Conservative group backtracks on marriage pledge slavery language - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com
Ahhh, the day to day fascination that is following American politics. There's grandstanding. There's posturing. There's vast distortion...and there's this...
"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,"
Some of the most vile, infuriatingly pat justifications I ever heard of Antebellum slavery in American History was that "at least it wasn't as brutal as slavery in other parts of the world"1 , or "Black people were happier or better off under slavery". A social institution that bred, bought and sold persons as though they were baseball cards (or Pokemon) , separated "families" as it was profitable, and generally denied the ability to have meaningful longterm relationships with their spouses and families should it have interfered with their prime directives was somehow the halmark of hearth and home. Or whatever other lies one will tell oneself in order to avoid the real, horrid human costs of southern history.
A quick internet query refutes the dizzy notion of two-parent household bliss in the Antebellum slavery system fairly succinctly, saying:
Marriage was not a locked-in-condition. Strings were attached which had an effect on slaves who tried to marry and live in the cities. Moreover, "a house was not a home." Slaves families cold hardly exist in bondage. A marriage contract was not recognized as law, the circumstances being a negative response. Children of this marriage were to become the property of the master and not the parents. This situation was the general condition of slavery.