PDA

View Full Version : In the US who was the first slave owner of blacks



roadmaster
09-06-2013, 11:59 PM
Many people don't know this. According to colonial records, the first legal slave owner in the United States was a black man. Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slaves of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

oceanloverOH
09-07-2013, 12:14 AM
Many people don't know this. According to colonial records, the first legal slave owner in the United States was a black man. Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slaves of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

That's really an interesting historical fact, roadmaster, I did not know that. I've always been fascinated with that whole historical period....the abduction, sale and subsequent slavery of Africans by warring tribes; the concept and evolution of African slavery in the European island colonies and the United States; the "breeding farms" to increase the slave population; the horrors slaves endured (and the horrors they perpetrated in places like Haiti); the emancipation and the end of slavery in Western societies. A shame that some cultures are still so unenlightened that they continue to practice slavery.......

jillian
09-07-2013, 01:26 AM
Many people don't know this. According to colonial records, the first legal slave owner in the United States was a black man. Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slaves of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

that isn't what the case was..... he was a) not the first slave-owner... the case gave a free BLACK man the right to have slaves. whites already had them. johnson was actually the first black man in virginia to have land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor

not quite sure why that was of interest to you

oceanloverOH
09-07-2013, 03:09 AM
that isn't what the case was..... he was a) not the first slave-owner... the case gave a free BLACK man the right to have slaves. whites already had them. johnson was actually the first black man in virginia to have land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor

not quite sure why that was of interest to you

Maybe she's just interested in history, like me.......

Ravi
09-07-2013, 04:30 AM
There was no US in 1654.

oceanloverOH
09-07-2013, 09:17 AM
There was no US in 1654.

You know we meant the U.S. colonial territory. Sheesh, Marie!

jillian
09-07-2013, 09:49 AM
Maybe she's just interested in history, like me.......

then she would have posted some history.... instead of pretending the first slave owner in the territories was black.

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 11:32 AM
That's really an interesting historical fact, @roadmaster (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=87), I did not know that. I've always been fascinated with that whole historical period....the abduction, sale and subsequent slavery of Africans by warring tribes; the concept and evolution of African slavery in the European island colonies and the United States; the "breeding farms" to increase the slave population; the horrors slaves endured (and the horrors they perpetrated in places like Haiti); the emancipation and the end of slavery in Western societies. A shame that some cultures are still so unenlightened that they continue to practice slavery.......

Yes it is, even though there were others this was the first legal one.

Chris
09-07-2013, 11:42 AM
Yes it is, even though there were others this was the first legal one.



Well that explains that. Even the wiki link attests to it: "John Casor (surname also recorded as Cazara and Corsala),[1] a servant in Northampton County in the Virginia Colony, in 1655 became the first person of African descent in Britain's Thirteen Colonies to be declared by the county court as a slave for life."

Interesting tidbit of US history.

oceanloverOH
09-07-2013, 12:02 PM
then she would have posted some history.... instead of pretending the first slave owner in the territories was black.

Jillian, I don't think roadmaster was "pretending". Gosh, but you ladies are confrontational this morning over a little interesting piece of trivia.

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 12:06 PM
Yes prior to 1665 there were no legal slaves only indentured servants they could only be required to serve 7 years and let free to be given 50 acres and this included all races. Here is a link of some interesting facts. http://therionorteline.com/2013/06/28/what-was-the-origin-of-slavery-in-america-the-courts/

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 12:09 PM
Jillian, I don't think @roadmaster (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=87) was "pretending". Gosh, but you ladies are confrontational this morning over a little interesting piece of trivia. I had always heard of this from my grandma and what she heard as a child and I think it's interesting how thing came about. This is not a racist thread.

jillian
09-07-2013, 12:21 PM
Jillian, I don't think @roadmaster (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=87) was "pretending". Gosh, but you ladies are confrontational this morning over a little interesting piece of trivia.

oh.. i dunno, OL, you read enough stuff from a poster where all they do is take potshots at other races/religions, you kind of see it instantly.

her intent, whether the facts were intentionally misstated or not (and i don't think her misstatement was intentional... it was, however, a misstatement).... was to make it seem like blacks were the first slaveowners here.

it's kind of like the anti-semites who like blaming the "jewish slave owners" in this country (at a time when there weren't many jews here, if any)...

sometimes it's important to see things for what they are...

you know, like when someone calls you a dyke... because they don't like your politics.

oceanloverOH
09-07-2013, 12:28 PM
The dyke stuff has nothing to do with this topic. Please don't derail the thread, thank you.
roadmaster, weren't there multitudes of Irish brought over to the American colonies as indentured servants? Was that before or after or during the time when Africans first started to be established as slaves? I need to do some research and get my timelines straight!

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 12:29 PM
"jewish slave owners" That was in another country. I am talking about the US.

Peter1469
09-07-2013, 12:30 PM
I think the Irish came after (at least in large numbers).

jillian
09-07-2013, 12:31 PM
That was in another country. I am talking about the US.

no. it wasn't...

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 12:33 PM
The dyke stuff has nothing to do with this topic. Please don't derail the thread, thank you.
@roadmaster (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=87), weren't there multitudes of Irish brought over to the American colonies as indentured servants? Was that before or after or during the time when Africans first started to be established as slaves? I need to do some research and get my timelines straight! Yes the Irish were brought over as indentured servants before Africans.

Adelaide
09-07-2013, 12:33 PM
I was reading a book about imperial Spain the other night and it was interesting how the conquistadors used the legal system of encomienda in Mexico (and other areas reached by Spanish colonists) to essentially permit slave labour by native tribes, which was not allowed, and eventually it was stopped by missionaries. This was a similar legal system to the one used during the Reconquista when they were driving out the moors. It was a fairly complex scheme that used a type of legal system to exploit labour even though it wasn't the way the legal system was meant to be used. Spanish colonists sort of went off the rails.

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 12:35 PM
I think the Irish came after (at least in large numbers). No many whites were over here first then Africans. It was illegal to have a servant at first of different race and illegal to own slaves.

jillian
09-07-2013, 12:56 PM
No many whites were over here first then Africans. It was illegal to have a servant at first of different race and illegal to own slaves.

in this country??? white slaves? you're referring to indentured servants...

the first african slaves were brought to jamestown, va, in 1619

http://www.history.com/topics/slavery

Chris
09-07-2013, 01:14 PM
We can't we all just be PC!!! :violent1:

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 01:22 PM
We can't we all just be PC!!! :violent1: People want to talk about other countries selling slaves not US History. Again it was illegal in the US courts.

Chris
09-07-2013, 01:40 PM
Yes, it reminds me the thread that followed Marx's and progressives whitewashing northern involvement in slave trading. Or the one that revealed blacks had fought in the revolution, or was it in the Civil War on the side of the South, or both.

Mister D
09-07-2013, 01:45 PM
I was reading a book about imperial Spain the other night and it was interesting how the conquistadors used the legal system of encomienda in Mexico (and other areas reached by Spanish colonists) to essentially permit slave labour by native tribes, which was not allowed, and eventually it was stopped by missionaries. This was a similar legal system to the one used during the Reconquista when they were driving out the moors. It was a fairly complex scheme that used a type of legal system to exploit labour even though it wasn't the way the legal system was meant to be used. Spanish colonists sort of went off the rails.



The conflict between the colonists and the church/crown is passed over in "popular" history because it makes the church look pretty good. It's also important to remember that the Spanish colonists were not colonists in the classical sense of the term. They were there to exploit the land, get rich, and return to Spain to live the good life. They didn't bring women and children. In the early years they were predominately young men, soldiers, and adventurers who did not intend to settle in America.

A large number of these adventurers actually came from the same part of Spain (Extremadura). I think it was a poor backwater at the time.

The Sage of Main Street
09-07-2013, 02:23 PM
Jesse Jackson should sue all Blacks named Johnson for reparations! He should take every dime Magic Johnson has!

roadmaster
09-07-2013, 06:18 PM
Yes, it reminds me the thread that followed Marx's and progressives whitewashing northern involvement in slave trading. Or the one that revealed blacks had fought in the revolution, or was it in the Civil War on the side of the South, or both.

It was pretty much the industrial rich north against the poor farmers south. We still put up on hell of a fight and never gave up. All races fought for the south that lived here.

Adelaide
09-08-2013, 11:53 AM
The conflict between the colonists and the church/crown is passed over in "popular" history because it makes the church look pretty good. It's also important to remember that the Spanish colonists were not colonists in the classical sense of the term. They were there to exploit the land, get rich, and return to Spain to live the good life. They didn't bring women and children. In the early years they were predominately young men, soldiers, and adventurers who did not intend to settle in America.

A large number of these adventurers actually came from the same part of Spain (Extremadura). I think it was a poor backwater at the time.

The book I'm reading (and admittedly, prior to this I've no interest outside of what I was forced to learn in secondary school) it is pretty clear that they were not acting in a way that was appropriate for or would be deemed acceptable behaviour by the Crown and Church. Any land they found was automatically deemed Spanish territory belonging to the crown, and I think subject to their laws and obviously religion. Any resources found were broken up into what the crown would get, then what each conquistador would get based on their rank (so it was very lucrative). But... they were still there to convert native populations, or to try to. Even though the church was against the slave labour employed by the conquistadors, it was still partially about bringing their religion to the new world. In terms of slave labour, the church was right but I obviously do not agree with the church about converting native populations.

jillian
09-08-2013, 12:03 PM
We can't we all just be PC!!! :violent1:

how is truth PC?

or do you prefer falsehoods when they're posted by people on your side of the aisle?

never mind....

Mister D
09-08-2013, 12:04 PM
The book I'm reading (and admittedly, prior to this I've no interest outside of what I was forced to learn in secondary school) it is pretty clear that they were not acting in a way that was appropriate for or would be deemed acceptable behaviour by the Crown and Church. Any land they found was automatically deemed Spanish territory belonging to the crown, and I think subject to their laws and obviously religion. Any resources found were broken up into what the crown would get, then what each conquistador would get based on their rank (so it was very lucrative). But... they were still there to convert native populations, or to try to. Even though the church was against the slave labour employed by the conquistadors, it was still partially about bringing their religion to the new world. In terms of slave labour, the church was right but I obviously do not agree with the church about converting native populations.

Christianity was a missionary religion from day 1. It still is but I hear you. Sadly, by working so closely with natives the priests actually spread Old World diseases. Yeah, the abuse was scandalous. Have you of the monk Bartolomé de las Casas? He was a famous defender of native rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas


The discussion this sparked in Spain and in the RCC is fascinating. It's not often in history that we see the morality of conquest is questioned.

Chris
09-08-2013, 12:06 PM
how is truth PC?

or do you prefer falsehoods when they're posted by people on your side of the aisle?

never mind....


Right, never mind, you got my point. Nice made up troll tho'.

Chris
09-08-2013, 12:10 PM
Christianity was a missionary religion from day 1. It still is but I hear you. Sadly, by working so closely with natives the priests actually spread Old World diseases. Yeah, the abuse was scandalous. Have you of the monk Bartolomé de las Casas? He was a famous defender of native rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas


The discussion this sparked in Spain and in the RCC is fascinating. It's not often in history that we see the morality of conquest is questioned.



The purpose of the pilgrims was to proselytize and convert the Indians. Only one who made much effort or any headway was Roger Williams, and he was ostracized. (Barry, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty)

oceanloverOH
09-08-2013, 12:22 PM
Yes, it reminds me the thread that followed Marx's and progressives whitewashing northern involvement in slave trading. Or the one that revealed blacks had fought in the revolution, or was it in the Civil War on the side of the South, or both.

There was a very good movie called Glory that was released in 1989. It was based on the historical facts of the blacks fighting for the south in the Civil War. It starred Denzel Washington, who is one of my fave actors anyway. Great movie, rent it if you get the chance.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XuUGD7aa3E

Mister D
09-08-2013, 12:33 PM
The purpose of the pilgrims was to proselytize and convert the Indians. Only one who made much effort or any headway was Roger Williams, and he was ostracized. (Barry, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty)

I think race figured more prominently in the English consciousnesses. From what I've read over the years it seems that there was more animosity on the part of later Protestant settlers.

roadmaster
09-08-2013, 01:24 PM
It was based on the historical facts of the blacks fighting for the south in the Civil War. Men of Honor of all races fought for the south. Mostly farmers and poor but proud men. We didn't have factories to give us unlimited guns and ammo and the north thought they could just run over us. They found out different and it became the bloodiest battle the US has ever had. You will still find men of Honor in the south of all races, the true southerners that are still proud of their ancestors no matter how twisted the north tried to make us look bad. When I was young black families flew this flag and was proud of this. They refused to let their ancestors die in vain.

Mister D
09-08-2013, 02:30 PM
There was a very good movie called Glory that was released in 1989. It was based on the historical facts of the blacks fighting for the south in the Civil War. It starred Denzel Washington, who is one of my fave actors anyway. Great movie, rent it if you get the chance.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XuUGD7aa3E

That depicted the 54th Massachusetts. That was a Federal regiment.

oceanloverOH
09-08-2013, 02:36 PM
That depicted the 54th Massachusetts. That was a Federal regiment.

Ooooopsie, you're right (good catch, Mister D.....dammit I hate it when I bumble)! Still a great movie.....

Mister D
09-08-2013, 02:52 PM
Ooooopsie, you're right (good catch, @Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4).....dammit I hate it when I bumble)! Still a great movie.....

Oh stop...

Great acting but the combat scenes were a little far fetched at times.

oceanloverOH
09-08-2013, 02:54 PM
Combat scenes.....I can take 'em or leave 'em. I didn't like Saving Private Ryan because there was way too much of that.

Peter1469
09-08-2013, 02:55 PM
Saving Private Ryan had great combat scenes!

Mister D
09-08-2013, 02:58 PM
Combat scenes.....I can take 'em or leave 'em. I didn't like Saving Private Ryan because there was way too much of that.

Those are my favorite. It's why I watch. :smiley:

I remember a girl at college saying she didn't understand why anyone would want to watch carnage like that (i.e. Saving Private Ryan). It's a part of adolescence many males don't grow out of. Yeah, we all say it's terrible but some men are drawn to it.

oceanloverOH
09-08-2013, 03:21 PM
Those are my favorite. It's why I watch. :smiley:

I remember a girl at college saying she didn't understand why anyone would want to watch carnage like that (i.e. Saving Private Ryan). It's a part of adolescence many males don't grow out of. Yeah, we all say it's terrible but some men are drawn to it.

What was it, the quote from G.I. Jane........when men are asked why they want to be Navy Seals, they answer because we get to blow shit up!

Mister D
09-08-2013, 03:25 PM
What was it, the quote from G.I. Jane........when men are asked why they want to be Navy Seals, they answer because we get to blow shit up!

Exactly. Males derive pleasure from destroying things.

Ravi
09-09-2013, 05:35 AM
You know we meant the U.S. colonial territory. Sheesh, Marie!

It is an important distinction. Apparently you, and the OP, realize that slavery is wrong. And yet when our country was formed we allowed the enslavement of black people and a few others without white skin. What a huge joke from people that penned the phrase all men are created equal.

Ravi
09-09-2013, 05:41 AM
No many whites were over here first then Africans. It was illegal to have a servant at first of different race and illegal to own slaves.
Irish people are white. And no, it wasn't illegal to have slaves. This court case merely ruled that in this case it was legal for a black man to have a black slave. Enslaving black people wasn't illegal in Britain and at the time, the colonies were Britain. Enslaving white people was illegal and continued to be illegal when the US was created. Enslaving black people was legal and continued to be legal when the US was created.

jillian
09-09-2013, 06:13 AM
It is an important distinction. Apparently you, and the OP, realize that slavery is wrong. And yet when our country was formed we allowed the enslavement of black people and a few others without white skin. What a huge joke from people that penned the phrase all men are created equal.

Yes. They realize its wrong yet the o/p seemed to find the need to incorrectly attribute the first slaves to someone black (as if that somehow diminishes it). To be fair, I don't think that was her fault, per se. Having done a little. Searching, it seems that was what the rightwing blogosphere was touting.

Chris
09-09-2013, 08:43 AM
It is an important distinction. Apparently you, and the OP, realize that slavery is wrong. And yet when our country was formed we allowed the enslavement of black people and a few others without white skin. What a huge joke from people that penned the phrase all men are created equal.

It's the principle that led to equality, and probably will continue to in some respects. The founders had that foresight.

Throughout history slavery has existed as a norm. That the context we're dealing with here. To apply a modern view to the past, like you're doing, is anachronism.

Ravi
09-09-2013, 08:55 AM
It's the principle that led to equality, and probably will continue to in some respects. The founders had that foresight.

Throughout history slavery has existed as a norm. That the context we're dealing with here. To apply a modern view to the past, like you're doing, is anachronism.

On the contrary. The founding fathers allowed certain people that were not white to be enslaved. They didn't have the foresight to realize that skin color did not make for lesser beings.

roadmaster
09-09-2013, 04:17 PM
Irish people are white. And no, it wasn't illegal to have slaves. This court case merely ruled that in this case it was legal for a black man to have a black slave. Enslaving black people wasn't illegal in Britain and at the time, the colonies were Britain. Enslaving white people was illegal and continued to be illegal when the US was created. Enslaving black people was legal and continued to be legal when the US was created. I am aware Irish people are white being one myself and know the History of the Irish.

Chris
09-09-2013, 04:30 PM
On the contrary. The founding fathers allowed certain people that were not white to be enslaved. They didn't have the foresight to realize that skin color did not make for lesser beings.


Well apparently the point about principles went right over your partisan head.

The Sage of Main Street
09-13-2013, 10:28 AM
Men of Honor of all races fought for the south. Mostly farmers and poor but proud men. We didn't have factories to give us unlimited guns and ammo and the north thought they could just run over us. They found out different and it became the bloodiest battle the US has ever had. You will still find men of Honor in the south of all races, the true southerners that are still proud of their ancestors no matter how twisted the north tried to make us look bad. When I was young black families flew this flag and was proud of this. They refused to let their ancestors die in vain.


If the Blacks had been free, there still would have been a Civil War and the Blacks would have fought for the Confederacy.

The Sage of Main Street
09-13-2013, 10:33 AM
Yes prior to 1665 there were no legal slaves only indentured servants they could only be required to serve 7 years and let free to be given 50 acres and this included all races. Here is a link of some interesting facts. http://therionorteline.com/2013/06/28/what-was-the-origin-of-slavery-in-america-the-courts/


College education is indentured servitude. All it proves is that the graduate was able to go four years without a job, either because his Daddy gave him a fat allowance or he was a Mama's Boy willing to live like a 15-year-old because he was afraid to grow up. Limiting success to those two worthless groups has turned our talent pool into a puddle. If America wants to stop our race to the bottom, we must replace this obsolete aristocratic institution with highly paid professional training.

The Sage of Main Street
09-13-2013, 10:41 AM
I think the Irish came after (at least in large numbers).

In Ireland, the Irish were worse off than our whining slaves. The Irish weren't even property; they lived on property. During the famine (1845-1852), their British owners let half of them starve to death.

Cigar
09-13-2013, 10:58 AM
Is anyone on the Forum Native Indian care to chime it ................ :grin:

Ravi
09-13-2013, 11:05 AM
In Ireland, the Irish were worse off than our whining slaves. The Irish weren't even property; they lived on property. During the famine (1845-1852), their British owners let half of them starve to death.
But the Americans didn't. That's the point.