Classics for Beginners discussion

This is the discussion for chapters 31-47.

Scarlett and Johnnie Gallagher make me ill. I admire Scarlett's strength and survival instinct, but her pursuit of money and the lengths she'll go to to get it are repulsive.

RitaSkeeter wrote: "Scarlett and Johnnie Gallagher make me ill. I admire Scarlett's strength and survival instinct, but her pursuit of money and the lengths she'll go to to get it are repulsive."

I agree - there was plenty that turned me off about her character, but this was among the worst. Sickening.

I think it was made worse for me, because there is a point where you can see her struggle internally with knowing what is happening to the convicts is not okay versus the money, and she chooses the latter even though she knows it is wrong and even though it pricks even her conscience a little.

RitaSkeeter wrote: "I think it was made worse for me, because there is a point where you can see her struggle internally with knowing what is happening to the convicts is not okay versus the money, and she chooses the..."

Yes, she quickly forgets about the wrongness of it when she remembers the money angle.

I also found Scarlett's treatment of the convicts very sad, she can be ruthless. I have to give Mitchell credit for being able to write about such an unlikable character and I still find myself caring about what Scarlett is up to next.

I am also noticing how the freed slaves are portrayed as bad and violent, such as the freed slave that attacked Scarlett from the Shantytown. The slaves that have remained loyal to their masters, such as Sam, Pork, and Mammy, are portrayed as good and decent.

Just had a quick flick through my copy and noticed a reference to him in Chapter 52 so might be a little while before you meet him. He doesn't turn up in the story until Scarlett is back in Atlanta. I still think he's despicable!

I agree with Rita that Scarlett is completely unlikeable in this section. I find her actions despicable and I dislike her intensely. In fact, I don't understand how anyone can admire her! There is a street in College Station, TX named for her. Ugh.

I am finding this book extremely difficult to read and I hope I can find a way to finish it without vomiting.

I enjoy the minor characters much more than reading about Scarlett. Therefore, I am enjoying Chapter 46. One of my favorite minor characters is Mrs. Meade. In this section she is trying to get information from her husband about the prostitution house he had visited that night. Another character is Belle Watling and in this chapter she meets with Melanie. Hilarious!

Not everyone in the South aristocracy was lost and clueless, like Ashley. Nor did everyone compromise their integrity and values in the pursuit of making a decent living, like Scarlett. The Merriwethers were the example that Rhett used. Mrs. Merriwether's decision to make pies led to a bakery and a thriving business for her whole family.

Even Archie has integrity. He refused to drive Scarlett anywhere once she hired convicts.

Joy wrote: "And I still don't know who the heck Johnny Gallagher is and what he did to incur Rita's wrath."

I assume you have reached the part where Johnny Gallagher shows his viciousness? He is definitely mentioned in Chapter 41 and I think he is mentioned in passing in earlier chapters.

In Chapter 31, Ashley is trying to explain to Scarlett why he is afraid in the new world he finds himself. He says, "It isn't that I mind splitting logs here in the mud, but I do mind what it stands for. I do mind, very much, the loss of the beauty of the old life I loved. Scarlett, before the war, life was beautiful. There was a glamor to it, a perfection and a completeness and a symmetry to it like Grecian art." What a absolute depiction of supreme selfishness. His old life was built on the wealthy exploiting the poor and denying freedom to their slaves. That was "perfection." He then says, "Maybe it wasn't so to everyone." Really! Just "maybe!" Not "now I see where our society failed."

No wonder Reconstruction existed until 1876.

Did anyone else appreciate this comment about India: "The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely on her shoulders now. She was twenty-five and looked it, and so there was no longer any need for her to try to be attractive."

Yes, women have come a long ways!

I just tried to take a crash course in 'Reconstruction for dummies' via Google, and I'm a bit confused. So this refers to the period post war when they were trying to the bring the former confederate states back into the union? But there was ongoing 'fighting' (for want of a better word, it's been a very long day) politically between them around the rights of African Americans? What were the problems with how Reconstruction was managed?

The Reconstruction began when the Uncivil War ended. It continued until the election of 1876 which was stolen from the true winner (does this sound familiar?) Margaret Mitchell accurately describes the mindset of the Georgia aristocracy. They were determined to get their power back and trounce the blacks under their feet. Through a lot of chicanery and fraud, they managed to come back to power. They used fear and the KKK (terrorists is what we would call them today) to stop blacks from voting. These noble Southern gentlemen killed without remorse or shame as Mitchell brilliantly portrays in Section 4.

As soon as the Southern Democrats regained power, they put restrictive laws on the black population. Many blacks became sharecroppers, becoming de facto slaves once again. The blacks who had been in elective positions were removed and the southern gentlemen were back in control. Jim Crow laws were enacted to keep blacks in their place. From 1876 until the Civil Right movement in the 1950's and 1960's, the white man was in full control of southern politics.

If you want to read about the election of 1876, read Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876.

If you want to know a little bit about the life for the southern black, read this great book: The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration.

Of course, To Kill a Mockingbird is the book you want to read if you want to get a sense of the plight of the southern black in the early 50's.

Thank-you Emily, that was really helpful. I understand better now. I've read (and loved) TKAM, but may have a look at the others if I can track them down. Thanks again.

It sounds like you were convinced by the distorted propaganda that the South has believed for generations. The Radical Republicans from the North were determined to give blacks freedom and they were resisted by the Southern whites who were determined to turn back the clock. There are always two sides (or more) to every story. Margaret Mitchell portrays the "glory" years of the South before the war when people, like Ashley, lived a life of leisure while enslaved people did all the work.

Was there corruption going on during Reconstruction? Of course. Was there corruption in the South before and after Reconstruction? Yes, there have always been people in politics who are corrupt.

There were sincere people who wanted freedom for the blacks and, for a few years, the blacks had it. They had it until it was taken away through fear and threats of the KKK. To say reconstruction was only about power and greed and nothing else, is to tell only one side of the story. It is similar to only listening to Fox News today and refusing to believe anything other than what that network says.

For another view: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reconstr...

Thanks for the link Emily, and thank you both for your comments. I think I need to read up on American history. I think it will bring greater depth to my understanding of American classics.

Joy wrote: "I'm not saying there wasn't greed and corruption in the south. I don't think they were any better. I do think it was wrong that they were denied the right to vote."

The whites were denied the right to vote for two reasons. They had to proclaim their loyalty to the new government before they got the right to vote (makes sense to me) and they continued to find ways to try to deny the vote for the freed blacks.

Did disenfranchising the white southerners work? Or did it lead to further resentments?

Good question. We have no way of knowing. However, looking at the way blacks were portrayed-as monkeys, children, child-like, slimy creatures, I don't think things would have been better. The question is would you give the vote to someone who left this country and fought for ISIS or bin Laden and then returned and wanted the same rights as those of us who were not disloyal?

One of the first things the southerners did when they got power was to take away the black's voting rights, WHICH the blacks had during Reconstruction. Even Margaret Mitchell shows throughout the book that the whites thought the blacks SHOULD NOT have the vote and they were appalled that these uneducated people were allowed to vote. Of course, many blacks were illiterate because it was a crime to educate a slave. However, just because someone is uneducated or illiterate doesn't mean they are stupid. Southerners could not see this because their prejudice was ingrained from birth.

Mitchell says in her book that the Georgia legislature refused to ratify the Constitutional Amendment allowing blacks to vote. That was the constant theme of Georgia's recalcitrance during the Reconstruction Era. The Southerners had limited power, but, even with reduced power, they were able to make their opinions known. If voicing their opinion didn't get the results they wanted, they used the KKK to terrorize, murder and maim.

The South's brutalization of blacks for centuries is one of the blights of our country's history. My background is southern, for which I am ashamed. I still remember the abusive and hurtful comments of some of my relatives when I was a child and young adult.

Is the right to vote state based legislation rather than federal? I don't understand how the right to vote for blacks could be rescinded by a state?

Another question. Surely not all southerners were supportive of slavery? Were there not southerners involved in speaking out about slavery or some kind of abolitionist movement there?

What does this all mean in 2014? Is there still a north vs south vibe, or has that largely resolved? Is there a difference in the levels of racism, discrimination etc blacks today experience in the south vs the north?

The South's brutalization of blacks for centuries is one of the blights of our country's history. My background is southern, for which I am ashamed. I still remember the abusive and hurtful comments of some of my relatives when I was a child and young adult.

I can relate to this. Although it is a quite different situation, in my state there were active efforts (historically obviously) to exterminate the entire indigenous population of the state. It is incredibly shameful and my state has made limited effort at reparation and reconciliation. Recently, as in the last year or two, a highway bypass was built over an important Aboriginal site. That would never have been allowed to happen with our relatively young European historical sites.

RitaSkeeter wrote: " The South's brutalization of blacks for centuries is one of the blights of our country's history. My background is southern, for which I am ashamed. I still remember the abusive and hurtful commen..."

Re: North v South just a few years ago in Georgia I believe at a school there was a tree that only white students sat under. One day a group of black students sat under it. The next day hanging from the trees were dummies made to look like they had been lynched. Protests followed etc., but the North V South vibe remains.

The North-South vibe still exists. The discrimination is more subtle and there are code words used today to express how you really feel. I spent last year in Texas, where my parents and grandparents were raised. The church I attended had no black families, although one family had adopted a light black girl. When I encouraged some of the members to invite blacks to visit, I was given all sorts of excuses, but none actually came out and said they didn't want blacks. They tried to hide it with soft, sweet words of reasonableness.

President Lyndon Johnson was from Texas and he helped to pass the Civil Rights Act in the mid 1960's. He was a Democrat. This action made the Southern Democrats angry. LBJ knew he could not win the next election because of this and the Vietnam War fiasco.

In 1968, Richard Nixon ran for President. He was a Republican. He ran on a platform of "Law and Order." This was a code word for the Southern whites to know that he was the one to help them in the fight against those unruly blacks who were protesting and demanding more rights. He won with this message. At this point, the Southern states gradually changed their allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Today the coded message of discrimination has to do with making the voting laws more restrictive.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publicat...

Rita, not all Southerners supported the war or had slaves. Some freed their slaves, usually after they died, of course. Even Ashley in GWTW says he would have freed his slaves once his father died.

Sections of the South supported the North, but usually for economical reasons. The northeast section of Tennessee did not have slaves and voted not to secede. Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice-president, was from this area of Tennessee. This is the main reason he was selected to be Lincoln's running mate; he was a southerner and he could be used politically when the war was over. Unfortunately, Lincoln was killed soon after the war ended.

A large section of Virginia did not own slaves. They separated from Virginia during the war and became the new state of West Virginia.

There is a small section of Virginia on the Delmarva Peninsula by the Chesapeake Bay that did heavy trading with the North before the war and did not secede for economic reasons. That area is called Chincoteague today.

One of my ancestors lived in Tennessee near the Kentucky border. Even though he lived in a Confederate state, he fought for the North. He ended up having all his property in Tennessee confiscated by the Confederates, and his descendents never got it back. Many states, like Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, had military units in both the North and South. I have some ancestors that fought for the South and some that fought for the North.

Thank you all for the info, and for humouring me by answering my questions. I've put a couple books on hold at the library so I can educate myself a bit further about civil war history.