This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whoever said that this article is an AFD please explain your reason why. - Sfrostee
Well it looks like he's a sock puppet so I was right. - Sfrostee
JAMESTOWN The first permanent English settlement within the limits of the United States, founded in May, 1607, by a small company under Captain Newport, in Virginia, on the banks of the James River, about 32 miles from its mouth. Here in 1619 the first legislative assembly in America was held, and here in the same year slavery was first introduced into the original thirteen Colonies.
It's none of my business, of course, but this page titled Anthony Johnson (American Colonial) appears to be an attempt to claim that the first slaveholder in the United States was a Negro, not a white man who owned negroes. I have always heard that slavery was enacted by the legislature of Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This page is at variance with all of the history books and with New International Encyclopedia, too. Velocicaptor 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
--Understood, I will fix the sentence so it is not confusing.
reread the article, you said "but this page...appears to be an attempt to claim that the first slaveholder in the United States was a Negro." It says a paragraph before "He was one of the original 20 African slaves brought to Jamestown." I fixed the confusion anyway and added a source. Sfrostee 14 May 2007
As an institution, slavery did not exist in Virginia in 1619. Slavery as we know it today, evolved gradually, beginning with customs rather than laws, and the institution of slavery evolved legally over a period of time, from indentured servitude to life long servitude. NPS website says that John Punch, a runaway indentured Servant, was the first documented slave for life in 1640. Virginia, Guide to The Old Dominion of the WPA Writers' Program stated that the court case of Anthony Johnson in Northampton County was the first. The NPS site goes on to say that, by 1662, slavery was recognized in the statutory law of the colony. Sources: [1] [2] Vaoverland 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh so Johnson was not a slave but rather one of the first African laborers in Virginia. That must be how he bought his freedom, he was an indentured servant. I will correct it. Sfrostee 15 May 2007
-Anthony Johnson is one of the major reasons slave reparations can never be enacted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwefel ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to correct the initial post in this section, the WPA says that Anthony Johnson was the first to own a slave where a crime was not committed or not as the result of a crime. "As far as is known, this was the first judicial sanction in the English colonies of life servitude where crime was not involved." [3] This is because Hugh Gwyn was legally made a slave owner when his servant, John Punch, was sentenced to lifetime slavery for trying to escape. [4] So both sources are correct, it's just that Vaoverland left off the part about "crime was not involved" which misrepresents the statement and puts it at ends with other sources. Scoobydunk ( talk) 00:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
His wife's name is first given as Juana, then as Mary. Did she change her name? Is this the same person? Hypocryptickal ( talk) 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Mischievous and misleading edits e.g.:
Ironically, Anthony Johnson is the first man known to have owned a slave despite that he was himself a black man.
Poor grammar, spelling and poor context for some statements. I've done what I can. Centrepull ( talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I will change it to year of birth unknown. 1620 is the year of his first appearance, not his birth. 99.6.41.121 ( talk) 06:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
An 'Angolan African?' That's like saying, 'David Cameron, an English European.'
I'm removing the redundancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.224.131 ( talk) 00:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
And I'm putting it back, welcome to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.139 ( talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
GOTO 10 ; You all are utter morons. Then again, I’ll welcome myself to Nazimerica. — 78.34.202.5 ( talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia article on John Punch (slave) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)) suggests that, in judgement against him for an attempt to escape while an indentured servant, John Punch was actually the first "indentured servant for life" in Virginia, in 1640, well predating the case in this article. Jefferson made comments on the deteriorating condition of records from the 1600's ... possibly much has been lost. I have been unable to locate any interim laws establishing the legitimacy of slavery, until a law in 1662 decided "Negro women’s children to serve according to the condition of the mother." WHEREAS some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or ffree, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother." ( http://www.studythepast.com/slaveryvirginiatimeline.pdf) Tomligon ( talk) 01:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Where? Where is it officially established that John Punch wasn't a slave while John Casor was a slave? They were both indentured servants. The Johnson vs. Parker court decision said nothing about Casor being a slave for life, it only ruled that Parker could not take Johnson's property away from him and ordered that Casor be returned back to Johnson since he was still Johnson's property. No where in the court decision was he officially recognized as slave instead of an indentured servant. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Once again, you provide no source for this. Every document claims that Casor was an indentured servant and even the actual transcript from the case talks about his indentured time with Johnson. Also, just because the court accepts testimony doesn't mean it establishes such testimony as truth. In the court decision there is no mention of the word "slave" or any indication that Johnson was awarded Casor for life. It only determined that Casor still belonged to Johnson and therefore Parker had to return him. Scoobydunk ( talk) 22:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
For more clarity, Anthony Johnson argued that he saw no indentured servitude contract and that he had Casor for life. Parker argued that Johnson had an indentured contract with Casor but admitted that he had not set him free. The court transcript says that more people saith he was not freed than do and made a decision off of the fact that Casor was not freed from Johnson. It was in no way an affirmation that Casor was a slave for life, it merely agreed that since he wasn't freed, he wasn't legally able to enter a new indentured servitude contract with Parker. Owners of indentured servants could keep their slaves/servants passed the contract time for a variety of reasons. Johnson had just lost his farm to a fire and wouldn't free Casor because he needed servants to help him rebuild his plantation. Scoobydunk ( talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Massachusetts slave laws (1641) predate Anthony Johnson's court case. There were slaves in the continental US going as far back as the 1620's in Massachusset's. Reference to these are easily found, even in Wikipedia's page on the Mass slave laws. This interpretation of Johnson as first slave owner has some history, but has been debunked in the literature and only remains due to recent promotion by Glenn Beck. I think Wiki would prefer to be consistent with recorded history and it's own articles and references elsewhere here. So I've renamed that section to something more neutral and took out outrageous claims like "first slave". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex0du5 5utu7e ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Second paragraph currently reads as follows:
"Slavery has been rife throughout all of ancient history. Most, if not all, ancient civilizations practiced this institution and it is described (and defended) in early writings of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians. It was also practiced by early societies in central America and Africa. (See Bernard Lewis’s work Race and Slavery in the Middle East1 for a detailed chapter of the origins and practices of slavery.)The Qur’an prescribes a humanitarian approach to slavery — free men could not be enslaved, and those faithful to foreign religions could live as protected persons, dhimmis, under Muslim rule (as long as they maintained payment of taxes called Kharaj and Jizya). However, the spread of the Islamic Empire resulted in a much harsher interpretation of the law. For example, if a dhimmis was unable to pay the taxes they could be enslaved, and people from outside the borders of the Islamic Empire were considered an acceptable source of slaves."
I do not understand what this is doing here. A general description of the history of slavery does not belong in an article about a specific person. Not one word about the subject of the article. I'll delete it if nobody objects. 221bbaker ( talk) 23:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is it only “true” slavery, if it‘s a black and African person? They don’t have a monopoly on victimhood. — 78.34.202.5 ( talk) 09:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently re-writing the article so it will look a little disjointed until I finish. Please avoid corrections for now and bear with me for a few days. Wayne ( talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I see you've yet to provide a source and to claim I've only used one source is a lie. Pretty obvious you're not keen on substantiating your position or representing the truth. You haven't provided one source that actually establishes what made John Casor a slave vs. an indentured servant. The truth is that this is conservative separatist propaganda to try and alter history by making a black man partially responsible for slavery in what would become America. You can easily trace back all of the copy and pasted sites saying JOhnson was the first slave owner to find that they all get it from 1 or 2 sources. The first source doesn't even make that claim, since you can search the book and it says nothing about Johnson being the first slave owner. The other source ( http://books.google.com/books?id=cCsUBMj2cvQC&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false) does say he was the first slave owner, but contradicts itself because the sentence preceding this claim says that Virigina in 1640 "had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery." So clearly they were referring to JOhn Punch, and how can a person be sentenced to slavery in 1640, yet Johnson becomes the first slave owner in 1654? So let's discuss how badly and erroneous this wikipedia entry is.
1. Massachusetts legally recognized slavery in 1641, over 10 years before Anthony Johnson sued Parker for taking John Casor. That would mean there were officially legal slave owners LONG before Anthony Johnson's case.
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/mabodlib.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm
http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/constitution_and_slavery.html
http://historyofmassachusetts.org/slavery-in-massachusetts/
OMG, that's 4 sources from a cursory search that confirm that Mass. legalized slavery back in 1641. Hell, one of them is the official website of Massachusetts. Pretty sure that hold more weight than some biased and prejudice historian that didn't bother to substantiate his claim and you reverting this article to say that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in what would become mainland America is just egregious and atrocious. Also note how NONE of these sources is from a PBS documentary, though PBS confirms this information as well.
2. In 1650 Connecticut legalizes slavery. So if one state wasn't enough for you, here's a second state that legalized it 4 years before Johnson v. Parker. Meaning that there were legal slave owners in what would become mainland America before Anthony Johnson.
http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf
http://www.my-father-was-a-slave.com/slave-codes-of-connecticut.html
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1650
http://www.fairfieldhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/SlaveryTimeline_CT.pdf
http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2007/12/slavery-in-connecticut.html
http://understandingrace.org/history/gov/colonial_authority.html
What's that? 5 sources from the first Bing search that say Connecticut legalized slavery in 1650, 4-5 years before when others try to claim that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? It looks like Anthony Johnson is becoming less and less of historical importance as we discover there were countless slave owners before him. Also seems like you're trying very hard to protect a flat out lie that not only I have pointed out, but numerous others have pointed out before me.
3. In 1640 John Punch was the fist man sentenced to lifelong slavery in VIRGINIA, thus making his owner, Hugh Gwyn, the first true slave owner...IN VIRGINIA. Not only was John Punch sentenced to indefinite servitude 14 years before the Johnson v. Parker verdict but many historians agree that this was the first slave. These historians also describe how Africans arriving in Jamestown in 1619 were most likely not slaves, but that slavery evolved in the colonies through a number of practices and enacted laws. Guess what? They list John Punch as the first man sentenced to indefinite servitude and make no mention of Anthony Johnson. Probably because the Johnson case didn't play a historical role in the evolution of slavery, since there were many slave owners before him. "Whatever the status of these first Africans to arrive at Jamestown, it is clear that by 1640, at least one African had been declared a slave." <--That's John Punch.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400017.html <---oooo an encyclopedia entry
http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm <---An official government website
http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf
http://www.studythepast.com/vabeachcourse/bacons_rebellion/slavelawincolonialvirginiatimeline.pdf
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html <--This one talks about the evolution of slavery in Virginia and doesn't mention Casor
http://hnn.us/article/147607 <---This one says Africans were held by slaves for hundreds of years in colonies before John Punch
Wow, again, just a cursory search of the first page of Bing results and I have 6 different sources that call John Punch the first SLAVE. That's spelled S-L-A-V-E not I-N-D-E-N....you get the idea. Apparently what historically qualifies someone as a slave and not an indentured servant is being forced into slavery for the remainder of their life. Hence, John Punch was the first slave IN VIRGINIA to be officially legally documented. John Casor had nothing to do with being the cause or source of the change in how English Colonies treated black people with the exception that they acknowledged that black people could own slaves.
4. As I said in my last post, nearly every article talking about John Casor refers to him as an indentured servant. Most of the articles are websites that allow public posting or creation of pages. Most articles that try to claim he was the First Slave in America don't provide any sources and the ones that do provide sources list Wikipedia, or 1 or 2 actual history books. One of those I've already showed an egregious error in that it contradicts itself. It refers to Virginia legally sentencing at least 1 man to slavery in 1640 yet tries to claim that Casor is the first slave. You'll also notice the most of the sites verbatim say the same things, meaning they copy and pasted their material from a common source. To get to the bottom of this, I found the original court transcript to see what the court decision actually said. The court decision only established that John Casor still belonged to Anthony Johnson and was based on witness testimony, even by the defendant, that they knew Johnson had not released Casor from his servitude with him. The court said nothing about slavery, they said nothing about him serving indefinitely or for the remainder of his life. I found no other court case citing this case as precedent for any slave issues or any legal issue at all. It's clear that the court decision has been misconstrued to fit a narrative, and once again I'll leave a link here.
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655
For you to keep reverting this article to say that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in what would be America is a downright intellectual dishonesty. Even when you look at the facts of the case, John Punch was clearly a slave before Anthony Johnson, and 2 other colonies legalized slavery years before. Just because they assert something is true, doesn't mean it is true. It shows an utter disregard to the actual facts of history and to slave laws that were established long before the Johnson v. Parker trial. And look, I didn't use a single PBS source in this post, so for you to try and pretend that only PBS is the only entity making these claims is just ignorant.
Scoobydunk (
talk) 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
For all the misinformation you've intentionally left in this article, you only cited 2 claims with sources. The first citation is "Slavery was established in Virginia in 1655, when Johnson convinced a court that his servant John Casor (also a black man), was his for life." and you used
http://books.google.com/books?id=kezflCVnongC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q=1655&f=false as the source for this wrongful quote. This source says absolutely nothing about Slavery being established in 1655. You can easily do a book search and see that it only mentions 1655 twice. Once for when Spain left something, and the other was only saying the date of the Johnson v. Parker decision. It does not assert that this decision established slavery and you are obviously wrong. This source also doesn't say that Casor was the first slave. It only describes the court case between Anthony Johnson and John Casor and makes no reference to it's importance in history or any claim that it established slavery in Virginia or that Casor was the first slave. This book also erroneously interprets the court decision, the decision never said that Casor was a "slave all along" but only that he wasn't a free man or free from his servitude with Johnson. Regardless, your source works against you because it says "Afican-American colonists arrived in Virginia in August of 1619. Most came as indentured servants (or slaves; the two labor systems had not yet diverged)." (Sweet, 118.) So even this source, as do many others, verifies that slaves arrived in Virginia in 1619. I'll also note that your source was actually an essay written by Frank Sweet and in that essay Sweet cites a book called "Myne Owne Ground" as his source for information when talking about John Casor (
http://essays.backintyme.com/item/12). Upon reading relevant sections of "Myne Owne Ground" in regards to John Casor, this book makes no assertion that John Casor was the first black slave. It also doesn't say that the court granted Casor to Johnson for life and doesn't assert that this court decision established slavery in Virginia. Even when talking about the significance of this case, the author, T.H. Breen, doesn't talk about it setting a precedent for slavery. He only talks about how this case was important in understanding the mindset of white plantation owners and their frequent abuse of power compared to how justices and other property owners regarded their unfair practices. Isn't it odd that an entire book dedicated to explaining the life of Anthony Johnson and is ultimately the source of all of your conservative propaganda doesn't support any of the claims you and others are trying to make? T.H. Breen actually cites the NHCR microfilm archives as his source of information and he makes no outrageous assumptions about their content. Funny how your "majority of historians" actually dissolved to one historian who didn't even assert the erroneous claims you're trying to make. All your other "historians" seemed to have just reinterpreted others' essays and publishings based off of this book. This is not looking good for you at all.
Your second source is actually my source. Your second cited claim in contention is "While some genealogists and historians describe John Punch as the first slave, he was technically still an indentured servant, as he was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life in servitude as punishment for escaping" The source you listed for this doesn't confirm what you're trying to inflect with this sentence. As a matter of fact, this source is talking about things that lead to the distinction between indentured servants and slaves and uses the Punch case as a reference to indicate a racial distinction. This source says nothing about people wrongfully misconstruing what John Punch was. It is well known that he was an indentured servant who tried to escape and was then sentences to indefinite servitude WITHOUT A CONTRACT, otherwise known as slavery. By your own admission, the difference between an indentured servant and a slave is a contract determining the length of indenture servitude and a slave has no contract. Punch's punishment is not an indentured contract, it is a sentence to slavery. You also missed the point of this source, as well as all the others. Each of them records a timeline of significant events that lead to the evolution of slavery. Nearly all of them refer to John Punch directly or indirectly by acknowledging slavery was inacted and recognized in 1640/1641. NONE of them mention anything about Casor. Why? Because Casor had no significant role in the history in slavery and the only people who want to pretend that he was the first slave are liars with a clear agenda, like the one you so naively demonstrate again and again.
All your other wrongful claims about Anthony Johnson being the first slave owner are not cited. Here you only have 2 claims that are cited and both of them don't confirm what you say they do. Even worst than that, I give you nearly 15 different sources and you try to disregard them or ignore them based on your own interpretation of terms and semantics. Then you try to rebuttal with 2 sources, one of them being my own? Wow, the intellectual dishonesty is appalling and it's clear you have a bias. You try and claim that everyone else wrongfully used the word "slave" but who are you to decide? That's the point, you're a biased prejudice wants to arbitrarily draw a line in history and pretend that the word "slave" first applied to John Casor, when in fact, NO HISTORICAL DOCUMENT CLAIMS HIM TO BE A SLAVE. There are many historical copies documenting slavery in Mass and Connecticut and even the arrival of African slaves in Jamestown in 1619, but no historical document affirming that Casor was the first slave. You also try to dismiss my source for John Punch being the first slave by pretending that the majority of historians claim Johnson was the first, yet provide NOTHING to substantiate this claim. The audacity you have to claim that government websites mistakenly use the word "slave" is just hilarious. As if you're some benevolent being who gets to decide the historical meaning and context of words. You're not, that's why we compile all available data and make a determination from it, and my argument holds much more support than yours, which is NONE.
I'll also note that the Mass. laws in 1641 DID legalize slavery by establishing that people could be sentenced to servitude/slavery if they were judged by authority. This is why every source I gave accurately refers to this as the first instance of legalized slavery in the English colonies. Your opinion does not supersede law or override the positions held even by the state of Massachusetts itself. Also, you again didn't read a source and intentionally misrepresented it by quoting "never obtained the force of a general law" and pretending that was in regards to Connecticut. The truth is, this portion of the text was talking about a province in RHODE ISLAND and had nothing to do with Connecticut. They were saying that Rhode Island never adopted it into general law which is completely separate from Connecticut. I mean, you're just so bad at this, trying to make up arguments to discredit information I submit by intentionally taking it out of context. I'll refrain from editing the page for one more day unless I see accurate information posted on the page or you actually present a substantiated argument that doesn't hinge on your "because I said so" mentality. Scoobydunk ( talk) 03:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a continuation from the discussion at [5]. Wayne seems to be arguing that he has six sources and therefore the case is closed. I have found problems with both the reliability of the sources and Wayne's interpretation of them. Wayne's six sources:
Kozlowski -- See [6]. This is a juvenile book intended for ages 11 and up.
Conway -- See [7]. Also a juvenile book.
Danver -- His expertise, based on his writings, is as a generalist -- he does not appear to be a recognized specialist on either slavery or colonial America. See [8]
Miller -- His expertise appears to also be outside the field of slavery or colonial America. See [9]
Federal Writers' Project (1954). Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion (see [10]) -- This is a result of a project by the WPA -- it is debatable whether it qualifies as a reliable source since we don't know the actual writers. However it does state of the Casor case "As far as is known, this was the first judicial sanction in the English colonies of life servitude where crime was not involved." This is probably more accurate language than the attempts to classify someone as the first legal slaveholder"
Toppin -- Seems like a good source. His actual language, however, is that Casor was "the first black we know of to be made a slave in a civil case in Virginia". This language is also more accurate than what is being put into the wikipedia article. Note that he restricts the case to civil court, as opposed to criminal, and limits the scope to Virginia, not mainland America. This link
[11] shows what Toppin had to say about Punch. Note that the boldface heading of the section states "SLAVERY BEGINS IN VIRGINIA: THE CASE OF JOHN PUNCH" and the body of the section states, "Again, this would indicate that slavery had become an accepted custom long before laws were passed to make it legal." This source actually supports Scoobydunk rather than Wayne.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk) 15:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
PS Turns out Toppin's work is also a textbook. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I missed one:
Park -- Park describes Johnson as "the first freed slave in North America". Obviously then Johnson had an owner. If you accept Park as an authority, then don't you also need to list Johnson as a former slave rather than as an indentured servant? He also refers to Johnson as "the first African holder of indentured servants" -- he does not call him the first slaveholder. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
PS Park is described on Amazon as "Young Park has spent over fifty years in education and as an international business consultant in countries through the world. Based on his experiences, Park has written seven books, Korea and the Imperialists, The Life and Times of a Hyphenated American, Shootout at Grove Street, The Korean from America, Tiny Holes, and Choices. This is his seventh book." Nice credentials but no indication he should be considered a reliable source on slavery or colonial America. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Johnson's story is much greater and of more historical significance than the fact that he was the winning party in a civil suit. I think more appropriate language would be something like:
A black freedman, he became a man of substance who farmed independently, held slaves, and left his heirs sizeable estates.
This language is a paraphrase of Ira Berlin in "Many Thousands Gone" (p.30) when he writes that "Like other men of substance, Johnson and his sons farmed independently, held slaves, and left their heirs sizeable estates." Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Slavery in Britain was illegal, no statutes legalising slavery were ever passed. The English did take part in the slave trade and did buy slaves but under common law, the moment a slave set foot on British soil they were free (indentured servants). They were allowed to testify in court and had the same rights as a white indentured servant. A slave could take his master to court for bad treatment and could have a habeas corpus. The case of Hector Nunez in 1587 shows that under common law a master could not legally force a black servant to serve him. The trial of John Lilburne in 1637 put a limit on the level of physical punishment that could be given to a black servant. In 1677 and again in 1694 courts ruled that slaves were trover but this was overruled in 1696 (Chamberlain v. Harvey) which found that there could not be a action of trover in the case of a black slave because the law did not recognize blacks as slaves, "one may be a villain in England but not a slave." Slave owners still had a right to labour when they brought slaves to England, but the slave was not their chattel and could not be treated as such. Wayne ( talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that an editor requested a citation for a statement in this article that declared that indentured servants who completed their contracts of indenture were better off than immigrants that arrived freely. I started to do some research and I found an article published by The Journal of American History that actually seems to claim the opposite. It is an article written by Aaron S. Fogleman titled From Slaves, Convicts, and Servants to Free Passengers: The Transformation of Immigration in the Era of the American Revolution and he says on page 47 "Although indentured servitude offered opportunity to some struggling European migrants, opportunities were even greater for those who traveled as free passengers." [15] He goes on to explain that the majority of those arriving freely were of higher social status than indentured servants and were looking to improve their economic situation. I'll give some time for someone to produce a reliable scholarly source expressing the opposite before making changes to the article.
Also, you can find the article I linked on Academicroom.com if you don't have a JSTOR account, but wikipedia blocked the link which is why I put down the JSTOR one.- Scoobydunk ( talk) 06:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed a portion of the wiki on the grounds it doesn't belong in this wiki and the information is largely misleading if not outright bogus. Lifetime indentured and life time convicts(who could then be used for labor) existed before Punch and Casor. The Casor instance is important on the grounds that it essentially allowed someone to own another for life even though the other person had done nothing wrong. It is completely different than indentured for life due to criminal punishment. 97.83.233.68 ( talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Although this article is not about Punch, mention is required as some historians do consider him to have been a slave. Mention should be relevant and the above source supports the current version indicating that academic opinion varies. Wayne ( talk) 06:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)"They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians believe that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker."
I removed the OR analysis of which/how many genealogists and historians consider John Punch a slave since it's not necessary. The rest of the article is written as a "matter of fact" from the sources, so this statement can be represented the same way. Since we don't supplement every other factual claim with "historians consider" then we don't need to qualify statements regarding John Punch with such wording. This way there is no OR interpretation of how prevalent the information is amongst historians and no representation of a minority/majority view which shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Scoobydunk ( talk) 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Those watching this page should be aware of the discussion(s) underway at WP:NPOVN related to this article. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add an appropriate page-protection padlock template to the top of this page. Thanks. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252 {\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;} \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\sl320\partightenfactor0
\f0\fs22 \cf2 \cb3 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 \{\{pp-dispute|small=yes|expiry=18:00, 11 April 2014\}\}\ \{\{other people|Anthony Johnson\}\}\ \{\{Infobox person\ | name = Anthony Johnson\ | image = Anthony Johnson (slave).jpg\ | alt = \ | caption = Anthony Johnson c. 1650.\ | birth_name = \ | birth_date = c. 1600\ | birth_place = Angola\ | death_date = 1670\ | death_place = Colony of Virginia\ | nationality = \ | other_names = Antonio\ | occupation = Farmer\ | known_for = The most prominent former black indentured servant to obtain freedom, wealth, and slaves of his own.\ \}\}\ \ Anthony Johnson (c1600 — 1670) was an Angolan who achieved freedom and became a property owner and slaveholder in the Colony of Virginia in the early 17th century. Held as an indentured servant in 1621, he earned his freedom after several years, which was accompanied by a grant of land. He later became a successful tobacco farmer. Notably, he is recognized for attaining great wealth after having been an indentured servant and for being the first legally recognized slaveowner in the English colonies.\ \ ==Biography==\ \ ===Early life===\ Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as a slave or indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company. [1]\ \ The Virginia Muster (census) of 1624 lists his name as "Antonio not given," with "a Negro" written in the notes column, and records that he had arrived in Virginia in 1621 aboard the James. [2] There is some dispute among historians as to whether this was the Antonio who became Anthony Johnson, as the census lists several "Antonios," with this one being considered the most likely. [3] Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet as an indentured servant to work on his Virginia tobacco farm. Servants typically worked four to seven years to pay off their passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. In the early colonial years, most Africans in the Thirteen Colonies were held under contracts of indentured servitude. With the exception of those indentured for life, they were released after a contracted period [4] with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts expired or were bought out. Johnson took ownership of a large plot of farmland after he paid off his indentured contract. [5] \ \ Johnson almost lost his life in the Indian massacre of 1622 when his master's plantation was attacked. The Powhatan, who were the Native Americans dominant in the Tidewater of Virginia, were upset at the encroachment of the colonists into their land. They attacked the settlement on Good Friday and killed 52 of the 57 men where Johnson worked. \ \ The following year (1623) "Mary, a Negro" arrived from England aboard the ship Margaret and was brought to work on the plantation, where she was the only woman. Johnson and Mary married and lived together for over forty years. [6]\ \ ===Freedom===\ Sometime after 1635, Antonio and Mary gained their freedom from indenture. Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson. [6] Johnson first enters the legal record as a free man when he purchased a calf in 1647. On 24 July 1651 he acquired \{\{convert|250|acre|ha\}\} of land under the headright system by buying five indentured servants, one of whom was his son Richard Johnson. The land was located on the Great Naswattock Creek which flowed into the Pungoteague River in Northampton County, Virginia.: [7]\ \ In 1652 "an unfortunate fire" caused "great losses" for the family, and Johnson applied to the courts for tax relief. The court not only reduced the family's taxes but on 28 February 1652, exempted his wife Mary and their two daughters from paying taxes at all "during their natural lives." At that time taxes were levied on people not property, and under the 1645 Virginia taxation act, "all negro men and women and all other men from the age of 16 to 60 shall be judged tithable." [7] [8] It is unclear from the records why the Johnson women were exempted, but the change gave them the same social standing as white women, who were not taxed. [8] During the case, the justices noted that Anthony and Mary "have lived Inhabitants in Virginia (above thirty years)" and had been respected for their "hard labor and known service". [6]\ \ ==Casor suit==\ When Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro" and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servant. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant Johnson had apparently bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened, and Johnson was persuaded to set Casor free. \ \ Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling. [9] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker. [10] This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the thirteen colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]\ \ Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave when he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. [16] [17] The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants. [18] [19]\ \ ===Significance of Casor suit===\ The Casor suit was significant because it demonstrated the culture and mentality of planters in the mid-17th century. The individuals in this trial made assumptions about the society of Northampton County and their place in it. According to historians T.R. Breen and Stephen Innes, Casor believed that he could form a stronger relationship with his patron Robert Parker than Anthony Johnson had formed over the years with his patrons. Casor considered the dispute to be a matter of patron-client relationship, and this wrongful assumption ultimately lost him the court and the decision. Johnson knew that the local justices shared his basic belief in the sanctity of property. The judge sided with Johnson, although in future legal issues, race played a larger role. [20]\ \ The Casor suit was also significant as an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most African immigrants could not read and had no knowledge of the English language. Slave owners found it easy to take advantage and force them into slavery by simply refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts. [21] This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Even though Casor had two white planters confirming his claim to freedom from his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor. [22]\ \ ==Later life==\ In 1657, Johnson\'92s white neighbor, Edmund Scarborough, forged a letter in which Johnson acknowledged a debt. Johnson did not contest the case. Although Johnson was illiterate and could not have written the letter, the court granted Scarborough 100 acres of Johnson\'92s land to pay off his "debt". [5] In this early period, free blacks enjoyed "relative equality" with the white community. Around 20% of free blacks in Virginia at this time owned their own homes, and half of those were married to white women. [23] \ \ By 1665, racism was becoming more common. The Virginia Colony had passed a law in 1662 that children were born with the status of their mother, according to the Roman principle of partus sequitur ventrem; therefore, all children of slave women were born into slavery. This was a reversal of English common law, which held that for English subjects, children took the status of their father. Africans were considered foreigners and not English subjects. \ \ Johnson moved his family to Somerset County, Maryland. He negotiated a lease on a \{\{convert|300|acre|ha|adj=on\}\} plot of land for ninety-nine years. Johnson used this land to start a tobacco farm, which he named Tories Vineyards. [24]\ \ == References ==\ \{\{Reflist\}\}\ \ ===Sources===\
\ ==External links==\
\ \ \{\{Persondata \ | NAME = Johnson, Anthony\ | ALTERNATIVE NAMES =\ | SHORT DESCRIPTION = Farmer, slave owner\ | DATE OF BIRTH =\ | PLACE OF BIRTH = Angola\ | DATE OF DEATH = 1670\ | PLACE OF DEATH = Virginia, United States\ \}\}\ \{\{DEFAULTSORT:Johnson, Anthony\}\}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }
71.89.162.228 ( talk) 02:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Hi. In the opening paragraph of this article, it states that, "Notably, he is recognized...for being one of the first legally recognized black slaveowners in the English colonies." This leads the reader to conclude that there were other legally recognized black slave owners at the same time as Anthony Johnson, or that there were white slave holders in the colonies before Mr. Johnson. (This claim is not sourced in the opening paragraph as well, by the way.) However, on the page Slavery in the United States under the section "Black Slaveholders," it clearly states that "An African former indentured servant arrived to Virginia in 1621, Anthony Johnson, was the first true slave owner (the first to hold a black African servant as a slave) in the mainland American colonies." This claim is backed by a citation, namely, Breen, T. H. (2004). "Myne Owne Ground" : Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676. pp. 13-15: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199729050.
Since there is a discrepancy between the referenced claim that Johnson was "the first" slave holder (of all slave holders, and not only black slave owners) and this site's claim that he was merely "one of the first legally recognized black slave owners," could you please either provide citations for your claims or else conform to the referenced claim that Johnson was "the first true slave owner" in the colonies? Thanks 114.162.170.83 ( talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The year range at the very beginning of the article should have an unspaced en dash rather than a spaced em dash. — Frungi ( talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Frungi ( talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anthony Johnson (fighter) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Undid reversion because the source cited doesn't meet the same standards of reliability scrutiny that other sources meet. Both Foner and Breen discuss Anthony Johnson's success of being a planter and property owner while overcoming the adversity of indentured servitude, with the Casor vs. Johnson case being only a footnote of a larger umbrella of his accomplishments. Previous talk page discussions address this in more detail. Scoobydunk ( talk) 23:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony Johnson (colonist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I just stumbled onto this article and I have no idea what's going on, it's been vandalized beyond recognition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.203.4 ( talk) 13:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has introduced new material justifying their authority to do so with this edit summary, "American Indigenous Accawmacke Indians are authorized to edit this history. Johnson is listed as Indian by Helen Roundtree." It is fine if they want to introduce this material, if it is adequately sourced, as an alternative theory. The editor claims that Johnson was born as a Native American rather than in Africa. However, it is not proper to eliminate sourced material that appears to represent the most accepted version. As the editor themselves says in their edit, "Most references falsely classify him as Black or African American."
While the editor does provide one source, it is not clear how much of the material added comes from this source. The edits are further complicated because the formatting used screws up the reference templates. The old status quo of the article should stand until the editor discusses the article here, explains their purpose, and receives some consensus to make reasonable changes. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
That is a picture of Lewis Hayden not Anthony Johnson. This have been proven Keo mackey ( talk) 09:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
"In the early 1620s, Portuguese slave traders captured the man who would later be known as Anthony Johnson in Portuguese Angola, named him António, and sold him into the Atlantic slave trade."
This introduces a false narrative about the capture of António (Anthony Johnson). Antonio was not brought to the colonies by Portuguese slave traders. He was probably not captured by Portuguese slave traders who did not go out hunting slaves. It is more likely he was purchased from the Africans who did capture him for sale in exchange for guns or liquor or trade goods. I read that he was a passenger on the ship the James which landed in Virginia in 1621/22 (around New Years). He was listed as a Negro, servant to Edward Bennett. This totally doesn't jib with being captured by the Portuguese.
I get it, the true narrative places some culpability on Africans and Muslims who were dealing in slaves long before 1619 but is wiki going to be a reliable source or push a narrative? Leastwise without documented evidence the best you could say is you can not tell how Antonio came into the colonies. 2403:6200:8833:F366:C8F4:6651:5574:8D31 ( talk) 18:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whoever said that this article is an AFD please explain your reason why. - Sfrostee
Well it looks like he's a sock puppet so I was right. - Sfrostee
JAMESTOWN The first permanent English settlement within the limits of the United States, founded in May, 1607, by a small company under Captain Newport, in Virginia, on the banks of the James River, about 32 miles from its mouth. Here in 1619 the first legislative assembly in America was held, and here in the same year slavery was first introduced into the original thirteen Colonies.
It's none of my business, of course, but this page titled Anthony Johnson (American Colonial) appears to be an attempt to claim that the first slaveholder in the United States was a Negro, not a white man who owned negroes. I have always heard that slavery was enacted by the legislature of Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This page is at variance with all of the history books and with New International Encyclopedia, too. Velocicaptor 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
--Understood, I will fix the sentence so it is not confusing.
reread the article, you said "but this page...appears to be an attempt to claim that the first slaveholder in the United States was a Negro." It says a paragraph before "He was one of the original 20 African slaves brought to Jamestown." I fixed the confusion anyway and added a source. Sfrostee 14 May 2007
As an institution, slavery did not exist in Virginia in 1619. Slavery as we know it today, evolved gradually, beginning with customs rather than laws, and the institution of slavery evolved legally over a period of time, from indentured servitude to life long servitude. NPS website says that John Punch, a runaway indentured Servant, was the first documented slave for life in 1640. Virginia, Guide to The Old Dominion of the WPA Writers' Program stated that the court case of Anthony Johnson in Northampton County was the first. The NPS site goes on to say that, by 1662, slavery was recognized in the statutory law of the colony. Sources: [1] [2] Vaoverland 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh so Johnson was not a slave but rather one of the first African laborers in Virginia. That must be how he bought his freedom, he was an indentured servant. I will correct it. Sfrostee 15 May 2007
-Anthony Johnson is one of the major reasons slave reparations can never be enacted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwefel ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to correct the initial post in this section, the WPA says that Anthony Johnson was the first to own a slave where a crime was not committed or not as the result of a crime. "As far as is known, this was the first judicial sanction in the English colonies of life servitude where crime was not involved." [3] This is because Hugh Gwyn was legally made a slave owner when his servant, John Punch, was sentenced to lifetime slavery for trying to escape. [4] So both sources are correct, it's just that Vaoverland left off the part about "crime was not involved" which misrepresents the statement and puts it at ends with other sources. Scoobydunk ( talk) 00:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
His wife's name is first given as Juana, then as Mary. Did she change her name? Is this the same person? Hypocryptickal ( talk) 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Mischievous and misleading edits e.g.:
Ironically, Anthony Johnson is the first man known to have owned a slave despite that he was himself a black man.
Poor grammar, spelling and poor context for some statements. I've done what I can. Centrepull ( talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I will change it to year of birth unknown. 1620 is the year of his first appearance, not his birth. 99.6.41.121 ( talk) 06:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
An 'Angolan African?' That's like saying, 'David Cameron, an English European.'
I'm removing the redundancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.224.131 ( talk) 00:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
And I'm putting it back, welcome to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.139 ( talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
GOTO 10 ; You all are utter morons. Then again, I’ll welcome myself to Nazimerica. — 78.34.202.5 ( talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia article on John Punch (slave) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)) suggests that, in judgement against him for an attempt to escape while an indentured servant, John Punch was actually the first "indentured servant for life" in Virginia, in 1640, well predating the case in this article. Jefferson made comments on the deteriorating condition of records from the 1600's ... possibly much has been lost. I have been unable to locate any interim laws establishing the legitimacy of slavery, until a law in 1662 decided "Negro women’s children to serve according to the condition of the mother." WHEREAS some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or ffree, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother." ( http://www.studythepast.com/slaveryvirginiatimeline.pdf) Tomligon ( talk) 01:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Where? Where is it officially established that John Punch wasn't a slave while John Casor was a slave? They were both indentured servants. The Johnson vs. Parker court decision said nothing about Casor being a slave for life, it only ruled that Parker could not take Johnson's property away from him and ordered that Casor be returned back to Johnson since he was still Johnson's property. No where in the court decision was he officially recognized as slave instead of an indentured servant. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Once again, you provide no source for this. Every document claims that Casor was an indentured servant and even the actual transcript from the case talks about his indentured time with Johnson. Also, just because the court accepts testimony doesn't mean it establishes such testimony as truth. In the court decision there is no mention of the word "slave" or any indication that Johnson was awarded Casor for life. It only determined that Casor still belonged to Johnson and therefore Parker had to return him. Scoobydunk ( talk) 22:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
For more clarity, Anthony Johnson argued that he saw no indentured servitude contract and that he had Casor for life. Parker argued that Johnson had an indentured contract with Casor but admitted that he had not set him free. The court transcript says that more people saith he was not freed than do and made a decision off of the fact that Casor was not freed from Johnson. It was in no way an affirmation that Casor was a slave for life, it merely agreed that since he wasn't freed, he wasn't legally able to enter a new indentured servitude contract with Parker. Owners of indentured servants could keep their slaves/servants passed the contract time for a variety of reasons. Johnson had just lost his farm to a fire and wouldn't free Casor because he needed servants to help him rebuild his plantation. Scoobydunk ( talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Massachusetts slave laws (1641) predate Anthony Johnson's court case. There were slaves in the continental US going as far back as the 1620's in Massachusset's. Reference to these are easily found, even in Wikipedia's page on the Mass slave laws. This interpretation of Johnson as first slave owner has some history, but has been debunked in the literature and only remains due to recent promotion by Glenn Beck. I think Wiki would prefer to be consistent with recorded history and it's own articles and references elsewhere here. So I've renamed that section to something more neutral and took out outrageous claims like "first slave". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex0du5 5utu7e ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Second paragraph currently reads as follows:
"Slavery has been rife throughout all of ancient history. Most, if not all, ancient civilizations practiced this institution and it is described (and defended) in early writings of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians. It was also practiced by early societies in central America and Africa. (See Bernard Lewis’s work Race and Slavery in the Middle East1 for a detailed chapter of the origins and practices of slavery.)The Qur’an prescribes a humanitarian approach to slavery — free men could not be enslaved, and those faithful to foreign religions could live as protected persons, dhimmis, under Muslim rule (as long as they maintained payment of taxes called Kharaj and Jizya). However, the spread of the Islamic Empire resulted in a much harsher interpretation of the law. For example, if a dhimmis was unable to pay the taxes they could be enslaved, and people from outside the borders of the Islamic Empire were considered an acceptable source of slaves."
I do not understand what this is doing here. A general description of the history of slavery does not belong in an article about a specific person. Not one word about the subject of the article. I'll delete it if nobody objects. 221bbaker ( talk) 23:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is it only “true” slavery, if it‘s a black and African person? They don’t have a monopoly on victimhood. — 78.34.202.5 ( talk) 09:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently re-writing the article so it will look a little disjointed until I finish. Please avoid corrections for now and bear with me for a few days. Wayne ( talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I see you've yet to provide a source and to claim I've only used one source is a lie. Pretty obvious you're not keen on substantiating your position or representing the truth. You haven't provided one source that actually establishes what made John Casor a slave vs. an indentured servant. The truth is that this is conservative separatist propaganda to try and alter history by making a black man partially responsible for slavery in what would become America. You can easily trace back all of the copy and pasted sites saying JOhnson was the first slave owner to find that they all get it from 1 or 2 sources. The first source doesn't even make that claim, since you can search the book and it says nothing about Johnson being the first slave owner. The other source ( http://books.google.com/books?id=cCsUBMj2cvQC&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false) does say he was the first slave owner, but contradicts itself because the sentence preceding this claim says that Virigina in 1640 "had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery." So clearly they were referring to JOhn Punch, and how can a person be sentenced to slavery in 1640, yet Johnson becomes the first slave owner in 1654? So let's discuss how badly and erroneous this wikipedia entry is.
1. Massachusetts legally recognized slavery in 1641, over 10 years before Anthony Johnson sued Parker for taking John Casor. That would mean there were officially legal slave owners LONG before Anthony Johnson's case.
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/mabodlib.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm
http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/constitution_and_slavery.html
http://historyofmassachusetts.org/slavery-in-massachusetts/
OMG, that's 4 sources from a cursory search that confirm that Mass. legalized slavery back in 1641. Hell, one of them is the official website of Massachusetts. Pretty sure that hold more weight than some biased and prejudice historian that didn't bother to substantiate his claim and you reverting this article to say that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in what would become mainland America is just egregious and atrocious. Also note how NONE of these sources is from a PBS documentary, though PBS confirms this information as well.
2. In 1650 Connecticut legalizes slavery. So if one state wasn't enough for you, here's a second state that legalized it 4 years before Johnson v. Parker. Meaning that there were legal slave owners in what would become mainland America before Anthony Johnson.
http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf
http://www.my-father-was-a-slave.com/slave-codes-of-connecticut.html
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1650
http://www.fairfieldhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/SlaveryTimeline_CT.pdf
http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2007/12/slavery-in-connecticut.html
http://understandingrace.org/history/gov/colonial_authority.html
What's that? 5 sources from the first Bing search that say Connecticut legalized slavery in 1650, 4-5 years before when others try to claim that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? It looks like Anthony Johnson is becoming less and less of historical importance as we discover there were countless slave owners before him. Also seems like you're trying very hard to protect a flat out lie that not only I have pointed out, but numerous others have pointed out before me.
3. In 1640 John Punch was the fist man sentenced to lifelong slavery in VIRGINIA, thus making his owner, Hugh Gwyn, the first true slave owner...IN VIRGINIA. Not only was John Punch sentenced to indefinite servitude 14 years before the Johnson v. Parker verdict but many historians agree that this was the first slave. These historians also describe how Africans arriving in Jamestown in 1619 were most likely not slaves, but that slavery evolved in the colonies through a number of practices and enacted laws. Guess what? They list John Punch as the first man sentenced to indefinite servitude and make no mention of Anthony Johnson. Probably because the Johnson case didn't play a historical role in the evolution of slavery, since there were many slave owners before him. "Whatever the status of these first Africans to arrive at Jamestown, it is clear that by 1640, at least one African had been declared a slave." <--That's John Punch.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400017.html <---oooo an encyclopedia entry
http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm <---An official government website
http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf
http://www.studythepast.com/vabeachcourse/bacons_rebellion/slavelawincolonialvirginiatimeline.pdf
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html <--This one talks about the evolution of slavery in Virginia and doesn't mention Casor
http://hnn.us/article/147607 <---This one says Africans were held by slaves for hundreds of years in colonies before John Punch
Wow, again, just a cursory search of the first page of Bing results and I have 6 different sources that call John Punch the first SLAVE. That's spelled S-L-A-V-E not I-N-D-E-N....you get the idea. Apparently what historically qualifies someone as a slave and not an indentured servant is being forced into slavery for the remainder of their life. Hence, John Punch was the first slave IN VIRGINIA to be officially legally documented. John Casor had nothing to do with being the cause or source of the change in how English Colonies treated black people with the exception that they acknowledged that black people could own slaves.
4. As I said in my last post, nearly every article talking about John Casor refers to him as an indentured servant. Most of the articles are websites that allow public posting or creation of pages. Most articles that try to claim he was the First Slave in America don't provide any sources and the ones that do provide sources list Wikipedia, or 1 or 2 actual history books. One of those I've already showed an egregious error in that it contradicts itself. It refers to Virginia legally sentencing at least 1 man to slavery in 1640 yet tries to claim that Casor is the first slave. You'll also notice the most of the sites verbatim say the same things, meaning they copy and pasted their material from a common source. To get to the bottom of this, I found the original court transcript to see what the court decision actually said. The court decision only established that John Casor still belonged to Anthony Johnson and was based on witness testimony, even by the defendant, that they knew Johnson had not released Casor from his servitude with him. The court said nothing about slavery, they said nothing about him serving indefinitely or for the remainder of his life. I found no other court case citing this case as precedent for any slave issues or any legal issue at all. It's clear that the court decision has been misconstrued to fit a narrative, and once again I'll leave a link here.
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655
For you to keep reverting this article to say that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in what would be America is a downright intellectual dishonesty. Even when you look at the facts of the case, John Punch was clearly a slave before Anthony Johnson, and 2 other colonies legalized slavery years before. Just because they assert something is true, doesn't mean it is true. It shows an utter disregard to the actual facts of history and to slave laws that were established long before the Johnson v. Parker trial. And look, I didn't use a single PBS source in this post, so for you to try and pretend that only PBS is the only entity making these claims is just ignorant.
Scoobydunk (
talk) 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
For all the misinformation you've intentionally left in this article, you only cited 2 claims with sources. The first citation is "Slavery was established in Virginia in 1655, when Johnson convinced a court that his servant John Casor (also a black man), was his for life." and you used
http://books.google.com/books?id=kezflCVnongC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q=1655&f=false as the source for this wrongful quote. This source says absolutely nothing about Slavery being established in 1655. You can easily do a book search and see that it only mentions 1655 twice. Once for when Spain left something, and the other was only saying the date of the Johnson v. Parker decision. It does not assert that this decision established slavery and you are obviously wrong. This source also doesn't say that Casor was the first slave. It only describes the court case between Anthony Johnson and John Casor and makes no reference to it's importance in history or any claim that it established slavery in Virginia or that Casor was the first slave. This book also erroneously interprets the court decision, the decision never said that Casor was a "slave all along" but only that he wasn't a free man or free from his servitude with Johnson. Regardless, your source works against you because it says "Afican-American colonists arrived in Virginia in August of 1619. Most came as indentured servants (or slaves; the two labor systems had not yet diverged)." (Sweet, 118.) So even this source, as do many others, verifies that slaves arrived in Virginia in 1619. I'll also note that your source was actually an essay written by Frank Sweet and in that essay Sweet cites a book called "Myne Owne Ground" as his source for information when talking about John Casor (
http://essays.backintyme.com/item/12). Upon reading relevant sections of "Myne Owne Ground" in regards to John Casor, this book makes no assertion that John Casor was the first black slave. It also doesn't say that the court granted Casor to Johnson for life and doesn't assert that this court decision established slavery in Virginia. Even when talking about the significance of this case, the author, T.H. Breen, doesn't talk about it setting a precedent for slavery. He only talks about how this case was important in understanding the mindset of white plantation owners and their frequent abuse of power compared to how justices and other property owners regarded their unfair practices. Isn't it odd that an entire book dedicated to explaining the life of Anthony Johnson and is ultimately the source of all of your conservative propaganda doesn't support any of the claims you and others are trying to make? T.H. Breen actually cites the NHCR microfilm archives as his source of information and he makes no outrageous assumptions about their content. Funny how your "majority of historians" actually dissolved to one historian who didn't even assert the erroneous claims you're trying to make. All your other "historians" seemed to have just reinterpreted others' essays and publishings based off of this book. This is not looking good for you at all.
Your second source is actually my source. Your second cited claim in contention is "While some genealogists and historians describe John Punch as the first slave, he was technically still an indentured servant, as he was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life in servitude as punishment for escaping" The source you listed for this doesn't confirm what you're trying to inflect with this sentence. As a matter of fact, this source is talking about things that lead to the distinction between indentured servants and slaves and uses the Punch case as a reference to indicate a racial distinction. This source says nothing about people wrongfully misconstruing what John Punch was. It is well known that he was an indentured servant who tried to escape and was then sentences to indefinite servitude WITHOUT A CONTRACT, otherwise known as slavery. By your own admission, the difference between an indentured servant and a slave is a contract determining the length of indenture servitude and a slave has no contract. Punch's punishment is not an indentured contract, it is a sentence to slavery. You also missed the point of this source, as well as all the others. Each of them records a timeline of significant events that lead to the evolution of slavery. Nearly all of them refer to John Punch directly or indirectly by acknowledging slavery was inacted and recognized in 1640/1641. NONE of them mention anything about Casor. Why? Because Casor had no significant role in the history in slavery and the only people who want to pretend that he was the first slave are liars with a clear agenda, like the one you so naively demonstrate again and again.
All your other wrongful claims about Anthony Johnson being the first slave owner are not cited. Here you only have 2 claims that are cited and both of them don't confirm what you say they do. Even worst than that, I give you nearly 15 different sources and you try to disregard them or ignore them based on your own interpretation of terms and semantics. Then you try to rebuttal with 2 sources, one of them being my own? Wow, the intellectual dishonesty is appalling and it's clear you have a bias. You try and claim that everyone else wrongfully used the word "slave" but who are you to decide? That's the point, you're a biased prejudice wants to arbitrarily draw a line in history and pretend that the word "slave" first applied to John Casor, when in fact, NO HISTORICAL DOCUMENT CLAIMS HIM TO BE A SLAVE. There are many historical copies documenting slavery in Mass and Connecticut and even the arrival of African slaves in Jamestown in 1619, but no historical document affirming that Casor was the first slave. You also try to dismiss my source for John Punch being the first slave by pretending that the majority of historians claim Johnson was the first, yet provide NOTHING to substantiate this claim. The audacity you have to claim that government websites mistakenly use the word "slave" is just hilarious. As if you're some benevolent being who gets to decide the historical meaning and context of words. You're not, that's why we compile all available data and make a determination from it, and my argument holds much more support than yours, which is NONE.
I'll also note that the Mass. laws in 1641 DID legalize slavery by establishing that people could be sentenced to servitude/slavery if they were judged by authority. This is why every source I gave accurately refers to this as the first instance of legalized slavery in the English colonies. Your opinion does not supersede law or override the positions held even by the state of Massachusetts itself. Also, you again didn't read a source and intentionally misrepresented it by quoting "never obtained the force of a general law" and pretending that was in regards to Connecticut. The truth is, this portion of the text was talking about a province in RHODE ISLAND and had nothing to do with Connecticut. They were saying that Rhode Island never adopted it into general law which is completely separate from Connecticut. I mean, you're just so bad at this, trying to make up arguments to discredit information I submit by intentionally taking it out of context. I'll refrain from editing the page for one more day unless I see accurate information posted on the page or you actually present a substantiated argument that doesn't hinge on your "because I said so" mentality. Scoobydunk ( talk) 03:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a continuation from the discussion at [5]. Wayne seems to be arguing that he has six sources and therefore the case is closed. I have found problems with both the reliability of the sources and Wayne's interpretation of them. Wayne's six sources:
Kozlowski -- See [6]. This is a juvenile book intended for ages 11 and up.
Conway -- See [7]. Also a juvenile book.
Danver -- His expertise, based on his writings, is as a generalist -- he does not appear to be a recognized specialist on either slavery or colonial America. See [8]
Miller -- His expertise appears to also be outside the field of slavery or colonial America. See [9]
Federal Writers' Project (1954). Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion (see [10]) -- This is a result of a project by the WPA -- it is debatable whether it qualifies as a reliable source since we don't know the actual writers. However it does state of the Casor case "As far as is known, this was the first judicial sanction in the English colonies of life servitude where crime was not involved." This is probably more accurate language than the attempts to classify someone as the first legal slaveholder"
Toppin -- Seems like a good source. His actual language, however, is that Casor was "the first black we know of to be made a slave in a civil case in Virginia". This language is also more accurate than what is being put into the wikipedia article. Note that he restricts the case to civil court, as opposed to criminal, and limits the scope to Virginia, not mainland America. This link
[11] shows what Toppin had to say about Punch. Note that the boldface heading of the section states "SLAVERY BEGINS IN VIRGINIA: THE CASE OF JOHN PUNCH" and the body of the section states, "Again, this would indicate that slavery had become an accepted custom long before laws were passed to make it legal." This source actually supports Scoobydunk rather than Wayne.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk) 15:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
PS Turns out Toppin's work is also a textbook. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I missed one:
Park -- Park describes Johnson as "the first freed slave in North America". Obviously then Johnson had an owner. If you accept Park as an authority, then don't you also need to list Johnson as a former slave rather than as an indentured servant? He also refers to Johnson as "the first African holder of indentured servants" -- he does not call him the first slaveholder. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
PS Park is described on Amazon as "Young Park has spent over fifty years in education and as an international business consultant in countries through the world. Based on his experiences, Park has written seven books, Korea and the Imperialists, The Life and Times of a Hyphenated American, Shootout at Grove Street, The Korean from America, Tiny Holes, and Choices. This is his seventh book." Nice credentials but no indication he should be considered a reliable source on slavery or colonial America. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Johnson's story is much greater and of more historical significance than the fact that he was the winning party in a civil suit. I think more appropriate language would be something like:
A black freedman, he became a man of substance who farmed independently, held slaves, and left his heirs sizeable estates.
This language is a paraphrase of Ira Berlin in "Many Thousands Gone" (p.30) when he writes that "Like other men of substance, Johnson and his sons farmed independently, held slaves, and left their heirs sizeable estates." Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Slavery in Britain was illegal, no statutes legalising slavery were ever passed. The English did take part in the slave trade and did buy slaves but under common law, the moment a slave set foot on British soil they were free (indentured servants). They were allowed to testify in court and had the same rights as a white indentured servant. A slave could take his master to court for bad treatment and could have a habeas corpus. The case of Hector Nunez in 1587 shows that under common law a master could not legally force a black servant to serve him. The trial of John Lilburne in 1637 put a limit on the level of physical punishment that could be given to a black servant. In 1677 and again in 1694 courts ruled that slaves were trover but this was overruled in 1696 (Chamberlain v. Harvey) which found that there could not be a action of trover in the case of a black slave because the law did not recognize blacks as slaves, "one may be a villain in England but not a slave." Slave owners still had a right to labour when they brought slaves to England, but the slave was not their chattel and could not be treated as such. Wayne ( talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that an editor requested a citation for a statement in this article that declared that indentured servants who completed their contracts of indenture were better off than immigrants that arrived freely. I started to do some research and I found an article published by The Journal of American History that actually seems to claim the opposite. It is an article written by Aaron S. Fogleman titled From Slaves, Convicts, and Servants to Free Passengers: The Transformation of Immigration in the Era of the American Revolution and he says on page 47 "Although indentured servitude offered opportunity to some struggling European migrants, opportunities were even greater for those who traveled as free passengers." [15] He goes on to explain that the majority of those arriving freely were of higher social status than indentured servants and were looking to improve their economic situation. I'll give some time for someone to produce a reliable scholarly source expressing the opposite before making changes to the article.
Also, you can find the article I linked on Academicroom.com if you don't have a JSTOR account, but wikipedia blocked the link which is why I put down the JSTOR one.- Scoobydunk ( talk) 06:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed a portion of the wiki on the grounds it doesn't belong in this wiki and the information is largely misleading if not outright bogus. Lifetime indentured and life time convicts(who could then be used for labor) existed before Punch and Casor. The Casor instance is important on the grounds that it essentially allowed someone to own another for life even though the other person had done nothing wrong. It is completely different than indentured for life due to criminal punishment. 97.83.233.68 ( talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Although this article is not about Punch, mention is required as some historians do consider him to have been a slave. Mention should be relevant and the above source supports the current version indicating that academic opinion varies. Wayne ( talk) 06:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)"They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians believe that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker."
I removed the OR analysis of which/how many genealogists and historians consider John Punch a slave since it's not necessary. The rest of the article is written as a "matter of fact" from the sources, so this statement can be represented the same way. Since we don't supplement every other factual claim with "historians consider" then we don't need to qualify statements regarding John Punch with such wording. This way there is no OR interpretation of how prevalent the information is amongst historians and no representation of a minority/majority view which shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Scoobydunk ( talk) 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Those watching this page should be aware of the discussion(s) underway at WP:NPOVN related to this article. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add an appropriate page-protection padlock template to the top of this page. Thanks. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252 {\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;} \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\sl320\partightenfactor0
\f0\fs22 \cf2 \cb3 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 \{\{pp-dispute|small=yes|expiry=18:00, 11 April 2014\}\}\ \{\{other people|Anthony Johnson\}\}\ \{\{Infobox person\ | name = Anthony Johnson\ | image = Anthony Johnson (slave).jpg\ | alt = \ | caption = Anthony Johnson c. 1650.\ | birth_name = \ | birth_date = c. 1600\ | birth_place = Angola\ | death_date = 1670\ | death_place = Colony of Virginia\ | nationality = \ | other_names = Antonio\ | occupation = Farmer\ | known_for = The most prominent former black indentured servant to obtain freedom, wealth, and slaves of his own.\ \}\}\ \ Anthony Johnson (c1600 — 1670) was an Angolan who achieved freedom and became a property owner and slaveholder in the Colony of Virginia in the early 17th century. Held as an indentured servant in 1621, he earned his freedom after several years, which was accompanied by a grant of land. He later became a successful tobacco farmer. Notably, he is recognized for attaining great wealth after having been an indentured servant and for being the first legally recognized slaveowner in the English colonies.\ \ ==Biography==\ \ ===Early life===\ Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as a slave or indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company. [1]\ \ The Virginia Muster (census) of 1624 lists his name as "Antonio not given," with "a Negro" written in the notes column, and records that he had arrived in Virginia in 1621 aboard the James. [2] There is some dispute among historians as to whether this was the Antonio who became Anthony Johnson, as the census lists several "Antonios," with this one being considered the most likely. [3] Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet as an indentured servant to work on his Virginia tobacco farm. Servants typically worked four to seven years to pay off their passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. In the early colonial years, most Africans in the Thirteen Colonies were held under contracts of indentured servitude. With the exception of those indentured for life, they were released after a contracted period [4] with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts expired or were bought out. Johnson took ownership of a large plot of farmland after he paid off his indentured contract. [5] \ \ Johnson almost lost his life in the Indian massacre of 1622 when his master's plantation was attacked. The Powhatan, who were the Native Americans dominant in the Tidewater of Virginia, were upset at the encroachment of the colonists into their land. They attacked the settlement on Good Friday and killed 52 of the 57 men where Johnson worked. \ \ The following year (1623) "Mary, a Negro" arrived from England aboard the ship Margaret and was brought to work on the plantation, where she was the only woman. Johnson and Mary married and lived together for over forty years. [6]\ \ ===Freedom===\ Sometime after 1635, Antonio and Mary gained their freedom from indenture. Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson. [6] Johnson first enters the legal record as a free man when he purchased a calf in 1647. On 24 July 1651 he acquired \{\{convert|250|acre|ha\}\} of land under the headright system by buying five indentured servants, one of whom was his son Richard Johnson. The land was located on the Great Naswattock Creek which flowed into the Pungoteague River in Northampton County, Virginia.: [7]\ \ In 1652 "an unfortunate fire" caused "great losses" for the family, and Johnson applied to the courts for tax relief. The court not only reduced the family's taxes but on 28 February 1652, exempted his wife Mary and their two daughters from paying taxes at all "during their natural lives." At that time taxes were levied on people not property, and under the 1645 Virginia taxation act, "all negro men and women and all other men from the age of 16 to 60 shall be judged tithable." [7] [8] It is unclear from the records why the Johnson women were exempted, but the change gave them the same social standing as white women, who were not taxed. [8] During the case, the justices noted that Anthony and Mary "have lived Inhabitants in Virginia (above thirty years)" and had been respected for their "hard labor and known service". [6]\ \ ==Casor suit==\ When Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro" and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servant. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant Johnson had apparently bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened, and Johnson was persuaded to set Casor free. \ \ Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling. [9] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker. [10] This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the thirteen colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]\ \ Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave when he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. [16] [17] The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants. [18] [19]\ \ ===Significance of Casor suit===\ The Casor suit was significant because it demonstrated the culture and mentality of planters in the mid-17th century. The individuals in this trial made assumptions about the society of Northampton County and their place in it. According to historians T.R. Breen and Stephen Innes, Casor believed that he could form a stronger relationship with his patron Robert Parker than Anthony Johnson had formed over the years with his patrons. Casor considered the dispute to be a matter of patron-client relationship, and this wrongful assumption ultimately lost him the court and the decision. Johnson knew that the local justices shared his basic belief in the sanctity of property. The judge sided with Johnson, although in future legal issues, race played a larger role. [20]\ \ The Casor suit was also significant as an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most African immigrants could not read and had no knowledge of the English language. Slave owners found it easy to take advantage and force them into slavery by simply refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts. [21] This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Even though Casor had two white planters confirming his claim to freedom from his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor. [22]\ \ ==Later life==\ In 1657, Johnson\'92s white neighbor, Edmund Scarborough, forged a letter in which Johnson acknowledged a debt. Johnson did not contest the case. Although Johnson was illiterate and could not have written the letter, the court granted Scarborough 100 acres of Johnson\'92s land to pay off his "debt". [5] In this early period, free blacks enjoyed "relative equality" with the white community. Around 20% of free blacks in Virginia at this time owned their own homes, and half of those were married to white women. [23] \ \ By 1665, racism was becoming more common. The Virginia Colony had passed a law in 1662 that children were born with the status of their mother, according to the Roman principle of partus sequitur ventrem; therefore, all children of slave women were born into slavery. This was a reversal of English common law, which held that for English subjects, children took the status of their father. Africans were considered foreigners and not English subjects. \ \ Johnson moved his family to Somerset County, Maryland. He negotiated a lease on a \{\{convert|300|acre|ha|adj=on\}\} plot of land for ninety-nine years. Johnson used this land to start a tobacco farm, which he named Tories Vineyards. [24]\ \ == References ==\ \{\{Reflist\}\}\ \ ===Sources===\
\ ==External links==\
\ \ \{\{Persondata \ | NAME = Johnson, Anthony\ | ALTERNATIVE NAMES =\ | SHORT DESCRIPTION = Farmer, slave owner\ | DATE OF BIRTH =\ | PLACE OF BIRTH = Angola\ | DATE OF DEATH = 1670\ | PLACE OF DEATH = Virginia, United States\ \}\}\ \{\{DEFAULTSORT:Johnson, Anthony\}\}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }
71.89.162.228 ( talk) 02:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Hi. In the opening paragraph of this article, it states that, "Notably, he is recognized...for being one of the first legally recognized black slaveowners in the English colonies." This leads the reader to conclude that there were other legally recognized black slave owners at the same time as Anthony Johnson, or that there were white slave holders in the colonies before Mr. Johnson. (This claim is not sourced in the opening paragraph as well, by the way.) However, on the page Slavery in the United States under the section "Black Slaveholders," it clearly states that "An African former indentured servant arrived to Virginia in 1621, Anthony Johnson, was the first true slave owner (the first to hold a black African servant as a slave) in the mainland American colonies." This claim is backed by a citation, namely, Breen, T. H. (2004). "Myne Owne Ground" : Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676. pp. 13-15: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199729050.
Since there is a discrepancy between the referenced claim that Johnson was "the first" slave holder (of all slave holders, and not only black slave owners) and this site's claim that he was merely "one of the first legally recognized black slave owners," could you please either provide citations for your claims or else conform to the referenced claim that Johnson was "the first true slave owner" in the colonies? Thanks 114.162.170.83 ( talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The year range at the very beginning of the article should have an unspaced en dash rather than a spaced em dash. — Frungi ( talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Frungi ( talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anthony Johnson (fighter) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Undid reversion because the source cited doesn't meet the same standards of reliability scrutiny that other sources meet. Both Foner and Breen discuss Anthony Johnson's success of being a planter and property owner while overcoming the adversity of indentured servitude, with the Casor vs. Johnson case being only a footnote of a larger umbrella of his accomplishments. Previous talk page discussions address this in more detail. Scoobydunk ( talk) 23:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony Johnson (colonist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I just stumbled onto this article and I have no idea what's going on, it's been vandalized beyond recognition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.203.4 ( talk) 13:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has introduced new material justifying their authority to do so with this edit summary, "American Indigenous Accawmacke Indians are authorized to edit this history. Johnson is listed as Indian by Helen Roundtree." It is fine if they want to introduce this material, if it is adequately sourced, as an alternative theory. The editor claims that Johnson was born as a Native American rather than in Africa. However, it is not proper to eliminate sourced material that appears to represent the most accepted version. As the editor themselves says in their edit, "Most references falsely classify him as Black or African American."
While the editor does provide one source, it is not clear how much of the material added comes from this source. The edits are further complicated because the formatting used screws up the reference templates. The old status quo of the article should stand until the editor discusses the article here, explains their purpose, and receives some consensus to make reasonable changes. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
That is a picture of Lewis Hayden not Anthony Johnson. This have been proven Keo mackey ( talk) 09:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
"In the early 1620s, Portuguese slave traders captured the man who would later be known as Anthony Johnson in Portuguese Angola, named him António, and sold him into the Atlantic slave trade."
This introduces a false narrative about the capture of António (Anthony Johnson). Antonio was not brought to the colonies by Portuguese slave traders. He was probably not captured by Portuguese slave traders who did not go out hunting slaves. It is more likely he was purchased from the Africans who did capture him for sale in exchange for guns or liquor or trade goods. I read that he was a passenger on the ship the James which landed in Virginia in 1621/22 (around New Years). He was listed as a Negro, servant to Edward Bennett. This totally doesn't jib with being captured by the Portuguese.
I get it, the true narrative places some culpability on Africans and Muslims who were dealing in slaves long before 1619 but is wiki going to be a reliable source or push a narrative? Leastwise without documented evidence the best you could say is you can not tell how Antonio came into the colonies. 2403:6200:8833:F366:C8F4:6651:5574:8D31 ( talk) 18:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)