Skip to main content

Pro-Constitution? What the hell does that mean?

I know a thing or two about Constitutional Law and the history of the United States Constitution. I am a lifetime student of and, once upon a time, practiced U.S. Constitutional Law. But this idea of "Pro-Constitution", as in "Pro-Constitution Movie of the Year" had previously eluded me. I know about "origionalist Constitutional theorists like Justices Scalia and Thomas. But I'd never heard of "Pro-Constitution". Had I missed something? Had I missed something important?

I couldn't figure out what they meant. I mean, I'm pro-Constitution, in almost every sense. Hell, I used to make my living off of it. I certainly don't favor its overthrow or the sundering of the political union created under it. But, what in the hell is this movie talking about with it's references to patriots perceived as traitors and Civil War era imagery?

I became curious about to whom this film's distributors thought this film would appeal, politically. I wanted to find out how the term "Pro-Constitution" is being used in current discourse and to learn what the movie, which opened yesterday, is about, not to see it, but to regard the political implications of the way it is being marketed.  

I went digging a little farther. It isn't pretty, but you can follow me out into the tall grass if you want to know what turned up.

What really started me thinking was the internet site where I found the ad pictured above promoting the film, of which I had never previously heard. I had clicked on a link in a post by Kos. It took me to The American Conservative, a nonpartisan think tank offering right wing-nuttiness for those sort of allergic to nuts. So, along with the the ad's content, the targeting of the ad to a conservative website started me out suspicious that I was looking at a right wing propaganda film. Then, Google and her cousins led me straight to guns and fear of sharia law when I searched "pro-Constitution".

None of this surprised me. I know this director, Ron Maxwell. Both of Maxwell's previous directorial high points are mentioned on the movie poster, Gettysburg and Gods and Generals and I own both, in VHS. You know how it is . . . Dad likes history . . . Dad has Civil War books . . . It's Fathers Day. We'll get him this movie. These films were actually TV miniseries about the Civil War, sort of an almost straight to video thing. As history, particularly the battle history at Gettysburg, Maxwell's past films aren't abysmally inaccurate. But the point about Maxwell is that his love for ole time Southern gentlefolk and the heroic leaders of defeated Dixie drips all over his past films like Karo Syrup oozing from a slice of pecan pie.

BTW, Dad does love history And even before delving into the film or the book on which it is based, Dad knew from the title that the film was likely to be about Copperheads, a dissident, peace faction of Union Democrats during the Civil War. They generally thought it better to let the South go peacefully with whatever institutions it desired to burden itself.

So, what is the story of Copperhead the film? Those prone to queasiness should stop reading now.

It is the story of Abner Beech, whose opposition to the Civil War threatened a community's very existence with "fire, rope, knife, and betrayal". According to the movie website:

Based on the extraordinary novel by Harold Frederic, who witnessed these conflicts firsthand as a small child, Copperhead tells the story of Abner Beech, a stubborn and righteous farmer of Upstate New York, who defies his neighbors and his government in the bloody and contentious autumn of 1862. - See more at: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/...
The reference is to Harold Frederic, a 19th Century novelist of some repute who was himself only six years old in 1862. So, anybody know about that terrible autumn of 1962 in upstate New York? Anybody? Bueller? How about you, Wikipedia?
The Copperheads sometimes talked of violent resistance, and in some cases started to organize. They never actually made an organized attack, however. As war opponents, Copperheads were suspected of disloyalty, and their leaders were sometimes arrested and held for months in military prisons without trial. One famous example was General Ambrose Burnside's 1863 General Order Number 38, issued in Ohio, which made it an offense (to be tried in military court) to criticize the war in any way. The order was used to arrest Ohio congressman Clement L. Vallandigham when he criticized the order itself. Lincoln, however, commuted his sentence while requiring his exile to the Confederacy.
So, there was certainly tension and drama, here and there, the most prominent case being the military governor in Ohio who got out of hand and trampled the 1st Amendment in the name of wartime security and arrested a Congressman. Nothing about terrible troubles of suppressed Copperheads in upstate New York in 1862.  The kind of government overstepping that history does record is double plus ungood. But it is also not the threatening of an upstate New York farming community with its very existence in the terrible autumn of 1862.  Well, its Wikipedia. You can't count on that.

Let's ask a real encyclopedia. What do you say, Britannica?

Nearly all Copperheads were Democrats, but most Northern Democrats were not Copperheads. Copperhead strength was mainly in the Midwest (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois), where many families had Southern roots and where agrarian interests fostered resentment of the growing dominance of industrialists in the Republican Party and federal government.

In addition, groups opposed to conscription and emancipation—e.g., the Irish population in New York City, who feared that freed Southern blacks would come north and take jobs away—backed such Peace Democrat leaders as Horatio Seymour, Fernando Wood, and Clement L. Vallandigham. Copperheads also drew strength from the ranks of those who objected to Lincoln’s abrogation of civil liberties and those who simply wanted an end to the massive bloodshed.

Well, OK, Britannica, but what about "the bloody and contentious autumn of 1862" in upstate New York where little Harold Frederic was entering primary school? What about the terrible repression of Copperheads witnessed by little Harold Frederic in New York in 1862, Britannica?
In 1862 the Copperheads organized the Knights of the Golden Circle, which successively became the Order of American Knights and the Sons of Liberty. Although Republicans accused these groups of treasonable activities, there is little evidence to support the accusation. Most Copperheads were more interested in maintaining the existence of the Democratic Party and defeating Republican opponents for public office than they were in participating in any disloyal activities.
So, the furious repression of, I suppose "Pro-Constitution", Copperhead patriot perceived as traitor, Abner Beech, which dramatically threatened his entire community with fire, knife and rope, in the autumn of 1862, ended, one presumes, when New York elected Copperhead, Horatio Seymour, Governor. Or, maybe no such thing ever happened at all, to be witnessed by little Harold Frederic or anyone else.

The film, of course, is based upon a novel which, necessarily is fiction. But it is preposterous to believe the late 19th Century author of the novel, on which Maxwell based his film, witnessed events even remotely like those depicted in the movie's story that history somehow overlooked in an age when everyone wrote letters and journals.  

Perhaps Frederic's Uncle Anton had a sad about the war when Harry was a tyke and it traumatized him enough to spew forth as a novel years later. Harold Frederic wrote many novels and was a noteworthy author who left America at age 30 and never returned.

But, I guess that being pro-Constitutional doesn't mean being even slightly faithful to objective reality or actual history. Mythologies are perfectly acceptable explanations for events in the psychological terrariums where most conservatives abide.

So, now a deceptive, cripto-historical film comes along in the guise of an homage to the tradition of American political dissent and the promoters want to sell tickets and DVD's to the gun nuts and the anti-Sharia nuts, helping them to promote their claim to be "PRO-CONSTITUTIONAL".  Well, they can't have the Constitution. I'm pro-Constitutional, too. It belong to us all.  

We cannot allow the worst nutcases on the American political right to co-opt the U. S. Constitution as something especially belonging to them and not to those who oppose them. Dare I say this? They cling to their guns and religion. The good news is that they can't maintain their demographic position. As a rear guard action, they try to steal the Constitution for their own on their way out the door.

Well, they can't have it.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

    by LeftOfYou on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:32:21 PM PDT

  •  DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim / Offender) (6+ / 0-)

    People who get elected yapping about the "Constitution" write blatantly unconstitutional laws, and they come back again and again and again looking for gaps in the Constitution. Most Constitutions are very short, so you can truthfully say that there is no right to vote, there is no right to habeas corpus, there is no right to privacy. So people that run on the "Constitution" are basically signalling their goal of destroying constitutional rule.

    "Save Social Security" means destroy Social Security.

    The Federalist Society represents the anti-Federalist "states rights" neoconfederates, just the opposite of its name

    People like Scalia who have spent decades complaining about "activist judges who legislate from the bench" now say it's the courts job to legislate from the bench and reverse the legislative branch....just because.

    People who claim to be fighting "Fascism" are generally spewing most of the classic Fascist talking points.

    People who claim to fighting "racism" can certainly be found on white supremacist web sites and hoarding ammo for their fantasy "race war."

    People who claim to be filled with love are likely to be sidetracked by apocalyptic fantasies where they hunt down and kill anyone that disagrees with them.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 03:16:48 PM PDT

    •  There always seems to be some special interest (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob

      willing to edit whatever was written previously to add on something more besides, for which reason I think the document should be referred to not as the thesis, antithesis, or synthesis of the founding fathers thinking but rather its parenthesis.

      Since the Constitution was adopted, it has been amended twenty-seven times. The first ten of amendments (along with two others that were not ratified at the time) were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and were ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.[3] These first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.
      Originally it gave all the power to the Congress which was supposed to represent the States in the Confederation rather than specifically the interests of we the people.
      The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America.[4] It was drafted by the Continental Congress in mid-1776 to late 1777, and formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. The chief problem with the new government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, "no money.
      The "we better give the people a voice so they will own it and pay the bills" part came in 1787
      On February 21, 1787, the Articles Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government. Unlike earlier attempts, the convention was not meant for new laws or piecemeal alterations, but for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The convention was not limited to commerce; rather, it was intended to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." The proposal might take effect when approved by Congress and the states.[13]
      Then Federalists decided there was a need for a Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of what the plutocracy as opposed to we the people  wanted.

      The Supreme Court was organized on February 2, 1790, three years after the constitution was written by its founders.

      The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[7] Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[8][9] and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[10][11][12][13]
      It was 11 years after the constitution was framed before the Supreme Court managed to give itself judicial review, and it was the period of the Copperheads in which the Taney Court operated that first held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects

      Thus Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on some subjects by preventing the lower courts from hearing them

      The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.[18] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[19] which may have helped precipitate the Civil War.[20] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution[13] and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[21] Adair v. United States).[22]

      Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

      by rktect on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:36:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for mentioning the "Federalist" thing. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chmood

      Even people on this site who disagree with the mindset of groups like the Federalist Society still call it "federalism."  Which it's not.

  •  Copperheads went to dustbin of history long time (6+ / 0-)

    back. This is just part of the Lost Cause B.S. baloney that the wingnuts indulge in.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:20:58 PM PDT

  •  I didn't realize it was an apocalyptic biker movie (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LeftOfYou, happymisanthropy, devtob

    but since it has Peter Fonda in it, it must be.

    As for the constitution being stolen by the crazies on their way out the door, I'm sure the brain eating zombies will get them before they get far.

    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

    by rktect on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:36:59 PM PDT

    •  Ah, Peter Fonda. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob

      Called President Obama "a fucking traitor" over the government's handling of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as I recall. Perhaps his turn in Copperhead will prove as gripping as his Mephistopheles in the priceless classic, Ghost Rider.

      "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

      by LeftOfYou on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:29:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds like more Tea-rrorist wank material. (4+ / 0-)

    And Scalia and Thomas are "originalists" my balls - they're make-shit-upists.  We would still be British if they had anything to do with it, but that wouldn't matter because Britain would still be a Roman province if they had anything to do with that.  And Rome would still be a monarchy if they'd been involved in that decision.  So basically we'd be fucking Etruscans if those pieces of primeval amphibian shit had been involved in the key decisions of Western history.

    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

    by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:18:19 PM PDT

  •  The 'pro-Constitution' promotion (0+ / 0-)

    gives away that the movie hopes to find an audience among the tea party minority, which is always blathering about how everything Obama does is against the Constitution.

    It didn't find much of that audience on its opening day Friday -- it grossed so little (less than $255K) that it did not earn a mention at Box Office Mojo's estimate of Friday's top 14 movies.

    A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

    by devtob on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 10:47:02 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site