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.
No, you did not ---
You asked some one else --- but I gave you four states with a reference in post 75.
"freaking" is so juvenile.
You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves.....
-- Jefferson Davis, Sept. 2, 1864
ROTFLMAO. And if Hitler had only been a pacifist and Stalin had only been a humanitarian ....
Which post did you name a NORTHERN state? And how many stars were on the CSA battle flag?
I know that I'm shocked....we are all shocked here.
Where did I say that? The Confederates seceeded over slavery with the "Black Republicans" and Black Lincoln" as the excuses. The War was about preserving the Union.
Here's an British view of the EP:
"The only possible effect of the Proclamation would be the dreaded servile insurrection...Either a slave rising or nothing. Lincoln's inconsistency was regarded as proven by two things: his earlier denial of any lawful right or wish to free the slaves; and, especially, his not freeing the slaves in "loyal" Kentucky and other United States areas...."Vanauken, 1989
But, that is obviously not the answer you have practiced rebutting in front of the mirror. I can tell your anxious, and believe you have something interesting prepared.
So, help us out here. What answer is it you want?
In the very next sentence.
"The Confederates seceeded over slavery"
Also; how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood? I know this is as relevant as your "stars" question.
[source-- The Civil War - Illustrade History, by Geoffrey C. Ward, with Ric Burns and Ken Burns, page 181]
I guess you don't know how many there were, or even that the number is significant.
Actually it was signed in September 1862 and went into effect January 1863 but that's not the point. Slavery officially ended in the southern states the same time it ended in Kentucky and Deleware, December 1865 when the 13th Amendment went into effect. There is no reason to believe that some of the slaves that had been held in areas exempted by the Emancipation Proclamation were not still in bondage at that time.
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/secession was about slavery.
Guess? Guess!!
Whatever helps hide your shame.
Now, you tell me, how much wood?
Bullshit. Who was it who placed a levy on agricultural production 'for the war effort'? The Davis regime. Who mandated that privately owned merchant ships had to reserve a percentage of their cargo space for the government? The Davis regime. Who proposed income taxes at levels far above those implemented in the North? The Davis regime. Who nationalized idustries like salt and liquor and textiles? The Davis regime. Who forced soldiers to remain in the ranks far after their enlistment was over? The Davis regime. Who implemented internal passports be required for any travel by any person, black or white? The Davis regime. Who forced the government into the private lives of their people to an extent never seen before or since? The Davis regime? So who were the socialists here?
If the south had freed their slaves, they would have had no reason to secede in the first place.
But lets look at the mercantilist agenda of the American system - internal improvements, railroad subsidies, centralized banking, the greenback dollar, corporate welfare, protectionism, special interest groups.
Grant's administration, complete with the new "lobbyists" was a disaster when these scanadlous activities got out of hand.
The North proudly fought for an all powerful, centralized government. The South fought against it.
The same war continues to this day. Only, the names aren't "Union" and "Confederacy". Today they are "Liberals" and "Conservatives".
The tactics remain the same, though. You know, 'the south is bigoted and racist, and would still practise slavery today if they could', and 'Republicans want to starve children, rape the rain forest, and kick old folks into the street'. Same old twisting of events, and monsterous lies about their opponent.
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.