Slaves may or may not have been allowed to marry by their masters.
One thing to realize is slaves were their master's property and if the master chose to he could breed his slaves as he did his other living property (e.g. animals, plants). This would not involve marriage and whether or not the slave was already "married", that slave would have to have sex with whomever the master chose to breed them with (which may be either slave or free).
slave marriages were legal in the eyes of the slaves. but to the slave holder, the marriages may not have even existed. slave owners had the ability to separate the married couple at his will. so in a sense, yes they were, yet in another sense, no they weren't.
The statement regarding the relationship merry-go-round that is true is that by the age of 40 about 75 percent of Americans have been married at least once. The statement that is untrue is that arranged marriages are no longer the normal.
Probably not. The bulk of the labour force were peasants conscripted when the Nile was in flood and no work possible in the fields.
There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".There were slave marriages, but they did not depend on Roman law, they depended upon the master's okay. The marital arrangement for slaves was called "contubrium" and a marriage between freedmen and slaves was called "concubinatus".
True.
There are several verses in the Bible on marriage, Paul wrote many of them.
true
Which are true statements regarding infant HIV
True.
false
Many things are true regarding the Buddha. You need to narrow down your question, or give some context.
Mississippi was a slave state until the end of the Civil War.