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

Politico ^ | July 29, 2013 | Patrick Gavin

[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.”

[central_va]

Bubba, are you serious? The entire USC defines the roll of FedGov and state. Even you are not that stupid. I did a search on the word state in the USC, 100 matches.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Again, you don't appear to read your own posts. You said that the Constitution defines states. It doesn't. It says what states can and can't do, but that isn't the same thing. States can't coin money, but neither can I, and I'm certainly not a state.

The Constitution also mentions "natural born citizen," but as we well know, it doesn't actually define that term, either.

And it's "role,' not "roll."

[0.E.O]

So, any further inaccuracies you wish to share?

No, I think two are enough. Though to be completely accurate we may both be wrong about North Carolina. The account I have states that the convention that met on May 20th was made up of the same people who had been elected to the first convention that voted secession down and not as a result of a new election.

Now good luck in getting your Lost Causer buddy to admit his errors.

[central_va]

I actually work, and cant always proof read everything.

[central_va]

Like you compadre, are you going to sully the Confederacy’s secession and equivocate it to a cup-de-sac seceding from the county? If so, don’t wonder why so many people think it is the FR Federal boot licking fools that deserve derision.

[central_va]

Again, you don't appear to read your own posts. You said that the Constitution defines states. It doesn't.

This post proves once more that you are just plain ignorant. The whole point of the USC is to allow states to "do their own thing". With the only limits being those duties specifically reserved for the Federal. Teaching you is such a waste of time....

[central_va]

cup-de-sac = cul-de-sac

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Sorry, but you're still not showing where the Constitution defines what a state is, which is your original claim.

Teaching you is such a waste of time....

Did it ever occur to you that you're the one who needs to be schooled?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You still haven’t explained why it’s only states that have the right to declare themselves to now be a different country.

[rockrr]

But you don’t teach - you hector. And even hectoring might be excusable if you were correct, but you aren’t.

Perhaps that is why the misspellings and homophony become so amusing. ;-)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You might want to look up the meaning of “equivocate,” too. Perhaps you meant “equate.”

[central_va]

It defines only what a state cannot do. It defines what the Federal is supposed to do. It defines the limits of both and therefore it defines the state and the federal relationship. IMO it makes the state the superior to the Federal in almost everything. Split hairs with one of your Lincoln butt buddies....

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[central_va]

You might want to look up the meaning of “equivocate,” too. Perhaps you meant “equate.”

Yes equate, not equivocate. I stand corrected. Well answer the question. Do you "equate"?

[central_va]

Perhaps that is why the misspellings and homophony become so amusing.

Hectoring? You deserve worse, much worse.

[central_va]

You still haven’t explained why it’s only states that have the right to declare themselves to now be a different country.

So you think they way West Virginia became a state is silly? Hypocrites....

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I see very little difference between a state unilaterally declaring itself to now be a different country and a cul-de-sac unilateral declaring itself to be a different country. Both of them are absolutely illegal under the US Constitution, but both have a natural right of rebellion, and upon winning said rebellion, either would then be independent countries.

[rockrr]

C'mon cva - use your brain! The reason why the secession of West Virginia and the attempted secession of the southern states is not analogous is because West Virginia didn't attempt unilateral secession. It's their adherence to legal process that made and kept it legitimate.

[central_va]

I see very little difference between a state unilaterally declaring itself to now be a different country and a cul-de-sac unilateral declaring itself to be a different country. Both of them are absolutely illegal under the US Constitution, but both have a natural right of rebellion, and upon winning said rebellion, either would then be independent countries.

A comment both wrong and stupid, a double bagger.

[rockrr]

Hey, that reminds me - did you ever go back to see if your stupid picture is still posted? You seemed to be having a heavy flow day over that one ;-)

[central_va]

West Virginia became a state following the Wheeling Conventions and broke away from Virginia during the American Civil War. The new state was admitted to the Union on June 20, 1863, and was a key Civil War border state. West Virginia was the only state to form by seceding from a Confederate state and was one of two states formed during the American Civil War (the other being Nevada, which separated from Utah Territory).

It's only ok when you guys do it.