Talk:Martha Bulloch Roosevelt

Was Martha "Mittie" Bulloch a source for the character Scarlett O'Hara

Your thoughts, please? SimonATL 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the caption under Mittie's photo. Sagamore Hill was the home of her son Pres. Theodore Roosevelt and his wife, not his mother's home.--Parkwells 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying the Confederate Flag in Manhattan

I take issue with the assertion that she hung a Confederate flag from her Manhattan home during the Civil War. While it is common knowledge that Mittie was a Confederate sympathizer and in fact had brothers in the service of the Confederacy, she, her sister and her mother were all living in the home of one of the most prominent citizens in New York. Her husband was a strong supporter of the Union cause, though he never fought, she would not have gone against her husband's wishes in such a public way, nor would her mother have allowed such public disrespect of the "man of the house." For support of this I point you to David McCullough's book "Mornings on Horseback." Which is cited as a reference for this article. Since the assertion that she hung a Confederate flag from her Manhattan house is not supported by reference citing I would recommend it be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H1nkles (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry this previous rant by me was done prior to me knowing that I needed to sign my name. I don't believe in anonymous critizism so I plead ignorance. H1nkles (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A Bit Too Much on Slavery

This article on Mittie Bulloch Roosevelt has what seems to me an unhealthy obsession with the subject of negro slavery. It is well understood that this institution existed throughout the British Colonies before the Revolutionary War (and French Colonies and Spanish Colonies), and persisted in most of the United States until the first half of the 19th Century. To spend several paragraphs revealing the gripping details of Mittie's family's domestic economy, including the humdrum fact that Mittie had a young negress as assigned chaperone and playmate, is just perverse. I have not removed or revised these paragraphs other than to add some 'citation needed' tags, but might well have done so if I had the time.Sallieparker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mittie, like all her siblings, was assigned a personal slave, or a "shadow," to act as companion. Mittie's companion, Lavinia, for example, went everywhere with her, stopping outside the classroom when Mittie went inside, and sleeping on a mat by her side at night. For the family, the stress was on the pleasure of the companionship rather than on the hostage implications in the arrangement.

The last sentence of this paragraph is, well, weird. 'Hostage implications'? Slaves were not kept as 'hostages'. They were bought & sold, period. I can't even think of a better way to word this sentence. We all know what slavery entailed. Adding minute details, as long as they're sourced, about it as it pertained to the Bulloch household is fine. But describing it as some sort of 'hostage' situation is weird. It also reads more like opinion than fact. If there are no objections, I'd just like to remove that last sentence entirely. ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)