Posted on 10/13/2003 7:07:18 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
When George Ewert , director of the Museum of Mobile, wrote a stinging movie review of the Civil War film "Gods and Generals," he likely did not expect an equally harsh critique from Mayor Mike Dow .
Ewert's review, "Whitewashing the Confederacy (SPLC link)," was not kind to the Ted Turner film.
"'Gods and Generals' is part of a growing movement that seeks to rewrite the history of the American South, downplaying slavery and the economic system that it sustained. In museums, schools and city council chambers, white neo-Confederates are hard at work in an effort to have popular memory trump historical accuracy," the city employee wrote.
And this: "It is cloying and melo dramatic, and its still characters give an endless series of ponderous, stilted speeches about God, man and war."
In turn, Dow was not kind to Ewert, reprimanding the city employee in a Friday letter. The mayor called Ewert's review unnecessarily strongly worded, inflammatory and counterproductive.
"Why, in your very public position with all the local 'Southern Heritage' controversy that city leaders have had to manage and after several years of a hard-fought political calming of this issue, would you inject yourself so strongly and carelessly into this topic in this manner?" the mayor wrote.
"I need for you to use your better judgment and please cease and desist publishing potentially inflammatory articles of this nature without your board chairman's or my awareness and approval. Leave that to others who have less to do."
The city, particularly Dow, has come under fire in the past from Southern heritage groups claiming unfair treatment.
Ewert's review was printed in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. The Montgomery-based organization's Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and extremist activities.
At the end of the movie review, there is a line that notes Ewert's position with the city.
Mobile City Council President Reggie Copeland also scolded Ewert, saying at last week's council meeting that he "would accept nothing less than a public apology. ... I am very displeased with that gentleman, and I want some action taken."
Copeland made the comments after hearing about the review but before reading it. He later told the Mobile Register that the review was "not as strong as I thought it would have been. ... I just wish he would have kept his mouth shut."
Ewert, contacted last week, declined comment except to say that he would be preparing a statement for Dow. In a letter to Dow dated Oct. 9 -- one day before Dow's letter -- Ewert said the review was written in his capacity as a historian and private individual.
"I regret that anyone may have taken my comments in a 'personal' matter," Ewert wrote. "My intent was not to offend but to offer a legitimate criticism and context for the movie in question, a privilege that should by rights be open to anyone. If, again, there were those who were offended by the movie review, I offer my apologies."
Don't shoot ...:
Area veterinarian Ben George , a Confederate Battle Flag and Confederate-heritage advocate, praised Dow for his response to the review. But George said Ewert did not apologize and should resign or be fired.
"He (Ewert) shot somebody; he said he's going to shoot somebody again," George said.
George in the past has made himself something of a thorn in Dow's side, organizing demonstrations in front of Dow's house, plastering posters criticizing the mayor during the last city election and using other tactics to push his Confederate heritage agenda.
George complained to Dow after reading Ewert's article. "My staff and I have had to deal with an unnecessary and increased fallout as a result of your article," Dow stated in his letter to Ewert.
George compared the situation to the firing of a Mobile police officer, accused of using the n-word and expressing a lack of interest in helping evacuate public housing residents in case of flooding.
Ewert, like the police officer, George said, has proven himself intolerant toward part of Mobile's population, namely Confederate heritage proponents like himself.
George said he and several others planned to speak at Tuesday's City Council meeting about Ewert's comments, along with concerns that Dow has not kept his word on settling previous disputes. But, he said, the speakers may reconsider.
The Emancipation Proclamation was signed January 1, 1863.
I have no idea.
Let's not change the subject. The Union was passionately involved in, and was gleefully enjoying the profits from being slavers long before the Confederacy existed.
For the Union to have then, much less carry on to this day, that they were the opponents of slavery, or of superior morality, is absolutely laughable.
The North, the Union was both favorable to slavery, and to an all powerful, centralized, federal government.
As all peoples throughout history have enslaved others, this is hardly a shame that only the Union should bear; it is a shame shared by all humanity.
However; unlike the Union, the South stood aginst socialism.
If you want to consider over 3 million people "few", I suppose you could say that. Two million was CSA president Jefferson Davis' estimate of confederate states slaves freed as of September of 1864, only 18 months after the EP was issued. Naturally, states in rebellion did not follow Lincoln's order. But the United States Army did follow it, and they enforced it so well that by June 19 of 1865, (Juneteenth day in Texas) there were no slaves left in areas that were in rebellion as of Jan of 1863. All told, over 3 million slaves were liberated by the EP.
Now, how did I know ahead of time that you really didn't think it mattered?
I'm asking again. What Northern states kept slaves after making those in the south free. Name just one of those "Northern states".
Bonus question: How many stars were on the Confederate Battle Flag.
That is from the quote on the link to the Emancipation Proclamation that said there were still Northern states with slaves--
Do you now agree there was "one" Northern staate.
Under what provision of the Constitution could Lincoln have issued an executive order to free slaves in areas not in rebellion?
Does it matter that the North did/did not keep slaves after those in the South were freed? Or, is that something you will decide only after finding out?
None that I know of.
So, you agree that there were slaves in NORTHERN states after the Emancipation Proclamation?
The Confederate government took pocession of all cotton crops for the duration of the war. They required all shipping to carry government goods free of charge. They set production quotas for a long list of materials. They pressed private labor into the war effort without compensation. They exerted control over the economy that Lincoln never even dreamed of. And of course, like all central planners, they bungled the hell out of it.
New York World, 7 January, 1863
No. I asked you to name the NORTHERN state that still had slavery! Is that so freaking hard for you to do? Just spit it out. Was it Vermont? Maine? Ohio? Michigan? Pennsylvania? I also asked how many stars were on the Confederate battle flag. Don't you know?
That's classic Ditto - what do you think the centralized banking/treasury and Clay's American System was about? They were central planners - centralizing powers.
The Union kept slaves after those in the Confederacy were freed.
If the Confederacy had freed their slaves, the Union would still have been against secession.
Explain how these facts fit with your contention that the war was about slavery.
Because, depending on exactly what you are talking about, I don't think it is a misrepresentation. I think the key misrepresentation is that slavery was the only issue, just as I think it is a misrepresentation to say it wasn't an issue at all. But that is hardly surprising given the complexity of life and the all too common simplifications that people rely on to make any sense of it. But as far as the United States being a single nation and not a loose collection of states, I think it is telling that Southerners didn't dance in the streets on 9/11 like the Palestinians because the Yankees finally got some pay back for their imperialism. And despite Washington excesses that most people on Free Republic probably agree upon, I don't see a whole lot of regret from people down South about being citizens of the United States as opposed to the CSA.
Your question has been answered three times!!
Save us the mambo lesson, and tell us the answer you obviously are waiting for.
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.