces that half of the house (say, the whole first floor) is physically hers, that all your things in that part of the house are hers, and that she's hiring paid guns to protect it, do you have any recourse?

The flaw in your metaphor is that they ARE physically hers. They were hers before the marriage, and they should remain hers after the divorce.

Once again, does a man have a right to force his wife back against her will?

To be fair, they did attempt to assissinate Lincoln in Maryland. Further, they attempted to stuff DC with slave power militia units to prevent Lincoln from being inaugurated.

Fortunately Pinkerson sniffed out the assassination attempt,

So Pinkerton said. It could also have been a bugaboo. I read about that in Scientific American, I think. Wouldn't be surprised if it were true. Lincoln represented a very grave threat from their perspective. I suspect 600,000 more people might have survived had they succeeded.

and loyal US Army officers went around to the militia companies demanding that their officers execute a loyalty oath in front of their men. Those that refused were disbanded, the weapons collected, and the weapons issued to loyal companies.

Already invoking the trappings of tyrannical rule. Kings throughout history demanded loyalty oaths. Hitler also demanded loyalty oaths. That's one reason the German army was so maniacal.

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?

It is human nature to force everything we deal with into neat little Cubbyholes because yes/no decisions are easy to understand. Percentages and probabilities are not. Much of mathematics is efforts to simplify complex equations into simple, yes/no answers.

We want definite boundaries of transition between one state and another, we want clear lines of demarcation, we want go or no go solutions to our equations. We want binary answers, though the world is full of analogue problems.

If Cuba fires an rpg at Guantanamo, is that an act of war? If they fire a dozen, is that an act of war? How many mortars have landed across the DMZ in Korea, and it's still not a war?

I think a reasonable answer as to whether or not something is an act of war will depend quite a lot on circumstances beyond just one aspect.

I think the boundary designating an "act of war" will move, depending on who is firing what at whom for how long and for what reasons. Cuba and the Southern states are not analogous. You'll grant your Brother indulgences that you wouldn't grant a stranger.

Had it been in Lincoln's mind to ignore the attack, he could have done so. If the President told everyone to stand down, that's what would have happened. It wasn't and he didn't.

No, the Confederates made the stupidest possible blunder by taking that toy away. They should have let the large kid play with it till he got tired of it, and left.

Their pride simply would not be restrained, and many people thereafter suffered for it.

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.

That's a theory worthy of the Rothchilds and the Billdeburgers. Might be something to it, but it's asserting a great deal of understanding regarding the forces involved and likewise presuming that Abraham Lincoln was not the only manipulator rolling the dice with other people's lives.

It's still attacking their motives, and not addressing the principle that it is hypocritical of the USA to object to the very principle which created it; That people have a right to break away from one political body and form another. It is, in fact, the imposition of a sort of collective slavery on another people to compel them to remain with a system of governance which they no longer want.

As you have a habit of not quoting the message to which you are responding, in the interest of clarity I have performed that task for you.

DL wrote: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.

It isn't a "non" sequitur, it is a completely valid sequitur. Your argument was "The War was over Slavery. Slavery was bad. Therefore I win."

My response was to point out that there is ample evidence to prove that the Union (Lincoln) was willing to let slavery continue if they would just stop fighting.

If Slavery is Bad, anyone supporting it must also be bad. Ergo, our willingness to let them keep slavery makes us bad too.

See? Sequitur!

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.