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 ...
You don't like the word secede? How about the word Rebelled? Does that word suit you better?
Is it okay if they Rebelled? Let's see what is the difference.
se·cede
intransitive verb \si-ˈsēd\
se·ced·edse·ced·ing
Definition of SECEDE
: to withdraw from an organization (as a religious
communion or political party or federation)
— se·ced·er noun
reb·el
adjective \ˈre-bəl\
Definition of REBEL
1
a : opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler
b : of or relating to rebels
2
: disobedient, rebellious
Yeah, I think you're right. The Colonist Rebelled. Secession sounds a great deal more polite than what they did. Same principle though. They did not want to be part of their previous government.
Funny, that's how the Southern Delegations felt when they were continuously outvoted by the Northern Delegations on issues such as tariffs, manufacturing, imports and pretty much everything.
In congress, pretty much every vote was the Northern Alliance against the Southern Alliance, and they were forced to constantly accept legislation which hurt them, but not the North. Pretty much like Obamacare nowadays. All the Democrats are exempt, and only the Republicans can't get a waiver.
You and I both know that neither side gave a sh*t about the fort. It was just a toy being contested between two children.
Game, set, match.
Exactly. So nice of you to concede. They won, so their principles apply, not those of George.
The will of the President trumps the imagined will of the people when the President obeys the law and the people break the law.
The southern states had agreed to article 3 of th constituion, which required (not suggests) that states resolve controversies at the Supreme Court. Their pretended secession was not constitutional.
It was the southen theory. The supporters of the Slave Power thought it up.
Imagine: The government refusing to issue traitors weapons! Quelle Horror!
The issue of Slavery may have motivated them to secession, but Lincoln informs us that it wasn't sufficient reason to induce them to stop fighting, in spite of his best efforts to concede the issue.
What I read, is that they fought a WAR because someone invaded them with an army.
The Slave power had a seat. They just were in the habit of having enough seats to do whatever they wanted, and were losing that.
Yes, the war was over state’s rights. The Nothern states wanted the right to control their destiny, and the south rebelled because if they couldn’t control the northern states too, they didn’t want to play.
Noone invaded them when they started the war. Rather, they fired on US soldiers quietly occupying US property, and on an unarmed cargo ship after the insurrection, in violation of law, interfered with their supplies.
If the insurrection was for something that wasn’t evil, then more people would have supported it, absent coercion.
The southern armies were short of men because it was a bad cause. Because of that they resorted early to conscription, and over 40 regiments of southern men served in the US army to put down the insurrection.
I would suggest that Lincoln was not in office when the insurrection started.
Lincoln didn’t manipulate Senator Davis’ speech bidding farewell to the Senate.
Lincoln didn’t manipulate Davis when Davis called for 100,000 men from the states in insurrection to support Davis’ war against the United States.
By amendment it is 75% of the state legislatures, and 2/3rds of House and Senate.
By law it would be 50% plus 1 of the house and senate.
By rules of the Senate, it would require 60% for cloture.
For legal issues regarding a controversy between states, or between a state and the federal government, it would require a majority of the supreme court.
After a successful revolt, a subsequent treaty would require signature by the president and 2/3rds of the Senate. Of course if more than 1/3rd of the states were in insurrection, getting to 2/3rds of the states would be difficult, unless the states in insurrection stopped their insurrection for a day and sent their senators into the senate (the one they pretended to secede from) so they could ratify the treaty..
And we fought a war, and eventually won enough that we got a treaty.
The insurrection of 1860 didn’t reach that high standard. Mostly because their cause was so bad that people were easier to find to fight against it than to fight for it.
The principle remains that the Sovereign power can assert their claim on property within their dominion.
It applies to private property only.
Tell that to the Cherokees.
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.
Not so much. Presumably the people of the Confederacy paid those Federal taxes which were used to build that fort. Whatever share of the Federal assets which were paid for by their contributions to the treasury, ought by rights be returned to them.
I don't know it for a fact, (not yet anyway) but I wouldn't be surprised if we discovered that the Southern contributions to the treasury far exceed the value of any property they were contesting. Just a thought.
I can't really argue with you on that one. A rebellion over slavery?
Slavery was conceded by the Union, so it couldn't have been a war fought over slavery. It was fought for territorial integrity, especially after the Union army invaded.
I can't think of another instance where a section rebelled over something that trivial.
Once again, you are being intellectually dishonest. It wasn't a rebellion. Even the North pretty much agreed that the South had a right to secede. Seven States seceded before Fort Sumter with no mobilization of Union troops.
If you were being honest, you would admit that no efforts to stop them were made until AFTER ft. Sumter. Were your theory correct, the announcement of secession should have brought an immediate reaction from the Union Army. It. Did. Not.
Any theory you advance is going to have to deal with that huge time delay between secession and action by the North.
That long delay puts the lie to any claims of "unlawful secession" and "Slavery" as the reason for a war.
The Confederacy chose war to further their secession claims. You can't divorce one from the other.
The issue of Slavery may have motivated them to secession, but Lincoln informs us that it wasn't sufficient reason to induce them to stop fighting, in spite of his best efforts to concede the issue.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What I read, is that they fought a WAR because someone invaded them with an army.
Had the Confederacy not started the war then there would have been no reason for anyone to invade them.
And of course, no notice of the President breaking the law will be taken. Sort of like the one we have now, don't you think?
Their pretended secession was not constitutional.
It was extra-Constitutional, deriving it's right from a higher power, as outlined in the Previously issued separation document.
The bottom line is this: You believe in slavery, provided YOU get to be the master.
That's enough of this stuff for me today. Later.
The fact remains that per the 5th Amendment private property cannot be taken without just compensation. States cannot take federal property nor can the federal government take state property.
Tell that to the Cherokees.
Whatever.
Not so much. Presumably the people of the Confederacy paid those Federal taxes which were used to build that fort. Whatever share of the Federal assets which were paid for by their contributions to the treasury, ought by rights be returned to them.
A case might be made for that. But such a matter would be a subject of discussion between both sides of the issue. The South wasn't interested in that. They took everything they could get their hands on and repudiated any responsibility for debt and other obligations. Why should the other states go along with that?
I don't know it for a fact, (not yet anyway) but I wouldn't be surprised if we discovered that the Southern contributions to the treasury far exceed the value of any property they were contesting. Just a thought.
Possible, but irrelevant. Sumter was the property of the federal government. Or, if you prefer, the property of all the states not just the Southern ones. Legally the South had no right to claim it.
Slavery was conceded by the Union, so it couldn't have been a war fought over slavery. It was fought for territorial integrity, especially after the Union army invaded.
Slavery was the motivation for the Southern secession. War was the means they chose to further their attempts at secession. So it is accurate to state that the Confederacy launched their war to defend slavery. And had they not launched their war then there would have been no invasion.
Once again, you are being intellectually dishonest. It wasn't a rebellion.
Sure it was.
Even the North pretty much agreed that the South had a right to secede. Seven States seceded before Fort Sumter with no mobilization of Union troops.
Failure to resort to violence right off the bat was not an admission by the North that the South had a right to secede.
If you were being honest, you would admit that no efforts to stop them were made until AFTER ft. Sumter.
No attempts were made to force the issue until after the Confederacy started the war. But at no time did Lincoln or Congress recognize the Southern secession as legitimate or view them as an independent country. Neither did any other country for that matter.
Were your theory correct, the announcement of secession should have brought an immediate reaction from the Union Army.
Why? Did Andrew Jackson immediately send the troops to South Carolina when they tried nullification in 1832? The South was eager for war, the North was not.
That long delay puts the lie to any claims of "unlawful secession" and "Slavery" as the reason for a war.
Nonsense.
Your warrant appears to be that the northerners vis-à-vis Lincoln not only wanted, but engineered war with the south. I reject that premise as utterly without merit.
My assertion is that the slaverocracy worked to create and exploit division and sectionalism between the states. They saw the writing on the wall regarding the eventual demise of slavery and used the pretext of Lincoln’s election to breakaway so that they could keep it forever. Their actions weren’t thoughtful or measured, it wasn’t a proportional response, it was arbitrary and unilateral and it was done with a maximum amount of belligerence.
Lincoln wasn’t a pushover like Buchanan but he was conciliatory as well as determined. He tried to avoid confrontation and hoped that southerners would come to their senses and return to the fold. His assassination was the reason why Reconstruction took such a harsh tone. People were outraged and wanted to (unfairly) punish the south for his murder.
Imagine now if assassins had gotten him on his way to Washington on the first days of his presidency. What do you suppose the reaction to such an outrage would be? Lincoln eased his way into war with the rebels with the utmost reluctance. Add a violent murder into the mix and the response from the north would have been no holds barred.
We would have been two nations at war in perpetuity.
Another Lost Cause Loser who would put words in others peoples mouths. You are hopeless.
Baloney.
The south dominated American politics for most of the 70 years leading up to their rebellion.
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.