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.
Link to Emancipation Proclamation ---Emancipation Proclamation
Quote from below Emancipation Proclamation ---"On Jan. 1, 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared free all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not act on Lincoln's order."
I appreciate your informative posts and comments. Keep it up!
The Union, & slavery, existed before there was such a thing as the Confederacy.
"I can hardly sum it up better than Alexander Stephens, vice president of the confederacy, did: "
And, of course, Stephens argument was rejected by the Confederacy. All of those presidents he spoke of were part of the Union. The Confederacy did not exist when they were elected. But, of course; you knew that.
I cannot join you in pretending to not know the difference between a point on a compass, and the Confederacy. Really, why don't you bring Bolivia into this? They are from the south too.
"So it would appear that it was the Federal Government of the South, not the North, who nurtured..."
Because of an argument rejected by the Confederacy?!!
And now you alledge that the South attempted to seceed from itself. Quite the gymnast. The "South" is the Confederacy, the south is a point on a compass.
I know. Clear enough now?
I mean the Union. The United States.
(that would be all states prior to the Confederacy being formed)
How many meanings do you think there are?
No doubt.
For whatever reasons one may choose to argue; none of them alter the fact that the Union was excluded from the Emanipation Proclaimation.
"You make it sound as if the North kept its slaves into the 1950s."
Do I really? Where?
"I think there is mis-representation on both sides."
I would agree. However, because 'they were doing it too' is hardly a reason to not question misrepresentation.
Why, do you think, is such a mis-representation(United States) called for?
Bingo! Too bad so many here do not want to acknowledge that fact.
And when the confederacy was proclaimed it went out of it's way to include in its constitution protection of the institution of slavery and the very slave trade that you profess to condemn. But, of course; you knew that, too.
Try again. Missouri and Maryland ended slavery by January 1865. Kentucky and Deleware lost their slaves in December 1865, the same time that the parts of the southern states not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation did.
Under what authority could Lincoln have ordered the freeing of slaves in the North?
That's true. Lincoln laid the groundwork for the continuation of slavery after the war, though he did it because he believed it necessary to prevent widespread murder and crime in the south. In any case, Thaddeus Stevens saw to it that Americans of African heritage were freed by federal law despite Lincoln's comparatively sophisticated gambit. Sadly though, Thaddeus died before he could rule the south long enough with an iron fist to prevent the savage genocide of Americans of African heritage that followed his death.
This guy is an employee of a city that has just had a terrible time dealing with "Southern heritage" issues. He wrote an article over his title as a city employee without the permission of his boss, reigniting the very issues that the city had finally managed to put a lid on.
He certainly is free to say anything he wants, but not to use his city title to give some sort of imprimatur to his speech. And by doing that without permission, he has put himself in a bit of a jam from an employment standpoint.
"Free speech" doesn't mean "speech without consequences", especially when you do something without permission that harms your employer.
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.