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 ...
Nope. Here's a neat site showing CSA deaths by state. NC and VA are roughly tied, with AL not far behind.
Since VA had a population of 1.2M or so, and NC about 1M, NC lost a slightly higher percentage of its men. But nowhere near double.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html
It's surprising how unevenly the deaths were distributed.
The idea that a copperhead aka “peace democrat” would be part of the underground railroad is a sick joke meant to whitewash that fact that northern democrats never did switch parties like the modern liberals try and push with the the myth of the southern strategy...
You have succinctly explained why BOTH sides lost the war.
Be sure to fire the first shot.
The South did not institute any embargo until after Lincoln attacked Sumter and Pensacola.
Virginia has always wanted the top spot in battlefield deaths. In 1866 they were in fourth place. For 140 years they’ve been counting. So we say that NC and Virginia are basically tied in battlefield deaths. I can deal with that.
NC, with fewer men, sent some 132 thousand men to fight for the cause, compared to Virginia’s 120,000. Maybe their still counting these numbers too.
Actually - be sure to get er done in one shot...
Here’s an interesting discussion of the issue.
What it probably comes down to is that the numbers are too incomplete to provide a really accurate answer. The Union Army figures are reasonably complete and accurate. CSA, not so much.
Lincoln was elected as per the Constitution, that’s all you need to know or worry about.
Mos sources say 120,000 men from Virginia served in the Confederate Army. 133,000 from North Carolina served in the Confederate Army. North Carolina was the only state that provided it’s men with uniforms and after the war compiled the best records of any other state. They also provided free prostetics to men who has lost limbs, and a pension for anyone that applied, including black confederates. No accurate number of black confederates that served or were killed has been accomplished, at least I have not heard of one.
The south won last time. The insurrection was put down, and the vicious and wealthy plantation owners that enslaved black and white lost the power to enslave.
"The Constitution of No Authority" is an interesting read. It's available via Gutenberg
Lincoln won a majority of the votes that mattered. Even if the Democrats ran a single candidate and got all the votes that they got with different candidates, Lincoln would have won.
The party of slavery just wasn’t very popular in most of the country.
Perhaps you mean ‘differently biased’.
I thought that only about 250,000 Americans died in the war--the rest were Yankees.
The south started the insurrection and war to protect, further, and extend the institution of human slavery.
The United States put down their violent insurrection.
My personal choice would be a study of the 1st Alababama Cavalry, the cavalry unit that General Sherman trusted above all others.
But there would not be any Slavery for which the south would start their insurrection.
Unless you propose an insurrection to restore slavery?
But he did receive an absolute majority of the votes in enough states to be elected. So even if the Democrats had united behind Douglas, Lincoln still would have won.
Edmund Ruffin in April 1861? Or Edmund Ruffin in June 1865?
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.