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 didn’t cry like a little girl to the mods, you’re growing up.
Which is far, far more than one could say about you.
As individuals, we have the right to renounce our American citizenship, but we don't individually or collectively have the right to renounce the American citizenship of our neighbors.
That's where the secessionists goofed up, albeit they did what they did for what they believed to be a real special cause. ;-)
And, they were damned lucky that President Jackson wasn't still the president.
It defines only what a state cannot do. (...)it defines the state and the federal relationship. You in post #792.
Do you understand the difference? As I said before, the Constitution also mentions Natural Born Citizenship. It defines what office a natural born citizen can hold. It doesn't, however, define what a natural born citizen is.
Ouch! Cut me to the quick again there Ralphie ;-)
Are your pants on? I know how excited that picture makes you.
Moving to Brazil to escape what they felt to be an intolerable environment in the United States took great courage on the part of the Confederados. I admire them. When they left the U.S., they didn't try to force their neighbors to join them.
You will note that it was also done with the approval of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Now if only the Southern states had tried that rather than rebelling then you would be living in the Confederate equivalent of a Blue State right now.
Gen. Pat Cleburne C.S.A. ... 2 Jan 1864
There were about 3 million Southerners who understood that meaning very well. Somehow Cleburne didn't seem to think of them in this rant.
Anyway, I have not relied exclusively on Northern teachers for an understanding of what happened back then. When I wanted to know why secessionists did what they did, I looked to their "secession declarations" for guidance. I found that the Mississippians who prepared Mississippi's Declaration of Secession were very frank about their motives and purposes. Slaves were viewed by them as the most valuable asset class in the world and they believed that secession was necessary to protect that asset class.
The secessionists were not naive. They knew that secession involved overthrowing the government of the United States (at least in the South) and they knew that governments are not overthrown without force and usually much violence. They also knew that revolutions sometimes fail.
Thank you for telling me about General Cleburne. He really must have been something special. ;-)
It is impossible to have a real discussion when you are at that ridiculous starting point. I reject that entire premise. There is something wrong with your ability to disseminate information, secession overthrows NOTHING.
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
Jeff Davis, President CSA
Which is sort of like saying that if I chop off your arms and legs, it can’t really be considered an assault because I left your liver intact.
My point is without the south life still went on in the USA, no problem. Actually the economy boomed.
Actually the transcontinental railroad wasn't completed until 1869. The first track for the Central Pacific was laid in Sacramento in August, 1863 and work on the Union Pacific didn't start until July 1865. And work on the Union Pacific was slowed because of the demand for railroad supplies caused by the war damage to the existing rail infrastructure in the US.
And westward expansion slowed considerably during the war--logical since most of the men who would have moved west were otherwise occupied. It picked up again after the war, thanks to the Homestead Act and a provision that waived a portion of the residency requirements in proportion to service in the United States Army.
I think Patrick Henry's view of the effect of the Constitution was more accurate. Henry argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it was apparent to him from the text of the proposed Constitution that its effect would be to convert the existing "confederation" of states into a "great consolidated government" created by "we the people of the United States" rather than "we the states." In short, Jeff Davis apparently refused to acknowledge what Patrick Henry saw as obvious.
As an individual, I have personal constitutional rights as an American citizen. I have first amendment rights to speech, religion and press. I have second amendment rights to own a personal firearm. I have the right to vote for individuals to represent me in the U.S. Congress. If my state proposes to sentence me to live in one of its dungeons or to kill me, I have a right to a trial, I have a right to be represented by an attorney, I have a right to be judged by a jury and a slough of other procedural rights. Also, I have the right to seek the assistance of a United States district court if my state chooses to disregard my rights under the United States Constitution. Jeff Davis's argument that secession does not affect the "internal affairs" within the seceding state ignores the fact that secession by my state immediately strips me of my American citizenship and immediately strips me of every one of my rights under the United States Constitution.
Do you know of a way for a state to secede without stripping American citizens within the seceding state of their American citizenship and of all of the constitutional rights that are afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution?
We have, as a nation, totally lost our way. The founders would be appalled at you in so many ways.
IMO The original "error" of including the BOR in the USC brought the whole Federal / individual relationship into play. That was not the purpose of the document as drafted. It's original purpose was to reign in the Federal's ability to concentrate power. The BOR just being in the USC elevated the Federal and watered down the whole intent.
We have nothing to discuss.
Well Mr. Franklin, we couldn't and didn't.
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.