'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.

[Age of Reason]

Thank you. Let's do it again:

Let's say a few years from now when the growing international economy has all but dissolved nationhood, the United Nations votes that all members should abolish the death penalty.

Then let's say America says to heck with that, I'm outta here.

Then the United Nations says, "You can't leave!" and begins assembling a blue-helmeted army to invade America.

What then would you be fighting for: the death penalty or the right to remain a sovereign state?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Too bad you have never seen a really good movie. If you believe one with a turgid plot, wooden performances, and filled with sentimentality and melodrama is a good movie, it seems clear to me that you don't watch a lot of movies.

Try The Godfather or even Alien. Glory was far better even Gettysburg was better though it was a little boring too.

I will admit that it is very difficult to make a truly good movie which consists mainly of battles.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Develop the habit of stuttering?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Any real chance for a Confederate victory died with Jackson.
He seemed to be the only general with an idea of how to win the war and able to carry it into action.

I always have admired him just am sorry he fought to destroy the Union for a passle of poltroons such as those who ran the South.

[carton253]

As you can tell... there is a sharp division between those who liked it and those who did not. The length, the language, and subject matter were not conducive to huge box office support.

The first time I saw the movie, I found it draggy. I liked it... but I found it long. It wasn't until I saw it the 2nd time that I it impacted me. How many people would have given it a second chance if they found it long, boring, or stiff the first time?

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you care to check you will find that NO founders believed in a unilateral right of withdrawal from the Union. Why don't you see what Madison said about it? And don't trot out the 10th amendment as an argument it had NOTHING to do with anything which would change the Union merely acknowledged States having the right to adopt their own judicial codes and regulations WITHIN their borders as long as they were consistent with the US constitution.

There is only ONE way to change the constitution- by amendment. A state could legally secede ONLY if an amendment were to be passed allowing it.

[Coleus]

I know a lot of freepers boycotted the movie since it was ted turnder who paid for it. But I bet they still let their kids watch mtv.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is a ridiculous analogy since there is no legal way to get out of the Union without a constitutional amendment. Removing the US from the UN would merely require a treaty ratified by the Senate.

What other absurdities do you swallow?

[carton253]

Too bad you have never seen a really good movie.

What do you hope to accomplish with that some kind of putdown?

A more mature answer would have been: "we will just have to disagree."

[carton253]

I always have admired him just am sorry he fought to destroy the Union for a passle of poltroons such as those who ran the South.

Regarding my last post... never mind. Now, I know what you were hoping to accomplish with your last post. Grow-up!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Lots of people can't recognize a good movie when they see one. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

[carton253]

Well... I'm not one to put someone down for their principles. If freepers don't want to enrich Ted Turner, then fine. I believe that Ted is entitled to his opinion just like I'm entitled to mine. We don't have to agree about politics, etc.

I'm glad the movie was made...and I'm glad that I have seen it.

[carton253]

If you say so...

[Age of Reason]

A state could legally secede ONLY if an amendment were to be passed allowing it.

Does it say that in the constitution?

[justshutupandtakeit]

In your mind "growing up" would mean to accept the glorification of those who perpetrated the Revolt of the Slavers on this nation and destroyed the chances for the South to enter the modern world for almost a hundred yrs.?

Have you asked those who call Lincoln a tyrant worse than Hitler to grow up? Or those who make up out of whole clothe the "right" to secede? Or those who defend the Tyranny which was the Old South where the whip and the lash ruled? Or the maroon who claims the North introduced slavery into the South.

I didn't think so.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since the Articles of Confederation stated repeatedly that the Union was to be "perpetual" and the constitution was to "make a more perfect Union" logic requires that it be perpetual also since a less than perpetual Union was be less perfect than a perpetual one. I realize logic is not the Defenders of the Slaverocracy's long suit but there it is. The constitution is meaningless with a right of states to withdraw unilaterally.

However, Madison's remarks regarding another of the D.S.'s favorite arguments, a conditional ratification of the constitution with a right to withdraw, are most telling since he is considered the "father of the constitution." Check out his letter to Hamilton during the NY state ratification convention when Hamilton was about ready to buckle and allow the convention to ratify with the condition it could withdraw at will. Madison said that ratification was not revokable and joining the Union removed any "right" to secede. Argue with him.

[Middle Man]

"My only regret is that the Last Full Measure will not be made due to the poor box office receipts."

So Ron Maxwell bought the rights to TLFM? Does that preclude the movie being made by another director? Curious because I just saw the video release of G&G and enjoyed it immensely, despite the near-universal panning of the film by the kultural politburo.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yes, it does it states that the constitution can only be changed by the amendment mechanism not by individual states.

Certainly any state that ratified the constitution could not change that ratification. Other states were admitted to the Union by adhering to and adopting the constitution.

Any state law withdrawing from the Union was automatically unconstitution.

[Age of Reason]

Was not the American Revolution also illegal?

[Age of Reason]

So let's do it one more time:

After the growing international economy all but dissolves nationhood, the United States, along with the rest of the world, signs a Global Article of Confederation saying that the New World Order is to be "perpetual," etc.

Then one day events in the New World Order threaten to abolish the death penalty among all nations.

So America says to heck with that, I'm outta here.

Then the New World Order says, "You can't leave!" and assembles a blue-helmeted army to invade America.

What then would you be fighting for: the death penalty or the opportunity to return to being a sovereign state?