Posted on 06/28/2013 12:23:43 AM PDT by neverdem
thanx for the link
No. Irritated by people twisting history to promote their agenda.
And most of all by those who portray their heroes as 21st century liberals somehow trapped in 1860s New York, or wherever.
There probably were some Copperheads who weren’t virulently racist. But then there were probably some Vietnam War opponents who hated Communism. But in neither case were they representative, and making a movie as if they were is being intentionally deceptive.
The Copperheads had some good points in their arguments. But then so did the Tories during our Revolution.
Thank goodness that you didn’t depict him as Hitler, LOL
We are discussing whether the notion of a radical Abolitionist Copperhead was historically feasible.
It isn't.
It has little to do with Tom Clancy.
Seems like lumping everyone in certain pigeon holes is a specialty of yours. Like the pigeon hole that says the common folk of the south were fighting for slavery. How ridiculous is that? Maybe they believed in states rights over all.
Seems like the vampire thing and Licoln caught on early.
As usual your “reasoning” as well as your provocations are so off the wall and offensive to normal people as to be self-defeating. Do you not recognize why we encourage you to post so much? LOL
That cartoon is 150 years old. It says vampire on it. It is what it is.
It’s your promotion of it that makes you the fool.
Duh.
I posted it without comment. So you are now into suppressing history, you got your thug thing going today?
That's an amusingly non-self-aware statement.
Like the pigeon hole that says the common folk of the south were fighting for slavery.
The "common folk" of the South didn't all fight for the Confederacy. Quite a few fought for the Union.
Those who did fight for the Confederacy fought - in principle - for the Confederate Constitution, which guaranteed perpetual slavery in all its territories.
Maybe they believed in states rights over all.
"States rights" is an inherently incoherent notion. States are governments. They have powers, not rights.
Only individuals have rights.
Allow me to quote the Vice President of the Confederacy, in a public speech in Savannah, soon after President Lincoln was inaugurated:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions — African slavery as it exists among us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
Was the Vice President of the Confederacy wrong? Did this speech - published throughout Southern newspapers - excite controversy and disagreement?
Did any other Confederate statesman come forward and say: "With all due respect, Vice President Stephens is wrong. This conflict has absolutely nothing to do with slavery! It's all about the states rights!"
They did not. Because the Confederate Constitution weakened the states that joined it by taking away their power to decide whether slavery was legal or illegal within their boundaries.
That power was taken out of the hands of the states by the federal government of the Confederacy, giving the Confederate federal government more power over its states that the United States did.
The Confederate Constitution specifically stated that it was a permanent federal government and contained the same provisions as the US Constitution regarding federal supremacy and federal authorization to put down insurrections against the federal government.
Your derangement convinces me that this novel was probably based on fact. It was written by a Yankee, about Yankees for Yankees.
You're becoming more of a caricature of yourself every day ;-)
Discussing history with you is like discussing the subject of murder with Charles Manson.
Ouch!
Discussing history with you is like discussing revisionism with......you!
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.