Despite Everything, People Still Have Weddings at ‘Plantation’ Sites.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Belle Montgomery

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Location
44022
Weddings help pay for education at American labor camp sites and connect us with history. Is that good enough?

1603555106922.png

The Whitney Plantation in Wallace, La., does not support weddings. Credit...Elsa Hahne
By Michael T. Luongo
  • Published Oct. 17, 2020
  • Updated Oct. 20, 2020
Edited.

Monuments have been removed, by vote and by force.

But those symbols include the romanticized imagery of weddings on Southern “plantations,” a practice that carries on. These properties were forced work camps, where enslaved Africans and their descendants were tortured and killed.

Perhaps nowhere has benefited more from the idea of the romance of Southern weddings than Charleston, S.C., where the Civil War began, and which is now one of the top destination wedding locales in the United States, hosting nearly 6000 weddings in 2019 before the coronavirus pandemic interrupted the industry.

Winslow Hastie’s family has owned Magnolia Plantation & Gardens since the late 1670s. Mr. Hastie, who is white, is also the president and chief executive officer of Historic Charleston Foundation, which works to preserve structures, many built by enslaved people.

Magnolia “opened to the public in 1872,” Mr. Hastie said. “I think it was actually one of the first tourist attractions in the state of South Carolina. And that was out of economic necessity.”

Today, Mr. Hastie said, ...

Rest of Article with more photos:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/17/...-still-have-weddings-at-plantation-sites.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
Personally when I see a beautiful home or setting in 2020, I see a beautiful home or setting today.

I suppose most historic homes are next on the to be torn down or vandalized list?
I'm with you. Why not get married in a beautiful setting just because, 180 years ago, the first owners had slaves ? Using that rationale, there's lots of buildings we shouldn't be utilizing (like the White House). I really doubt that people decide to get married at a place because there were once slaves (although I suppose I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were one or two like that somewhere).

In the current movement, though, things are forever tainted by any association with anything that doesn't fit the agenda and anything thusly tainted must be removed. If I owned one of these plantation homes I'd be worried and taking some measures to protect my property.
 

Irishtom29

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
I'm with you. Why not get married in a beautiful setting just because, 180 years ago, the first owners had slaves ? Using that rationale, there's lots of buildings we shouldn't be utilizing (like the White House).

The purpose of the White House wasn't to be the headquarters of a slave labor camp. I don't see much essential difference between a southern slave labor camp and the Gulag.
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
The purpose of the White House wasn't to be the headquarters of a slave labor camp. I don't see much essential difference between a southern slave labor camp and the Gulag.
I understand the difference but the White House was occupied by slave owners (even one slave merchant), statues of whom have repeatedly been attacked. So, it's not too far fetched to make an analogy: slave owners previously inhabited the plantation house and slave owners previously occupied the White House.

How do you feel about Monticello and Mount Vernon ? Should nobody visit those places ?
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The purpose of the White House wasn't to be the headquarters of a slave labor camp. I don't see much essential difference between a southern slave labor camp and the Gulag.
No it was to be the headquarters of slave nation by their logic.

Course the problem with their logic is both the nation and the plantations changed over 150 yrs ago, so today neither represent some slave labor camp or country today......but the US today and some quite beautiful homes.
 

Irishtom29

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
How do you feel about Monticello and Mount Vernon ? Should nobody visit those places ?

Oh, people should visit them. It's history, warts and all. I wouldn't hold a celebration or wedding at such a place though. I wouldn't romanticize or sugar coat the place.

It's funny, when I visited Mt. Vernon several years ago, before all this brouhaha, I felt very queasy about the place and thought of it as a gulag. I'm torn on Washington and other slave owners who were essential to our nation's founding. On the one hand they did great deeds and on the other hand they were ruthless and immoral capitalists who used slave labor rather than pay free men wages. Well, that's history for adults for you.
 

mkyzzzrdet

Corporal
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
I said this on another web site and got a lot of "upvotes": If the British had torn down all their structures that had any bad history associated with them, we would then have to imagine what castles looked like, or the Tower of London, or royal palaces, or majestic old mansions. If European nations did the same thing, European towns would be as charming and quaint as a bowl of plain oatmeal. And goodbye to the incredible old fortresses and castles of Europe. Yeah! Let's be politically correct and tear it all down!
 

mkyzzzrdet

Corporal
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Oh, people should visit them. It's history, warts and all. I wouldn't hold a celebration or wedding at such a place though. I wouldn't romanticize or sugar coat the place.

It's funny, when I visited Mt. Vernon several years ago, before all this brouhaha, I felt very queasy about the place and thought of it as a gulag. I'm torn on Washington and other slave owners who were essential to our nation's founding. On the one hand they did great deeds and on the other hand they were ruthless and immoral capitalists who used slave labor rather than pay free men wages. Well, that's history for adults for you.
They were "ruthless and immoral"? Give me a break.
 

mkyzzzrdet

Corporal
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Oh, people should visit them. It's history, warts and all. I wouldn't hold a celebration or wedding at such a place though. I wouldn't romanticize or sugar coat the place.

It's funny, when I visited Mt. Vernon several years ago, before all this brouhaha, I felt very queasy about the place and thought of it as a gulag. I'm torn on Washington and other slave owners who were essential to our nation's founding. On the one hand they did great deeds and on the other hand they were ruthless and immoral capitalists who used slave labor rather than pay free men wages. Well, that's history for adults for you.
It might be more fair to say this: They were misguided in their views of slavery based on our standards of today.
 

Irishtom29

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
They were "ruthless and immoral"? Give me a break.

I'll give you more of a break than your owner would had you been enslaved in an American labor camp.
Seems to me that driving slaves is a pretty ruthless way to make a living.

Some things are always wrong, always were and always will be. But if you're powerful and make the rules you can pass your behavior off as business as usual. Some people swallow that line but there have usually been people who didn't. Such as the enslaved themselves. Ever wonder what they thought of the thing? Do you think they thought slave labor camps were ruthless, cruel and immoral? Does what they thought count?
 

Biscoitos

Corporal
Joined
May 14, 2020
I'm with you. Why not get married in a beautiful setting just because, 180 years ago, the first owners had slaves ? Using that rationale, there's lots of buildings we shouldn't be utilizing (like the White House). I really doubt that people decide to get married at a place because there were once slaves (although I suppose I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were one or two like that somewhere).

In the current movement, though, things are forever tainted by any association with anything that doesn't fit the agenda and anything thusly tainted must be removed. If I owned one of these plantation homes I'd be worried and taking some measures to protect my property.
Why can't couples get married wherever they want to?
Who is so high and mighty as to say which wedding venues are acceptable and which are not?
It's a personal choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top