Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Pledge That Begins With a Lie

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Mrs.PatsFanInVa, Jul 9, 2011.

  1. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +312 / 7 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    How is it that lately people of otherwise normal intelligence fall prey to such dishonest and distorted renditions of history and attempt to reset the clock, bringing us all back into a time and place whose memory should shame us all?


    The beginning of the "Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence Upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY.

    Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure without the transmission of personal virtue, from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities. Unmistakably, the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis:

     Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.3


    It's absolutely amazing to watch some people and some groups of people play with the truth. It's even more amazing to watch how many people are willing to savor it, swallow it and then regurgitate it up whole without even blinking an eye.

    In this case it's not just an outright lie that's being told, it's also the complete absence of the truth which is being passed off as legitimate fact.

    The first paragraph goes into great detail about the necessity of marriage, marital fidelity, sexually-faithful husbands and wives and the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities....and then goes on to tell us that a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than is an African-American baby born in today's world.

    What they neglect to tell us is that not one of those "slave" children born in 1860 in The United States of America was regarded as a child born of wedlock nor was he considered a legitimate child nor did he or his parents have any "family" rights or privileges whatsoever.

    The simple fact (the one they "forgot" to mention) is that marriages between slaves was not legal nor was it recognized in 1860.

    Marriage in 1860, that sacred vow taken by men and women, that blessed institution, was (and will always be, if the people who sign this pledge have their way) a contract between two people, a man and a woman, a husband and a wife - and in 1860 slaves were classified as property. They were not recognized as people. They were, therefore, legally unable to enter into a contract of any sort - including marriage.

    Slave marriages had neither legal standing nor protection from the abuses and restrictions imposed on them by slaveowners.

    Freedmen's Bureau Marriage Records

    U.S. slavery: In the 19th century before slavery was outlawed in the U.S., marriages between slaves were not recognized by some U.S. states. The Louisiana Slave Code of 1824 stated:

    "Slaves cannot marry without the consent of their masters, and their marriages do not produce any of the civil effects which result from such contract." 1


    A North Carolina judge wrote in 1858 that:

    "...the relation between slaves is essentially different from that of man and wife joined in lawful wedlock." 1

    Why couples are/were not permitted to marry

    “A slave cannot even contract matrimony, the association which takes place among slaves, and is called marriage, being properly designated by the word contubernium, a relation which has no sanctity, and to which no civil rights are attached.”
    Goodell, The American Slave Code. Pt. I Ch. VII.

    It was not until 1866 that marriage between two African-Americans or former slaves were declared legal and their children regarded as their children rather than as property of their parent's owners.

    [I]"Professor John B. Minor, in his … discussion of slavery in Virginia, observes: "Previous to February 27, 1866, the marriage laws of Virginia did not contemplate nor include Negroes, not even free Negroes, at least in respect to any penalties for disregard of the laws touching license or prohibition of bigamy, of incestuous marriages, or lewd cohabitation; and hence marriages of free Negroes (those of slaves being void) were governed altogether by the common law." 1 Minor's Inst. (4th ed.), p. 268. The author, at page 188, says: "It is agreed that [*812] slaves have no power to make contracts. Hence the marriages of slaves are void." (Lemons v. Harris and Others, Supreme Court Of Virginia, 115 Va. 809; 80 S.E. 740; 1914 Va. Lexis 134, January 15, 1914)[/I]

    Chronology On The History Of Slavery And Racism 1830 To The End

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is history - and truth.

    This faulty babble being offered up as a "Marriage Vow" and as a "Declaration of Dependence" is not based on history, it's not based on fact, it's not based on anything but paranoid fear and personal agenda and a desire to rewrite history to serve a religious right which is rapidly spinning out of control.
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,837
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    Darryl, I noted that you raised the thought over there in the general thread on the "pledge", but it looks like the Missus (who's active over there too,) wants to specifically focus on this aspect of the pledge lemon, the lie about the wonderful state of wedded bliss that African-Americans enjoyed in the good ol' slavery days, as the "pledge" would have it.

    Interesting parallels, if you ask me, and all the more reason the revisionists would want to make up another form of alternate history to make it go away.

    They're well aware that the right wing has a long and proud history of intolerance of the "other" in America, and that their own current behavior is nothing more than an extension of this long-honored tradition among the American right -- though it is a delicious irony that back then the Republicans were the American left.

    Owning people as property who could not marry, laws against interracial marriage, now insistence that only people with the same sexuality as oneself can marry.... it's all of a piece.

    Hence their concern with mixing in a generous portion of 100% fact-free garbage about how good slavery was for African-American marriages... back in the good ol' days.

    PFnV
  4. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +312 / 7 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    I'd prefer that this thread remain on it's own.

    The other thread specifically speaks of pornography - and since I often get admonished for changing the thread topic I felt it wiser to start another.

    Besides that, the fact that the whole introduction into the "Pledge" is based upon nonsense and a mish-mosh of unprovable facts (more slaves lived in two family homes in 1860 than African-Americans do currently) seems like a topic unto itself, anyhow.

    Slaves didn't have "homes," in 1860. The children of slaves didn't belong to any "family unit," they belonged to their owner (who may or may not have had anything to do with their parentage.)

    Children, at the age of 8-12, were routinely taken away from their parents and either sold outright or put to work in some other aspect of plantation life away from their mother or father. Fathers and mothers who belonged to the same owner were often sold individually. Many slaves "married" or began relationships with slaves from a neighboring plantation - thus they never lived together in the first place.

    There were no "family units," no "sanctity of marriage," for slaves before 1866. Slave owners would no more recognize a "marriage" between slaves than they would a marriage between a cow and a bull or a hen and a rooster. They were all property and had no legal standing and no relationship rights.

    It's a travesty for this pledge to even suggest otherwise.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>