Michele Bachmann signed marriage pact suggesting black families were better off during slavery

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t see Bachmann losing or gaining votes over this. It’s really just one of those typical left wing “oooooooohhh she’s a racist accusations” just like the Ron Paul newsletters during the last presidential primaries. If I was going to vote for Bachmann this certainly would change my mind.
 
Zhenia said:
What I am pointing out is that we need to face the fact that many different groups share the blame for slavery, not only white Southerners, political correctness notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
No one denies slavery existed in Africa. But Southern slavery was distinct in its emphasis upon race as a marker of slave, or potential-slave, status; as well as in using the Bible to justify slavery.
 
Ahimsa said:
If by “whole” you include the right of the white slave master to sexually exploit the married female slave, then, yeah, slave families were “whole”.
Click to expand...
As a student of the War Between the States, I’ve read quite a few texts dating from that time period. I remember one essay written by a Southern woman who encouraged her sons to fight not for the Confederacy, but for the NORTH.

Her reason? She felt that slavery led to racemixing, since white slaveowners would sometimes (not commonly) have sex with their female slaves in order to create more slaves, since any of their offspring would also be slaves (also, the “one drop rule” stated that having one drop of black blood made you black too.) It was seen by unscrupulous slavemasters as a way to “create” more slaves without having to buy them.

She felt that if the South lost, slavery would end and so would the racemixing that it often led to.
 
Zhenia said:
Her reason? She felt that slavery led to racemixing, since white slaveowners would sometimes (not commonly) have sex with their female slaves in order to create more slaves, since any of their offspring would also be slaves (also, the “one drop rule” stated that having one drop of black blood made you black too.)
Click to expand...
How different American history would have been if one “drop” of white blood, made you “white”.
 
This is surprising to me because Bachmann has been running a very discplined campaign of late and has done a good job of staying on message. That went some way toward dispelling the impression that she is an extremist, but incidents like this could quickly undo all that work.

On the substance of the statement, its worth noting that both the organization and Bachmann have distanced themselves from the statement, so apparently both realize that (at best) it was horribly framed and at worst simply wrong. Slave marriages had no legal standing whatsoever, and slave owners had no legal requirement to keep children with their birth parents or to recognize slave couples as married. Under slavery the slave owner was legally enititled to split up married couples, take children from their mothers, take sexual liberties with the women they “owned,” deny slave husbands the right to see or spend time with their wives and children, and on and on. It was not a “stable” family unit because neither the owner nor the law recognized that slave families were families at all.
 
SamH said:
I guess some people don’t like the truth.
Click to expand...
You honestly think that black families were better off before the Civil War? Back then, your parents would have been sold to another slave owner. To suggest that families were more stable back then is ridiculous
 
After reading the pledge, the only questions I had were:
  1. Is it true that blacks under slavery had a better chance of being raised in a two-parent family than is the case today? Might be. Certainly they had less chance of being aborted.
  2. Did not the signers realize the left would twist this into an argument in favor of slavery? It’s plain to me the signers used this reference to demonstrate how truly horrible the situation of many black children is today. It’s sort of like saying “Russians today have a greater chance of dying of alcoholism than they did under Stalin”, the focus being on the seriousness of the current situation, not an endorsement of Stalin.
  3. If they did realize it would get distorted, did they perhaps think it was worth it in order to tell the truth?
As the left casts around for ways to defame opposition candidates, it will not fail to tell some untruth about every one of them. Perhaps the signers realized this and decided not to blunt their message even so.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
MLK was pretty conservative, and he would be appalled at the status of race politics in our country today.
Click to expand...
Conservatives in MLK’s time were supporters of segregation. MLK would have been considered a liberal by many, but I don’t think he would like being given any label.
 
Zhenia said:
What I am pointing out is that we need to face the fact that many different groups share the blame for slavery, not only white Southerners, political correctness notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Again, I fail to see what the fact that blacks were involved in African slave trade has to do with the treatment of African-Americans in this country. Are you trying to say that the fact that blacks were involved in the slave trade somehow lessens the guilt of white Southerner slave owners? That somehow this mitigates the evil of Jim Crow and forced segregation? . I guarantee you there it was not African tribesmen standing in front of the doors of schools in the South trying to keep blacks from entering.
 
Ridgerunner said:
  1. Is it true that blacks under slavery had a better chance of being raised in a two-parent family than is the case today? Might be. Certainly they had less chance of being aborted.
Click to expand...
But their parents could have been sold
 
Gift_from_God said:
You honestly think that black families were better off before the Civil War? Back then, your parents would have been sold to another slave owner. To suggest that families were more stable back then is ridiculous
Click to expand...
Nobody said they were. However an African-American child was more likely to be raise in a two parent household and was far less likely to be killed in the womb. . These are unfortunate truths that the left does not want to address.
 
Gift_from_God said:
But their parents could have been sold
Click to expand...
yes, they could be. And isn’t it a sad commentary on our times that even with the possibility of their parents being sold an African-American child was more likely to be raised by two parents when African-Americans were enslaved than they are today. . Does that bother you at all?
 
Gift_from_God said:
You honestly think that black families were better off before the Civil War? Back then, your parents would have been sold to another slave owner. To suggest that families were more stable back then is ridiculous
Click to expand...
No

True

Why?
 
I think the problem here is that conservatives believe in the value of the family much more than the Left does. . The left glorifies single motherhood and alternative family structures. So I suspect they react to the fact that the black family was more stable under slavery than it is today with a big “so what” That and trying to distort what was said to once again play the race card and derail any substantial discussion on the disastrous effect their policies have had on the family, black and otherwise,
 
estesbob said:
Nobody said they were. However an African-American child was more likely to be raise in a two parent household and was far less likely to be killed in the womb.
Click to expand...
Again Bob, this thread is not about abortion. It’s about two-parent households for black children
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top