Marriage pledge authors backtrack on slavery reference

The Family Leader organization removed a reference to slavery in their “marriage pledge” in the midst of complaints and negative media scrutiny. According to Politico:

A social conservative Iowa group has retracted language regarding slavery from the opening of a presidential candidates’  pledge, amid a growing controversy over the document that Michele Bachmann had signed and Rick Santorum committed to.
The original “marriage vow” from the Family Leader, unveiled last week, included a line at the opening of its preamble, which suggested that black children born into slavery were better off in terms of family life than African-American kids born today.

Given the spokesperson’s explanation, I don’t think the group really gets why they were wrong:

“We came up with the pledge and so we had no idea that people would misconstrue that,” she said. “It was not meant to be racist or anything. it was just a fact that back in the days of slavery there was usually a husband and a wife…we were not saying at all that things are better for African-American children in slavery days than today.”

A husband and a wife who may not live together, with one on one plantation and the other on another.
The Bachmann campaign said Michele Bachmann only meant that she agreed with the pledge part, but not the rest of it. Really? You mean you don’t read what you sign?

A Bachmann spokeswoman said earlier Saturday that reports the congresswoman had signed a vow that contained the slavery language was wrong, noting it was not in the “vow” portion.
“She signed the ‘candidate vow,’ ” campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said, and distanced Bachmann from the preamble language, saying, “In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible.”

8 thoughts on “Marriage pledge authors backtrack on slavery reference”

  1. Considering the extent to which conservative evangelical Christianity is racially segregated – even today – and considering the ancestor-worship approach to American history that is common in this community, it’s probably not surprising that their view of slavery is a bit Song of the South.
    It also fits well with their overall “we know what’s best for you” approach to social issues. It doesn’t take much imagination to hear, right below the surface, “Back when we decided where the darkies lived and who they married, they had good strong family values.”

  2. Considering the extent to which conservative evangelical Christianity is racially segregated – even today – and considering the ancestor-worship approach to American history that is common in this community, it’s probably not surprising that their view of slavery is a bit Song of the South.
    It also fits well with their overall “we know what’s best for you” approach to social issues. It doesn’t take much imagination to hear, right below the surface, “Back when we decided where the darkies lived and who they married, they had good strong family values.”

  3. “In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible.”
    I am not sure how she can justify a blanket condemnation of slavery inasmuch as God approves of it and required it in many instances. If God approves of it, a Christian cannot condemn it as horrible. Once again, a Christian pretends that the Old Testament doesn’t exist. And in this case, she pretends that the Book of Philemon doesn’t exist either.
    But once you have come to believe in giants, unicorns, talking snakes and donkeys, and a Palestinian carpenter who created the Milky Way galaxy, you can pretty much convince yourself of anything.

  4. This whole business of pledges and vows is very troubling; not withstanding the strange fact that the authors and signaturees of this ‘pledge or vow’ seem to be unaware that there are people in this country who do read and understand what they’ve read.

    “It was not meant to be racist or anything. it was just a fact that back in the days of slavery there was usually a husband and a wife…we were not saying at all that things are better for African-American children in slavery days than today.”

    It was flat-out antebellum Christianity’s belief on slavery, from beginning to end; and, not so subtle as to be ‘misconstrued’. Perhaps, these people need to read some credible sources to get a real feel of what it meant to be a slave. William Goodell’s The American Slave Code in Theory and Practice: Its Distinctive Features Shown by Its Statutes, Judicial Decisions, and Illustrative Facts, 1853, might be quite enlightening about these so-called marriages, husband and wife, for African slaves. Kenneth Stampp’s, The Peculiar Institution, mid-20th century, also, has some good citations regarding slavery; although it was written during the period of historical revisionism that veered from the traditional extant notions of slavery.
    The greater problem to me is “taking vows” of any sort as part of a campaign.

    Article 2 Section 1:
    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    This is the only vow or pledge that anyone running for the Office of President of the United States should be interested in. The Constitution is not a religious document, contrary to what anyone, including David Barton is trying to imply. It is not a Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Islamic, Judaic, First Nations, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you religious document. For better or for worse, it is a secular document that grants the greatest amount of freedom and latitude to the many as well as to the few.
    Should Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich be taking a ‘vow or pledge’ to follow the Pope in all things? How about Mitt Romney or Ron Huntsman taking a ‘vow or pledge’ to the Elders of Mormon?
    Of course, we all understand that persons running for POTUS have their own political views, and we need to know these. They can and should be honest about their goals for “We, the people …”, which may include introducing legislation to amend the Constitution. But taking ‘vows or pledges’ as part of campaigning can only bite these people in the behind, and further distance themselves from an electorate who may be interested in what they have to say.
    Included with this is the seeming naivete of this whole campaign process for these intelligent people. To be unaware that they are under a media microscope … that media which is not friendly at all and lives and breathes to cause dissension and conflict, to have a staff that lets major gaffes occur, that documents that are only 4 pages in length much of it footnotes isn’t read beforehand … well, I know we’re all human … but, I guess I expect better from persons running for Office.

  5. “In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible.”
    I am not sure how she can justify a blanket condemnation of slavery inasmuch as God approves of it and required it in many instances. If God approves of it, a Christian cannot condemn it as horrible. Once again, a Christian pretends that the Old Testament doesn’t exist. And in this case, she pretends that the Book of Philemon doesn’t exist either.
    But once you have come to believe in giants, unicorns, talking snakes and donkeys, and a Palestinian carpenter who created the Milky Way galaxy, you can pretty much convince yourself of anything.

  6. This whole business of pledges and vows is very troubling; not withstanding the strange fact that the authors and signaturees of this ‘pledge or vow’ seem to be unaware that there are people in this country who do read and understand what they’ve read.

    “It was not meant to be racist or anything. it was just a fact that back in the days of slavery there was usually a husband and a wife…we were not saying at all that things are better for African-American children in slavery days than today.”

    It was flat-out antebellum Christianity’s belief on slavery, from beginning to end; and, not so subtle as to be ‘misconstrued’. Perhaps, these people need to read some credible sources to get a real feel of what it meant to be a slave. William Goodell’s The American Slave Code in Theory and Practice: Its Distinctive Features Shown by Its Statutes, Judicial Decisions, and Illustrative Facts, 1853, might be quite enlightening about these so-called marriages, husband and wife, for African slaves. Kenneth Stampp’s, The Peculiar Institution, mid-20th century, also, has some good citations regarding slavery; although it was written during the period of historical revisionism that veered from the traditional extant notions of slavery.
    The greater problem to me is “taking vows” of any sort as part of a campaign.

    Article 2 Section 1:
    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    This is the only vow or pledge that anyone running for the Office of President of the United States should be interested in. The Constitution is not a religious document, contrary to what anyone, including David Barton is trying to imply. It is not a Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Islamic, Judaic, First Nations, Buddhist, Hindu, or what have you religious document. For better or for worse, it is a secular document that grants the greatest amount of freedom and latitude to the many as well as to the few.
    Should Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich be taking a ‘vow or pledge’ to follow the Pope in all things? How about Mitt Romney or Ron Huntsman taking a ‘vow or pledge’ to the Elders of Mormon?
    Of course, we all understand that persons running for POTUS have their own political views, and we need to know these. They can and should be honest about their goals for “We, the people …”, which may include introducing legislation to amend the Constitution. But taking ‘vows or pledges’ as part of campaigning can only bite these people in the behind, and further distance themselves from an electorate who may be interested in what they have to say.
    Included with this is the seeming naivete of this whole campaign process for these intelligent people. To be unaware that they are under a media microscope … that media which is not friendly at all and lives and breathes to cause dissension and conflict, to have a staff that lets major gaffes occur, that documents that are only 4 pages in length much of it footnotes isn’t read beforehand … well, I know we’re all human … but, I guess I expect better from persons running for Office.

Comments are closed.