sins, protectorates, and omissions

The first half of Little Women is really dedicated to an introduction to the characters and their individual struggles, as well as the collective struggles of the family. Beth is especially interesting here as the absolute model of innocent goodness. She is the ideal, the perfect pilgrim and the pious little housekeeping daughter. The girls must all undergo their separate struggles to overcome their various sins, vanity, wrath, selfishness, but Beth's sin is simply shyness. While the others have to overpower parts of their nature that make them less desirable young ladies, Beth's main sin is not sharing her goodness with enough people. The family as a unit must also overcome their fall from wealth, not poverty exactly, but awkward enough, and the absence of their father, who is off fighting in the Civil War. The oldest girls work, a governess and a companion, both non-objectionable positions for young girls, and the mother works as a volunteer for the Soldier's Aid Society, sewing and soup kitchening and such.
I have read this book twice before, but neither time did I notice how absolutely sheltered the girls are. Marmee forbids bad influences like Ned Moffat and doing bad things like frequenting billiard halls or drinking wine when you aren't sick or wearing fancy low cut dresses. They really are a testament to her influence in bringing them up and her power as a mother. I found Amy's pickled lime debacle to be particularly interesting. It seems that though what she did was agreed by all parties to be wrong, it was more important to protect her innocent childlike spirit from the intrusion of corporal punishment than it was for her to be educated. I'm not entirely sure if this speaks more to the importance of children's innocence or the lack of importance in women's education.
Another thing that I found at least notable is the near entire absence of slavery or slavery talk. No mention of abolitionists, no mentions of why on earth they are fighting this war. The girls are always knitting blue army socks and their mother is forever “cutting blue flannel jackets,” but only passing mentions are made of the rebels (two in the whole book) and none of their neighbors are called upon to discuss the war or share their political opinions. The book proselytizes about other causes, like helping the poor, not drinking, and being good Christians, but slavery, perhaps the biggest issue of the time, is totally ignored. Not mentioning this pivotal 19th century issue makes the book more readable for audiences today, but I am curious as to what the omission meant to contemporary audiences.