Gone With The Wind, slavery, civilisation of the vanished confederacy, .......

A few years ago I remember being perplexed by an intellectual man who accused Gone With The Wind of not being in favour of black people, and I remember saying not everything had to be about denouncing slavery and the writer, the book was fine as long as slavery was not defended or enjoyed or presented with a justification. Gone With The Wind presented the story of women affected in a civil war, I said, and that was good enough. As a matter of fact it does far more than that, but in the heat of that moment saying more was rather difficult.

A little later another person, a visitor from France this time, brought up a similar question about a great national leader, and again I said, it is not necessary that everyone has to fight every cause. For example a man need not march for feminist causes in streets, he is still a decent man as long as he is not abusing his wife and children in any way, and his mind and heart are in the right place (wanting to abuse and lacking courage does not count, but thinking right does even if one says nothing).

Now the question has come up again on an internet site, with someone saying (in a review about Gone With The Wind):-

"The only thing I don't like is the way she portrayed the black characters--I mean did she really think the black people LIKED being slaves? That the "good" blacks like Mammy stayed with their white folks while the "bad" blacks went for freedom after the Civil War? I just hope she was writing they way people thought back then and not about her own views on this subject."

And I seriously asked why I never felt Margaret Mitchell or her characters could be accused of being horrendous slavers or pro-slavery, etcetera. With good reason, I came to the conclusion after a little thought. For one thing I had been going through excerpts or descriptions of various books about Mitchell and her work on the internet. And this brought to light a few things about the writer that were new to me but not surprising, since from GWTW one could easily gleam that much.

Just read she worked against the prejudices of her time, which was dangerous in sixties so all the more courageous in her time.

The epithets or adjectives belong to the characters, and there certainly was a hierarchy even within slaves - result being those closer to the family disdained others. There is an explicit description about the plantation mistress - usually owner's wife - being responsible for training the young into suitable professions for future on the plantation, according to their abilities.

As for slavery, several excellent characters including the much praised gentleman Ashley Wilkes not only do not agree with the system they were brought up in but Ashley goes further and declares he intended to free his slaves when he took over. Scarlett has no sympathy with the cause although she does not articulate or analyse this, and works when and where necessary for her folks along with the then freed slaves. In fact it is Mammy and Peter who refuse to work in fields while Scarlett, Melanie, Careen (the latter two with intentions better than strength) work alongside Dilcey, the proud worker who does not forget the favours Scarlett and her father did in bringing their family together and spending more money than necessary.

The book is not about, for, or ranting against the system of slavery - it is about a civilisation swept away with a war. It neither condones slavery nor explicitly goes into speeches against it.

Perhaps the best denouncing of it is hidden in the truly gentleman and ladies characters either starving to death or depending on a Scarlett for survival, which includes the Wilkes-Hamilton clan too, all but uncle Henry; Robillard aunts whom she sends money (and they give discreetly to Rhett's mother since his father won't allow the one not starving son to help); and of course there were the unending stream of soldiers that traipsed through the country walking back home, being fed at Tara amongst other places with what little food there was.

Point being, that the high moral ladies and gentlemen often starved after losing slaves (and land to taxes which was not fair or just) is a denounciation of the slavery if one understands it.

She could hardly have gone into very explicit denounciation in speeches more than this, she was not only born and brought up but living in south, and was attempting to introduce the history she knew more intimately to her Yankee husband by writing this book.