OS: Confederate Flag Removed from Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
The right in question they were seceding over was the right to own slaves. The Confederate Congress explicitly forbid any Confederate state from abolishing slavery on their own. Furthermore, in 1863 Confederate General Patrick Cleburne proposed a plan of manumission and emancipation- it was his hope that this would give the South more manpower while eliminating the North's moral highground. He presented his proposal to the Confederate Congress where he was met with absolute silence and shown the door when he was finished without comment.

Moral high ground ? There you go again. Only if you choose to ignore the historical facts you can get away with that broad stroke. Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued only after the third year of the Civil War, was an executive order not a law passed by the Congress, was at first a threat to those states which had succeeded that would be issued if they did not return to the union, and only applied to slaves in Confederate held lands not to those in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, nor to Tennessee. It wasn't until 1865 with the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution on December 6, 1865 that slavery was outlawed in the US.
 

GeneralZod

Well-Known Member
And that's fair. I know a few Irish families in my locale that proudly display their mother country's flag right next to Old Glory. What private citizens do is different than what governments or corporations do.
This is where we tend to have issues. Let me phrase that correctly for you.

What private corporations and citizens do is different than what governments do.
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Moral high ground ? There you go again. Only if you choose to ignore the historical facts you can get away with that broad stroke. Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued only after the third year of the Civil War, was an executive order not a law passed by the Congress, was at first a threat to those states which had succeeded that would be issued if they did not return to the union, and only applied to slaves in Confederate held lands not to those in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, nor to Tennessee. It wasn't until 1865 with the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution on December 6, 1865 that slavery was outlawed in the US.

I was referring to the general cause the Union adopted, not their actual actions. By 1863, for most, if not all, of the Union, the purpose of the War had shifted from "Preserve the Union" to "Abolish slavery".
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
I was referring to the general cause the Union adopted, not their actual actions. By 1863, for most, if not all, of the Union, the purpose of the War had shifted from "Preserve the Union" to "Abolish slavery".
This is not entirely accurate. Lincoln used the slavery issue as a means to cause revolt in the south. He (Lincoln) was on record countless times explicitly stating that he had not a care about slavery. His concern was only the preservation of the union. In fact, there are many speeches where he states he would send the slaves back to Africa if it meant preserving the Union. <I have not read the entire thread, so if you already mentioned this, I apologize>

If slavery was the true issue, the Emancipation would have been out well in advance of '63. It only came out then, as the South was a far more formidable force than the North realized. Lincoln didn't mix well with his Generals, and replaced them far too frequently to build any consistency.
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
If slavery was the true issue, the Emancipation would have been out well in advance of '63. It only came out then, as the South was a far more formidable force than the North realized. Lincoln didn't mix well with his Generals, and replaced them far too frequently to build any consistency.

It wasn't the true issue for the North, that's very true, at least not at first. You'll note I admitted to that. It WAS however the cause for revolt of the South, which is why several parts of the Confederate Constitution explicitly mention slavery and how it is protected and expanded (spreading coverage to the then territories). It was also why many Southerners believed the North was fighting. Cleburne's proposal was done in part to expose what he believed the Union's true motive was- to consolidate federal power at the expense of the states. If the CSA had freed the slaves and the North continued fighting, then the Civil War would in fact not have been about slavery. You'll know from history, however, that that did not occur. The CSA Congress did not even acknowledge Cleburne's proposal, let alone put it to any sort of discussion or debate.

Anyhoo, you can read the whole thing right here.
 

GeneralZod

Well-Known Member
You look in any country's closet, you're bound to find a few skeletons. The difference is that most countries in general eventually acknowledge that what they did was wrong. It may take a generation or two, but they get around to it. For a long time, the proponents of the Confederacy and the flag have spun propaganda, if not outright deception, about what the Stars & Bars stands for and many are still buying into that, touting phrases like "states' rights" or "southern pride".
History is written by the victors...and in this case it is general whitewashing. While the issue the south decided to revolt against was deplorable, is was absolutely about state's rights. Unfortunately, it seems like we are slowly headed in that direction again. What will the issue be this time?

There is constantly succession hyperbole thrown around, but it seems to me it continues to become more and more dangerous. The optimist in me says that it is cyclical and we will see this ebb soon.
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
History is written by the victors...and in this case it is general whitewashing. While the issue the south decided to revolt against was deplorable, is was absolutely about state's rights.

It was about one right and one right only. In fact, the Confederate Constitution removed some rights from the states, most notably some regarding slavery, but also whether or not states could allow naturalized citizens to vote in federal elections.
 

Club34

Well-Known Member
I'm saying they don't care about the public perception. He stated that companies need to concern themselves. Not that I agree with their stance

while the owner of chic fil a? may not care, i assure you disney does. and by comparison- disney is a whale and chic fil a is a guppie. much like people, companies are run, hold values, or maintain strategies that are vastly different from one another. if you want to be a whale, you care. smart business is inclusion.
 

englanddg

One Little Spark...
Well, and in this case, it's not even a stance. Disney isn't making a statement with the flag display outside of the context that it is a flag that represented half the country at one point in time.

As noted, other flags (even flags of other countries, which...technically, the CSA was, but again that gets muddy too) are displayed in the same manner. There was no special emphasis placed on the flag, nor was there any implication that it represents, in this CONTEXT, anything more than that.

As I noted earlier, had Disney used the earlier CSA flag (the one the CSA flew for the majority of it's existence), I doubt most people would even have noticed or cared (and it's a large leap to even assume most people even knows what the "Stars and Bars" really is, and what it looks like). But, instead they chose the final edition of the flag, which had the Battle Flag as part of it.

I understand WHY Disney would opt to remove it, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it's a rather silly decision and a poor reflection of a society that claims to be reasoned and enlightened.

A reasoned and enlightened response would take the CONTEXT into account.

1) It is a display of historical flags
2) It is an attraction specifically about US history that partially and explicitly covers the Civil War (and in a very measured and accurate way, unlike people who take offense at seeing the Battle Flag)
3) It wasn't displayed in any measure to place it with more prominence or meaning than any other flag displayed there, which is appropriate as that sets the context as to why it is there

<shrug> People can choose to be offended by it, and I admit that I myself was thrilled to see it removed from the GA Flag 20 some odd years ago (though, I didn't like our "temporary flag"...that blue monstrosity was ugly!). When I see it displayed, I see it as distasteful (even in a historical display), but unless the context is such that it's directed towards me personally, there is no reason to be offended. Even at Disney seeing that flag I think of what a shameful time it was in US History, but it's important to note that we as a country prevailed, and we moved on, and that blood spilt led to a better future for all.

Symbols mean different things to different people, and while I may have a different interpretation of them than someone else, I certainly do not feel it in any way appropriate or correct to impose my interpretation onto others.

As an example...context

Indian-Woman-Holding-Son.jpg


Ancient-India-Swastika.jpeg
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
It wasn't the true issue for the North, that's very true, at least not at first. You'll note I admitted to that. It WAS however the cause for revolt of the South, which is why several parts of the Confederate Constitution explicitly mention slavery and how it is protected and expanded (spreading coverage to the then territories). It was also why many Southerners believed the North was fighting. Cleburne's proposal was done in part to expose what he believed the Union's true motive was- to consolidate federal power at the expense of the states. If the CSA had freed the slaves and the North continued fighting, then the Civil War would in fact not have been about slavery. You'll know from history, however, that that did not occur. The CSA Congress did not even acknowledge Cleburne's proposal, let alone put it to any sort of discussion or debate.

Anyhoo, you can read the whole thing right here.
I dont disagree and am familiar with the link.

It was most certainly a main component of the revolt for the CSA, which was then encapsulated as a state's rights concern.

For the north, is where we differ slightly. For some, yes, slavery was of issue. However, overall, the bigger issue was the larger, more expansive federal government that needed to be preserved.

Not to go off on a rant here, but never a lincoln fan personally. He has been deified in this country unnecessarily. As a former History teacher, I was always amazed to listen to my students who had received their annual brainwashing throughout their earlier education about "the Great Emancipator". What a load of malarkey

sorry....end of rant
 

KeeKee

Well-Known Member
To put things in context, Germany forbids displaying of the swastika except in historical or artistic contexts. Neo-nazis instead wear the Confederate Flag.

The flag was revived in the middle of the 20th Century solely as a response to the Civil Rights Movement. It is very much a symbol of institutionalized racism and claiming otherwise is, at best, ignorance of American history.
Well said. Couldn't agree with you more. The flag is a part of history, and that is where it should stay. Let's hope that we have moved on from that terrible time as a country; although, sometimes it sadly doesn't seem like it. Right now that flag is radioactive and more provocative than ever. A smaller presence at an entertainment venue is the right way to go. It's part of the show at AA (two brothers segment), as such it has context and tells a story. That's completely different and an appropriate use of the flag. Time to live in and embrace the present. It's a better place to be anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom