Can't Choose Between 2 Venues

knottiea7c559f4e249058a · October 2018

I'm so torn I don't know what to do!

We've been to look at about all the venues around that are in budget and it's down to two. This is where I am stuck.

Venue 1 is everything I picture for us. It's intimate in the backyard of a historic house that the woman who lives there (who is a certified wedding planner) rents out. You get access to the entire 6,000 sq ft manor house, has a nice tree to marry under (which is our number one desire), on site manager, etc. However, it does not provide tent, tables, or chairs, so those would have to be rented elsewhere.

Venue 2 is another plantation house, but not as intimate. There is a tree to marry under, but there is a pergola in front of it, so you are really getting married under the pergola instead of the tree... There is a separate bridal suite, but you only get access to the main hall of the plantation home without renting more, so the groomsmen have nowhere to get ready unless you spend a few hundred dollars more. They do provide the tent, tables, chairs, and have a vendor coordination meeting a month before the wedding so everyone is familiar with one another. We really liked the people as well.

I know which one I am leaning towards after writing this (and I'm sure yall can tell from reading), because it is just more "us" and I can really picture it there, but is sacrificing the ease of already having the tents, tables, chairs, etc. there worth it?

ShesSoCold · October 2018

knottiea7c559f4e249058a said:

I'm so torn I don't know what to do!

We've been to look at about all the venues around that are in budget and it's down to two. This is where I am stuck.

Venue 1 is everything I picture for us. It's intimate in the backyard of a historic house that the woman who lives there (who is a certified wedding planner) rents out. You get access to the entire 6,000 sq ft manor house, has a nice tree to marry under (which is our number one desire), on site manager, etc. However, it does not provide tent, tables, or chairs, so those would have to be rented elsewhere.

Venue 2 is another plantation house, but not as intimate. There is a tree to marry under, but there is a pergola in front of it, so you are really getting married under the pergola instead of the tree... There is a separate bridal suite, but you only get access to the main hall of the plantation home without renting more, so the groomsmen have nowhere to get ready unless you spend a few hundred dollars more. They do provide the tent, tables, chairs, and have a vendor coordination meeting a month before the wedding so everyone is familiar with one another. We really liked the people as well.

I know which one I am leaning towards after writing this (and I'm sure yall can tell from reading), because it is just more "us" and I can really picture it there, but is sacrificing the ease of already having the tents, tables, chairs, etc. there worth it?

Well, I guess that depends on if your budget can handle those added expenses.

Does venue 1 do a lot of weddings? If so, even if they don't have their own tent and tables and chairs, I would assume that they will work smoothly with the vendors and it won't be that big of a deal from that standpoint.

A plus though would be that if you want fancier chairs or something, then you can pick those and you're not stuck with whatever chairs the venue has.

Plus I hate pergolas, so venue 2 sucks anyway.

knottiea7c559f4e249058a · October 2018

We are doing some number crunching later today, but on the surface based on quotes we have gotten from tent companies, both places come to about the same price with all the inclusions/added expenses.

Venue 1 doesn't do "a lot" of weddings, but has had several throughout the years and the owner in a wedding planner, so I assume it would run smoothly?

Your last comment made me laugh. Thanks for adding a bit of humor

ei34 · October 2018

Does one venue have a nicer rainy day room to get married in if it’s raining on your wedding day? How do the venues compare in terms of guest comfort (parking and # of restrooms)? Is one of the venue’s kitchens better equipped to handle a caterer cooking on premises? If all these are equal and your budget allows for chairs, etc. I’d go with your first option.

charlotte989875 · October 2018

knottiea7c559f4e249058a said:

We are doing some number crunching later today, but on the surface based on quotes we have gotten from tent companies, both places come to about the same price with all the inclusions/added expenses.

Venue 1 doesn't do "a lot" of weddings, but has had several throughout the years and the owner in a wedding planner, so I assume it would run smoothly?

Your last comment made me laugh. Thanks for adding a bit of humor

If the prices are about the same, and you clearly like 1 better it seems like a no brainer to me. Most tent/rental companies will be able to come in and set up properly, even if they’ve never worked that venue before. So if that’s what you’re worried about with venue 1 I really think you’ll be fine.

banana468 · October 2018

I would look at both venues and see how they can work if you have rain.
Then look into what the cost will be for the chair rental, etc.

There's nothing wrong with either location so I'd look at cost and ease of access for guests as well. Is one location closer?

knottiea7c559f4e249058a · October 2018

For my guest count (will probably be a bit under 100), venue 2 has a large enough tent that the ceremony could be held under it in case of rain. With venue 1, since we have access to the whole house, we could have everyone come inside the large hall and have it there.

Venue 1 does not have a commercial kitchen, but venue 2 does.

Parking and restrooms are the same, distance is about the same as well. Only about 5 miles difference.

knottiea7c559f4e249058a · October 2018

charlotte989875 said:

If the prices are about the same, and you clearly like 1 better it seems like a no brainer to me. Most tent/rental companies will be able to come in and set up properly, even if they’ve never worked that venue before. So if that’s what you’re worried about with venue 1 I really think you’ll be fine.

Very true. I guess that is kind of an unnecessary worry. Thanks for the input.

charlotte989875 · October 2018

knottiea7c559f4e249058a said:

For my guest count (will probably be a bit under 100), venue 2 has a large enough tent that the ceremony could be held under it in case of rain. With venue 1, since we have access to the whole house, we could have everyone come inside the large hall and have it there.

Venue 1 does not have a commercial kitchen, but venue 2 does.

Parking and restrooms are the same, distance is about the same as well. Only about 5 miles difference.

So the commercial kitchen, may or may not be more of a concern. What does your caterer need? For 100 people depending on the menu you might not need a commercial kitchen, but that’s still a lot of people to feed from a regular kitchen.

knottiea7c559f4e249058a · October 2018

charlotte989875 said:

So the commercial kitchen, may or may not be more of a concern. What does your caterer need? For 100 people depending on the menu you might not need a commercial kitchen, but that’s still a lot of people to feed from a regular kitchen.

We are meeting with our caterer tonight to discuss what all she may need, so I guess we will find out how big of an issue it will be then.
We are planning on doing a buffet style meal and a few light hors d'oeuvres, so hopefully it won't be too bad..

banana468 · October 2018

I would ask the caterer what makes life easier for them. The lack of kitchen would be a concern.

Also, what does each venue have in terms of ability to keep cold items cold? I'm thinking cold foods, beverages, and storage ability for a wedding cake...

Ro041 · October 2018

In our experience planning, tables, chairs and a tent were extremely pricey - like $3 per chair, $10 per table, and hundreds for the tent. The cost really turned me off of the idea of renting my own.

ETA - if you are getting married in one area and having the reception in another area, you will need 2 sets of chairs. Otherwise your guests (or staff?) will have to drag the chairs from one site to another.

STARMOON44 · October 2018

I guess kind of a tangent, but you described one as a plantation, and my vote is never get married at a plantation because it’s morally repugnant to use a slave labor camp as a pretty location for festivities.

VarunaTT · October 2018

STARMOON44 said:

I guess kind of a tangent, but you described one as a plantation, and my vote is never get married at a plantation because it’s morally repugnant to use a slave Labor camp as a pretty location for festivities.

Came here to write this; don't get married at plantations.

InLoveInQueens · October 2018

STARMOON44 said:

I guess kind of a tangent, but you described one as a plantation, and my vote is never get married at a plantation because it’s morally repugnant to use a slave labor camp as a pretty location for festivities.

I came here to make this same comment. Getting married at a plantation house is on par to getting married in a cemetery (at the least, at the worst closer to getting married at an internment or concentration camp), imo. It might have an "ideal" look (to some, not me, obviously), but it's disgusting and disrespectful to the history behind them. I don't care how many plantation house weddings there are, they're all gross.

LondonLisa · October 2018

STARMOON44 said:

I guess kind of a tangent, but you described one as a plantation, and my vote is never get married at a plantation because it’s morally repugnant to use a slave labor camp as a pretty location for festivities.

YES! Please don't get married at a Plantation. I just shuddered reading that!!

levioosa · October 2018

STARMOON44 said:

I guess kind of a tangent, but you described one as a plantation, and my vote is never get married at a plantation because it’s morally repugnant to use a slave labor camp as a pretty location for festivities.

I also came here to write the same thing.

short+sassy · October 2018

Sorry to go off tangent, OP. But I need to play some devil's advocate.

Slavery is abhorrent and horrifying. Not at all arguing that. But I don't understand the vilification of properties and grounds, just because they're post Civil War. They weren't slave labor camps yesterday. They were slave labor camps 150 years ago. In the meantime, they've been residences for generations of families. Some of them have been businesses. Many of them were derelict for decades and rebuilt.

Even the word plantation isn't a bad one, though I do understand the negative connotation. But large farms are still called plantations, including in places that never had slavery.

I can a little better understand the disgust with describing a house as a "plantation-style". Because that does very specifically denote a Southern house style, popular during slave times. But I also understand why that descriptor is used. Because it is a style of house that most people can picture in their minds. Where as, if you use the term Neo-Classical, you're going to lose a lot of people.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are tens of thousands of buildings in the South, still standing, that were built before the Civil War. So, for someone like myself who lives amongst them, I see them as they are now. They didn't stop in time. Obviously I'm not saying we should forget history, but you also don't think about or dwell on that "slaves worked in that house!"...and that house...and that house...and that house, in my great, great, great, great, great grandparents time.

charlotte989875 · October 2018

short+sassy said:

Sorry to go off tangent, OP. But I need to play some devil's advocate.
Slavery is abhorrent and horrifying. Not at all arguing that. But I don't understand the vilification of properties and grounds, just because they're post Civil War. They weren't slave labor camps yesterday. They were slave labor camps 150 years ago. In the meantime, they've been residences for generations of families. Some of them have been businesses. Many of them were derelict for decades and rebuilt.
Even the word plantation isn't a bad one, though I do understand the negative connotation. But large farms are still called plantations, including in places that never had slavery.
I can a little better understand the disgust with describing a house as a "plantation-style". Because that does very specifically denote a Southern house style, popular during slave times. But I also understand why that descriptor is used. Because it is a style of house that most people can picture in their minds. Where as, if you use the term Neo-Classical, you're going to lose a lot of people.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are tens of thousands of buildings in the South, still standing, that were built before the Civil War. So, for someone like myself who lives amongst them, I see them as they are now. They didn't stop in time. Obviously I'm not saying we should forget history, but you also don't think about or dwell on that "slaves worked in that house!"...and that house...and that house...and that house, in my great, great, great, great, great grandparents time.

It’s not that all Civil War era buildings are awful. Or that people shouldn’t maintain these properties. But more the idea that particularly for plantations these were slave labor camps where people were murdered, exploited, and a whole long list of other horrors done to them by people profiting off their bodies and their lives. The idea that someone would get married there, without any acknowledgement or recognition of the history and the land feels, for many people inappropriate.

I know there are plantations that are still working farms, but that acknowledge and discuss the horrific history of the land. If this venue does that, then okay; but my guess is any wedding venue isn’t going to have a section on what really happened there to make the land and the building profitable.

Plantations also differ than prewar houses in that they are large, prominent symbols of slavery. Yes many, many houses (not just in the south) participated in slavery, but plantations are these most visible, tangible and recognizable representations of those atrocities. I’m not saying tear them down (although many people do advocate for that) but I think any owner of the property now bears a responsibility for addressing and acknowledging what took place on their land.

VarunaTT · October 2018

It's not that slaves worked in that house (though let's not belittle free imprisoned black labor by just calling it work). It's that plantation houses and properties were symbols of slavery. They are symbols of how black Americans were sold to the United States as creatures for labor and systematically abused and tortured to create money and that money created the very beauty that makes people want them for their pretty backdrops.

I suppose, if America weren't America, I'd be okay with viewing them differently. But this country is barely removed from our slavery past ( can get to 150 years past in 2 generations) and we are definitely not removed from the lingering affects of slavery and how black Americans were and continued to be viewed in the United States. I don't understand people wanting to celebrate their marriage in a place (or take vacations) where there are probably bodies buried under the ground who were stripped of their rights and very dignity of humanity.

LondonLisa · October 2018

short+sassy said:

Sorry to go off tangent, OP. But I need to play some devil's advocate.
Slavery is abhorrent and horrifying. Not at all arguing that. But I don't understand the vilification of properties and grounds, just because they're post Civil War. They weren't slave labor camps yesterday. They were slave labor camps 150 years ago. In the meantime, they've been residences for generations of families. Some of them have been businesses. Many of them were derelict for decades and rebuilt.
Even the word plantation isn't a bad one, though I do understand the negative connotation. But large farms are still called plantations, including in places that never had slavery.
I can a little better understand the disgust with describing a house as a "plantation-style". Because that does very specifically denote a Southern house style, popular during slave times. But I also understand why that descriptor is used. Because it is a style of house that most people can picture in their minds. Where as, if you use the term Neo-Classical, you're going to lose a lot of people.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are tens of thousands of buildings in the South, still standing, that were built before the Civil War. So, for someone like myself who lives amongst them, I see them as they are now. They didn't stop in time. Obviously I'm not saying we should forget history, but you also don't think about or dwell on that "slaves worked in that house!"...and that house...and that house...and that house, in my great, great, great, great, great grandparents time.

I'm going to strongly, strongly disagree here. Just because time has passed, doesn't mean these aren't bastions of slavery. They were built, metaphorically and physically, by enslaving other human beings. They were places that ENSLAVED HUMANS were regularly degraded, raped, abused, killed and every type of horror one can commit.

Not all historical buildings are the same. Not all pre-civil war buildings need to be torn down. But plantations SPECIFICALLY were the epicentre of American slavery- They were for black Africans to work and die to build the capital and expand the wealth of white plantation owners. It is like Nazi Germany concentration camps. These were especially built to profit of the labour of enslaved people.

If they are to be preserved, they need to be treated like museums to human suffering, like Germany has done with concentration camps and holocaust memorials. There is a very real, very scary revisionist history where the American South during slavery is romanticised and thought of as not so bad, or that the American civil war wasn't about Slavery.

To have people celebrating, drinking, and dancing literally on the unmarked graves of slave labour is disgusting to me. I am not even being hyperbolic, any archaeological dig of a American southern plantation is literally covered in unmarked graves of enslaved humans.

short+sassy · October 2018

charlotte989875 said:

short+sassy said:

Sorry to go off tangent, OP. But I need to play some devil's advocate.
Slavery is abhorrent and horrifying. Not at all arguing that. But I don't understand the vilification of properties and grounds, just because they're post Civil War. They weren't slave labor camps yesterday. They were slave labor camps 150 years ago. In the meantime, they've been residences for generations of families. Some of them have been businesses. Many of them were derelict for decades and rebuilt.
Even the word plantation isn't a bad one, though I do understand the negative connotation. But large farms are still called plantations, including in places that never had slavery.
I can a little better understand the disgust with describing a house as a "plantation-style". Because that does very specifically denote a Southern house style, popular during slave times. But I also understand why that descriptor is used. Because it is a style of house that most people can picture in their minds. Where as, if you use the term Neo-Classical, you're going to lose a lot of people.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are tens of thousands of buildings in the South, still standing, that were built before the Civil War. So, for someone like myself who lives amongst them, I see them as they are now. They didn't stop in time. Obviously I'm not saying we should forget history, but you also don't think about or dwell on that "slaves worked in that house!"...and that house...and that house...and that house, in my great, great, great, great, great grandparents time.

It’s not that all Civil War era buildings are awful. Or that people shouldn’t maintain these properties. But more the idea that particularly for plantations these were slave labor camps where people were murdered, exploited, and a whole long list of other horrors done to them by people profiting off their bodies and their lives. The idea that someone would get married there, without any acknowledgement or recognition of the history and the land feels, for many people inappropriate.

I know there are plantations that are still working farms, but that acknowledge and discuss the horrific history of the land. If this venue does that, then okay; but my guess is any wedding venue isn’t going to have a section on what really happened there to make the land and the building profitable.

Plantations also differ than prewar houses in that they are large, prominent symbols of slavery. Yes many, many houses (not just in the south) participated in slavery, but plantations are these most visible, tangible and recognizable representations of those atrocities. I’m not saying tear them down (although many people do advocate for that) but I think any owner of the property now bears a responsibility for addressing and acknowledging what took place on their land.

I do hear what you are saying about the bigger places that were literally farms and used lots of slave labor. But, to be fair, that isn't the impression I got from the first venue she described. I don't want to put words in the OP's mouth, but it sounds like it's just a big house the owner lives in. Possibly just a "plantation style" looking house that wasn't even built before the Civil War and was never a farm.

There are only so many antebellum mansions left that were once part of large estates. And those are typically pretty famous and have tours. I didn't get that vibe at all from her description of Venue #1, though possibly Venue #2.

I've also been on many of those tours. They do emphasize that the farms and households were run on slave labor. They give sobering descriptions of what life was like for slaves, along with exhibits on that subject. It's a main topic of the tours and is not glossed over. Though they don't go into the horror in as much graphic detail as it deserves, because there are typically children present.

And, true, almost all of those antebellum mansions can be rented for events. Including weddings. On a silver lining, many of them are not-for-profit. It's those kind of events that help them keep the doors open so people can see, first hand on those tours, history come alive. It's one thing to read about slavery in history books. It's another to see the tiny one-room cabins that housed whole families. And knowing even that is barely scratching the surface on how truly monsterous it was.

VarunaTT · October 2018

I really feel strongly that we have lost some sense of time. So to put this into perspective, the black man considered to have been the last slave died in 1971. I was born 6 years later. He was born into slavery. This is not your great, great, great, great, however man greats you want to list time. My grandmother was living already. And his story has been accepted as true for quite some time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_Magee

VarunaTT · October 2018

short+sassy said:

charlotte989875 said:

And, true, almost all of those antebellum mansions can be rented for events. Including weddings. On a silver lining, many of them are not-for-profit. It's those kind of events that help them keep the doors open so people can see, first hand on those tours, history come alive. It's one thing to read about slavery in history books. It's another to see the tiny one-room cabins that housed whole families. And knowing even that is barely scratching the surface on how truly monsterous it was.

Unfortunately, white America has been doing a lot of stuff for a long time that isn't acceptable as we learn how to dismantle racism. So it's important to start saying no to things we used to say yes to.

ShesSoCold · October 2018

VarunaTT said:

It's not that slaves worked in that house (though let's not belittle free imprisoned black labor by just calling it work). It's that plantation houses and properties were symbols of slavery. They are symbols of how black Americans were sold to the United States as creatures for labor and systematically abused and tortured to create money and that money created the very beauty that makes people want them for their pretty backdrops.

I suppose, if America weren't America, I'd be okay with viewing them differently. But this country is barely removed from our slavery past ( can get to 150 years past in 2 generations) and we are definitely not removed from the lingering affects of slavery and how black Americans were and continued to be viewed in the United States. I don't understand people wanting to celebrate their marriage in a place (or take vacations) where there are probably bodies buried under the ground who were stripped of their rights and very dignity of humanity.

THIS is exactly why I am agreeing with you.

I've had the privilege of growing up in a middle class white family in a middle class white area. I've always been pretty dismissive of this kind of thing because "well it doesn't affect me" and I'm learning how wrong that's been of me. Even this morning, with the first comment against a plantation style house, I kind of thought "Ugh, can we not have any nice things anymore?" and then I thought more about it. Here, in suburban Chicago, I see trucks with Confederate flags on an almost daily basis. I (used to) have facebook friends and know people personally that celebrate the Confederacy and racism and defend slavery. We, as a country, are not passed this. Not only are we not that far removed from the slavery era, there's a pretty large chunk of the country that still idolizes and defends it. And that's why we can't have nice things.

short+sassy · October 2018

I appreciate you all! Because I didn't get the same vibe at all that you all did about at least OP's Venue #1, I more got the impression that everyone was vilifying any place that ever had slave labor.

I can much more understand the distaste with venues that are touted and advertised as antebellum mansions. Edited to add: "distaste with them as wedding/event venues". Because those houses are literally supposed to be a look into an ugly place in US history, when slave labor existed. And they are important places for that reason.

With that said, if you were talking about exactly the same house/grounds...just without the tours/plaques/"this is life in 1850" vibe...I wouldn't have any qualms with it.

VarunaTT · October 2018

ShesSoCold said:

VarunaTT said:

It's not that slaves worked in that house (though let's not belittle free imprisoned black labor by just calling it work). It's that plantation houses and properties were symbols of slavery. They are symbols of how black Americans were sold to the United States as creatures for labor and systematically abused and tortured to create money and that money created the very beauty that makes people want them for their pretty backdrops.

I suppose, if America weren't America, I'd be okay with viewing them differently. But this country is barely removed from our slavery past ( can get to 150 years past in 2 generations) and we are definitely not removed from the lingering affects of slavery and how black Americans were and continued to be viewed in the United States. I don't understand people wanting to celebrate their marriage in a place (or take vacations) where there are probably bodies buried under the ground who were stripped of their rights and very dignity of humanity.

THIS is exactly why I am agreeing with you.

I've had the privilege of growing up in a middle class white family in a middle class white area. I've always been pretty dismissive of this kind of thing because "well it doesn't affect me" and I'm learning how wrong that's been of me. Even this morning, with the first comment against a plantation style house, I kind of thought "Ugh, can we not have any nice things anymore?" and then I thought more about it. Here, in suburban Chicago, I see trucks with Confederate flags on an almost daily basis. I (used to) have facebook friends and know people personally that celebrate the Confederacy and racism and defend slavery. We, as a country, are not passed this. Not only are we not that far removed from the slavery era, there's a pretty large chunk of the country that still idolizes and defends it. And that's why we can't have nice things.

@ShesSoCold One of the quotes that honestly helps me out sometimes is that, "The first thought is what society conditioned you to think, the second thought is who you are." I tend to change it into, "who you are trying to be." White supremacy and it's cousin, patriarchy, are hella things to throw off and I'll find something inside myself sometimes that I'm like, Oh no, No, NO, burn it with fire!

short+sassy · October 2018

VarunaTT said:

I really feel strongly that we have lost some sense of time. So to put this into perspective, the black man considered to have been the last slave died in 1971. I was born 6 years later. He was born into slavery. This is not your great, great, great, great, however man greats you want to list time. My grandmother was living already. And his story has been accepted as true for quite some time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_Magee

FWIW, I didn't randomly throw in a lot of "greats" to be obnoxious. I actually roughly counted the generations in my family and that was what I came to.

ShesSoCold · October 2018

VarunaTT said:

ShesSoCold said:

VarunaTT said:

It's not that slaves worked in that house (though let's not belittle free imprisoned black labor by just calling it work). It's that plantation houses and properties were symbols of slavery. They are symbols of how black Americans were sold to the United States as creatures for labor and systematically abused and tortured to create money and that money created the very beauty that makes people want them for their pretty backdrops.

I suppose, if America weren't America, I'd be okay with viewing them differently. But this country is barely removed from our slavery past ( can get to 150 years past in 2 generations) and we are definitely not removed from the lingering affects of slavery and how black Americans were and continued to be viewed in the United States. I don't understand people wanting to celebrate their marriage in a place (or take vacations) where there are probably bodies buried under the ground who were stripped of their rights and very dignity of humanity.

THIS is exactly why I am agreeing with you.

I've had the privilege of growing up in a middle class white family in a middle class white area. I've always been pretty dismissive of this kind of thing because "well it doesn't affect me" and I'm learning how wrong that's been of me. Even this morning, with the first comment against a plantation style house, I kind of thought "Ugh, can we not have any nice things anymore?" and then I thought more about it. Here, in suburban Chicago, I see trucks with Confederate flags on an almost daily basis. I (used to) have facebook friends and know people personally that celebrate the Confederacy and racism and defend slavery. We, as a country, are not passed this. Not only are we not that far removed from the slavery era, there's a pretty large chunk of the country that still idolizes and defends it. And that's why we can't have nice things.

@ShesSoCold One of the quotes that honestly helps me out sometimes is that, "The first thought is what society conditioned you to think, the second thought is who you are." I tend to change it into, "who you are trying to be." White supremacy and it's cousin, patriarchy, are hella things to throw off and I'll find something inside myself sometimes that I'm like, Oh no, No, NO, burn it with fire!

Oh I LOVE that! Thank you!! I'm trying, and honestly I'm disgusted by myself sometimes.

ei34 · October 2018

My own privelege also allowed me to jump right into a comment on guest comfort without giving pause to a wedding on a plantation. I didn’t even realize there were still plantations. Thank you to all the PP who opened my eyes.

short+sassy · October 2018

eileenrob said:

My own privelege also allowed me to jump right into a comment on guest comfort without giving pause to a wedding on a plantation. I didn’t even realize there were still plantations. Thank you to all the PP who opened my eyes.

For historical perspective, most of the homes on big plantations were burned down/razed by the Union army during the war. With most of the fighting in Eastern states.

Natchez, MS's claim to fame is most of their mansions survived the war because this small city is much more West and was also off the beaten path.

The city of New Orleans and her port were captured about hallway through the war and then controlled by the Union Army. As such, a number of plantations were spared in the Southeast LA area also. Worse for wear, because Union soldiers would use them as rest stops and hangouts, but they generally didn't burn them down because they were using them and controlled the area anyway.

Can't Choose Between 2 Venues

Re: Can't Choose Between 2 Venues

Choose Another Board

Search Boards