'Gods and Generals' ... and an angry Mayor Dow

Mobile Register ^ | 10/13/03 | Jim Van Anglen

[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.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"Try again. Missouri and Maryland ended slavery by January 1865. Kentucky and Deleware lost their slaves in December 1865,..."

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed January 1, 1863.

The EP only applied to areas where the insurgents had control. If you actually -read- the EP, you'll that the state of Tennessee is not mentioned, because it was largly under the control of the lawful government.

Walt

[gatex]

"The EP only applied to areas where the insurgents had control."

That was part of my point.

[gatex]

"If you actually -read- the EP,...."

I posted a link to the Emancipation Proclamation in post 81.

[x]

I guess it comes down to a question of different tastes. The scenes of Jackson dying looked excessively long and drawn out to me. True, Stonewall did take a long time dying, but did we have to see it all to get the point? I don't think Maxwell made the case for lingering so excruciatingly long on this one death among all the other deaths of the war. It's clear that he was trying to make Jackson the point that held the film together, but not everyone will agree that he succeeded.

19th century Americans did go on as Jackson and the other characters do and did get overly sentimental, but it doesn't go over well with 21st century audiences. I don't object to the sentimental use of the servant, the child and the wife to humanize Jackson, but it didn't have to applied so thickly.

Maxwell and Lang did try to give us different sides of Jackson's character, though one can certainly argue about the balance. Some have alleged that the scenes of Jackson and his servant attributed views to the General that he didn't express in the historical record. But the film also showed something of the cruel or callous side of Jackson as well as the tender-hearted side he showed to his "esposita."

Sometimes, "less is more." A good director would have been able to make less talk mean more to the audience. If you are a die-hard fan of Stonewall, you probably took it all in gratefully, but the static, tableau-like quality of the film undercut its virtue of historical accuracy even for some viewers who would be receptive to historical dramas or epics.

Tolstoy understood that he couldn't make Napoleon or the Tsar or General Kutuzov the hero of "War and Peace." And Margaret Mitchell knew better than to take Johnston or Hood as her protagonist. Characters from actual history, generals and statesmen, tend to make fictions into static pageants or chronicles. Fictional characters give the author an opportunity to explore and move around against the backdrop of history. They can be more alive than the great heroes of history, and following them can be more of an adventure and less of a lesson. In Tolstoy and Mitchell you get to see both the official rhetoric and the underside of the war. "official story."

Actual historical figures are too nailed down by facts and sources and the rhetoric of their day makes them inaccessible to contemporary viewers. So one either distorts them to make them modern figures or leaves them as they were and very alien to modern ways of looking at the world. In both "War and Peace" and "Gone with the Wind" the main characters are links between their own day and present-day mentalities, and it works well.

Shaara and Maxwell showed daring in choosing to focus on the generals, but I don't think all of Maxwell's choices paid off. Maybe he'd have benefited from "bridge" characters who unite our own ways of thinking with those of his characters (as Pierre and Natasha, or Rhett and Scarlett do) rather than plunging 21st century viewers into the speeches and sentiments of 19th century military leaders.

It's good to have a lot of the war recreated on film and Maxwell's ambition is admirable, but I don't think "Gods and Generals" works well as a movie. I think maybe Maxwell misjudged his medium. I haven't read the novel, but it might have worked better as a miniseries with each episode focused around a different battle.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"If you actually -read- the EP,...."

I posted a link to the Emancipation Proclamation in post 81.

That makes your previous comments hard to fathom.

The 13th amendment, which President Lincoln worked hard to pass, was the agent for the end of slavery in this country.

Walt

[donmeaker]

I will go beyond what you say. Slavery for the Roman Republic was an act of mercy. Before that, they simply killed the captured enemy out of hand, perhaps with a few saved for the triumpant parade. Many symbols of freedom come from Roman society, to include the cap of liberty (see the Army seal) and the striking of a freed slave with a "vindicta" stick to "vindicate" him. Also from Rome comes the law that kills all slaves in a household, if any one slave murders his master. The Greeks may also have had such a law? What have you found? I would rather look through the code of Draconis, rather than the code of Solon for it.

Of course the Bible describes slaves in Egypt. The american indians also had slaves, but also had a tradition of adopting the people they enslaved, joining them to their family. I have no illusions that American Indians were kinder or gentler than others. All slave owning people have natural affection for people with whom they spend time. Such natural human affections are only submerged by fear. When the slaves outnumber the owners plus the non-slaves, fear is the natural result.

The first movement of slaves in modern African history was Nigerians moved by the Dutch into Ghana, to work in the gold mines. The Dutch occupied the trading posts, now one of the tourist landmarks along the coast of Ghana. Later Slaves were more profitable than gold. Absolutly, the Dutch were involved up tho their eyebrows with slavery. However, the first africans imported for slavery came into Virginia before 1617, before the Dutch "Neu Amsterdam" colony was established. Therefore slavery in the south was NOT established by the North.

1617- "Symon the Negro" is condemned to become a slave to the colony during the Governor’s pleasure.
Nicholas Gabriel, a white man, is sentenced to become a slave to the colony until his good behaviour earns him a pardon.

1624 Dutch settle in New Amsterdam
June: The Virginia Company loses its charter; Virginia becomes a royal province due to mismanagement of the colony.

And if you want to find an interesting link, Google "Meaker Riot". My folks have been around here for a good while.

Still not ready to apologize? Tsk tsk.

[donmeaker]

Slavery was established by the south. There were slaves in Jamestown in 1617, before the Pilgrims landed in 1620, before the Dutch founded New Amsterdam in 1624. I guess if you stand on your head, you are number one....

[donmeaker]

mr spooner is hardly a disinterested observer.

[donmeaker]

I recall one case where Negroes, even freed Negroes were not allowed to own land in Virginia. They hired a lawyer, who started a Corporation, and they bought land and slaves. Since Corporations have no race, that was found to be legal. Many of the slaves that were bought were the wifes, children, siblings or parents of the share holders.

Fredrick Douglass was also bought out of slavery. It offended him no end that his "master" was still able to profit from him, years after he had made his escape.

Cinque, the leader of the revolted slaves on the Spanish ship "Armistad" later became a slave trader. The US Navy officer who took the Armistad took it to Connecticut, rather than to New York. Slavery was not legal in NY at that time, but was still legal in Connecticut, and if found to be legal slaves, they could be sold at auction, with the salvage or prize money to go to the Navy ship's company (with extra shares to the officers. They could have doubled their prize in this way. John Quincy Adams was able to argue successfully that the slaves were not legal, they were traveling under forged papers, and were, of right, free men and women. Some were returned to Africa, some stayed in the US.

The Great Rebellion was begun by foolish southern hotheads. The south had mooched off the north for tens of years. building forts using slave labor off the federal dollar.

Then, they lose one election, and they come up with a completely unjustified idea that the States, joined by the Articles of Confederation, and joined further by the current Constitution, are now suddenly "sovereign".

Rather than sue in court, the southern hotheads appealed to the sword. They lost. Badly. The winners have ever after had to console them with fairy tails about their bravery.

The notion that the Confederates got rid of their slaves before the north is pretty bogus. They lost their slaves by military action, conducted by the Union forces, at high cost. The rebels held on as long as they could, and tried to reestablish slavery after the war. The 13th and 14th amendment were necessary to keep the slaves free, by permitting them to arm themselves.

Now I am tired of correcting your egregious errors. good night.

[donmeaker]

I submit that the slaves did rather better out of it. I also suppose that the nation eventually did better out of it, because no longer had white men unable to work lest they degrade themselves, and black men unable to rise in life lest they threaten the self esteem of whites.

[donmeaker]

That is an interesting idea. Does that mean the the garbage man is also not allowed to write to the newspaper? How about a school teacher? A judge? It is an interesting philosophy that the mayor gets to control the political speech of all public employees. I have never read that in an employment contract. I have a 10 year Civil Service pin somewhere. Does that mean that I should not have stood for election to the local schoolboard?

[Held_to_Ransom]

No, actually it didn't. Thaddeus steered a bill through Congress that gave any American of African heritage who voluntarily enlisted his freedom in perpetuity, along with that of all of his relatives and descendents. That covered anyone who could enlist at any point, and although it didn't cover every American of African heritage, it certainly covered enough that Lincoln's immediate plans went down the drain. The 13th just formalized the obvious later and extended the guarantee to all Americans of African heritage. Of course, the southern states then rewrote their barbaric slave laws to subvert the 13th, and the 14th and 15th were then added to batter these down. Lincoln's notions essentially got a later reprieve due to widespread ballot box abuse in the south as segregation came on, but it ultimately the 15th was honored after Americans of African hertiage proved themselves again in two world wars. Reconstruction in the south was finally finished by Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson with the sending of troops back into the south and with the modern re-enforcemennt of Ben Butlers KKK law.

[AnAmericanMother]

The garbage man is not in an administrative position. If he were, and signed his name as a city official (thus at least appearing to state some sort of official position), he would have a problem. Teacher probably not, principal maybe. Judge definitely (violates Code of Judicial Conduct).

Most states have a state law equivalent of the Hatch Act that severely limits the political speech of public employees. It's not in the civil service contract; it's in the Code. It's primarily to prevent those in an administrative position from intimidating their employees into supporting particular candidates or causes.

You give up a number of rights when you take a public position.

[Hostage]

Fine, you have enough wind to recite history and you have added to the thread by doing so. But you are concentrating on African slavery and not the indentured slavery that originated in New England. The influence of allowing slavery in the New World spread to all its corners.

As I said, your argument and the other fellow's is silly. To debate where slavery originated from is futile. What is important is that Gods and Generals accurately portrays the sentiments of history. There is ample evidence to prove the War Between the States did not originate over the issue of slavery, rather abolition of slavery was enjoined as a principle much later.

The film portrays Southerners as acknowleging that slavery was morally wrong and that it should end. But it is to the North's credit that abolition was made a priority, and that they used it as a moral pretext for continuing the war. Morality was much more cut and dried then.

But thanks for your nice recitation of ancient history.

[carton253]

If you read the reviews on Amazon.com (there are about 465)... you will find the dividing line where you and I are divided...

The length, the "excessive" language, etc.

I know many people who think the way you do... I can totally understand it. But, I like the film... I think it excellent... (even the death scenes).

If you are interested, you should listen to the commentary that accompanies the movie on the DVD. I found it very informative.

I don't think Maxwell made the case for lingering so excruciatingly long on this one death among all the other deaths of the war.

Actually, Maxwell (in the commentary) makes just the opposite point. He says that this one death represents them all in the film. That all the deaths of the known and unknown are tied together as this heroic man succumbs not to his wound but pneumonia. (Military experts now suggest that when Jackson was dropped, he developed an anuerism (sorry about the spelling) and that is what killed him)

Maxwell goes on to say that he made a sweeping epic patterned after Greek tragedy/drama. Jackson is the Achilles of the Confederate Army. When he dies, the cause dies with him. Many in the South (at the time of his death) knew that something (they couldn't figure out what) had changed... that a shift had happened. Looking back at the end of the war, they knew that the tide had turned with Jackson's death.

Anyway, I appreciate your opinion. You are not alone in it. But, don't mind me as I disagree with you 110% LOL!

[Hostage]

I made no errors. I made only a comment, that your argument is silly. You can be pissed if you want to be, it does not change your attributes except to show you as a blowhard with head between some history books.

"What is History?"

Any historian worth their salt has read and studied White's book.

[Hostage]

If you are interested, you should listen to the commentary that accompanies the movie on the DVD. I found it very informative.

I agree. The commentary on DVD is perhaps more informative than the film itself because it shows how our contemporarys reacted to the understanding of the how and why of the Southern perspective.

The film is excellent and should be studied in high schools.

[Non-Sequitur]

The film is excellent and should be studied in high schools.

The book is better. Why not use that instead?

[Hostage]

Many public schools today unfortunately use visual media for reasons economic and convenient. They will not buy books and there is a strong belief that many students will or cannot read.

But yes, the book is excellent for those who read.

[carton253]

Books are always better than the movies...but the movie allows the troop movements, the geography to come alive more than in the book.

Which is better? To read about columns of four move to lines of battle... and to read about this battle line walking into devestating grape shot and cannister... or to see it actually happen.

Both Gettysburg and Gods and Generals shows the action in a very accurate way. So, why not show the movie. And if you want to, assign the books to read also.