Reply to Is a wedding at a 'plantation' bad form? or romantic?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Is a wedding at a 'plantation' bad form? or romantic? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So the plantation used to be worked by slaves and then not. Some of the original slavery era structures are on the property. The house is lovely. It seems like a tone deaf choice for a wedding venue in 2019. What do feel about plantation venue for a wedding? Is it just me?[/quote]

I don't see the issue, either. (Full disclosure: I'm white). I respect others may feel strongly otherwise. But, there are many horribly, brutally racist places in the world. Should kids not go to formerly racist colleges (or less racist now)? What about being married in a Catholic Church (home to decades long Pedophilia cover ups)?

Yes, the history is horrific. But, as long as it's not covered up (e.g., like Mount Vernon, imo), I don't see the problem. Things change, evolveand you can "Take back" something previously ugly and turn it to something more positive. [/quote]

Slavery may have pervaded institutions but the plantation system was the actual institution of slavery, so yes there is a difference. [/quote]

What about black-owned plantations?[/quote]

Just stop. There weren’t free blacks in the south. Escaped slaves in the north were legally required to be returned to the south. Free blacks in the north didn’t own plantations.[/quote]

Just stop what? You clearly don't know your history. Because there were free blacks in the American South. It was not the law that all blacks had to be slaves. Maryland was a slave state and had a big free black population and there were small communities in all the other states and especially in the cities. Both Charleston and New Orleans had thriving communities of free blacks. Life certainly wasn't ideal but it shows you're flat out wrong with the comments. And there were a few black slaveowners in Louisiana, including one or two planters. You should Google it. It is fascinating.

And of course plenty of black slaveowners in Africa but that's a different topic.  [/quote]

NP here.  
1) there were free blacks in the south.
2) Are you familiar with the Fugitive Slave Act?  You didn't need to be a slave, escaped, freed, or otherwise to be brought from the North (or any place) to be sold into slavery.  You just needed to not be white and captured.  The free black populations in Maryland and other places were at risk of being kidnapped and taken to the south and sold.  There was a film made about this a few years ago, perhaps you heard of it?  The man was a slave for 7 years - he'd been born free and captured.

[/quote]

Of course I know about the fugitive slave act. But that is not the point. The point is that there were communities of free African Americans in the South, in direct contrast to someone earlier claiming there were no free blacks in the South.

https://www.ncpedia.org/sites/default/files/census_stats_1790-1860.pdf

While the numbers were pitifully low compared to the 4 million slaves, there were more free blacks in the South than in the North, although close to a 50%/50% split. Maryland had the most of any state, followed with Virginia, and then Pennsylvania. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics