Anthony Johnson - The Father of US Slavery

[editec]

First of all in 1492 ..Colombus turned to CARIB indians into his slaves on his FIRST VISIT.

So the entire premise of this thread is sort of wrong

BUT...

Let us assume that what they meant is the first slave owner in what will eventually become the USA was a Black man

Okay so we assume that to be true.

Okay... SO THE FUCK WHAT?

Oh YEAH... one more historical issue?

the FIRST SLAVE MARKET IN THE NEW WORLD WAS IN ST AUGUSTINE FLA.

Four and a half centuries ago, St. Augustine was the hub of the slave trade in Spanish colonial Florida, a distinction that continued through the early 1800s. The slave trade was part of the city's economy from its founding in 1565, when Spanish explorer and founder Pedro Menendez de Aviles included black slaves among the New World's first Spanish settlers.

 

[GHook93]

Ghook, you have been corrected so your memory must be short.

99.5% of American slaves were not owned by blacks, hmmm.

Wow you are a mental midget! I never stated that slaves in America were owned by blacks, where did you get that? I stated the legal precedent for slavery of African Americans was started by a African immigrant to the US against another African immigrant who was supposed to be an indentured servant, but got a court order that turned him into a slave. Hence gave a legal precedent in the New World for the Slave Trade!

 

[GHook93]

Who cares.
Slavery is history, forget about it!

Right after the Jews forget the Holocaust or the Herero forget theirs at the hands of the Germans.

Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are issues that get forgot in the Holocaust also. People forget that many non-Jews were murdered during the Holocaust also, Gays, Intellectuals (actually they were the first victims of Hitler, since many tried to stop him), Roma, etc. Jews were the vast majority of the victims but others get forgot.

However, there is a big difference btw Jews remembering the Holocaust and Blacks using slavery as an excuse for the ills of their community. Jews remember it, because they have to be conscious of genocidal threats and take their enemies seriously. When Black remember slavery , they use it as an excuse to their own communities self-inflicted ills and failure and routine leave out aspects like the white abolishist the helped Blacks from the beginning, fought to end slavery, got Blacks the right to vote and fought the bloodest war in US history to free them! Much different!

 

[Asclepias]

Ghook, you have been corrected so your memory must be short.

99.5% of American slaves were not owned by blacks, hmmm.

Wow you are a mental midget! I never stated that slaves in America were owned by blacks, where did you get that? I stated the legal precedent for slavery of African Americans was started by a African immigrant to the US against another African immigrant who was supposed to be an indentured servant, but got a court order that turned him into a slave. Hence gave a legal precedent in the New World for the Slave Trade!

However you were dead wrong because Hugh Gwyn is the person who legally first owned a slave you dumbass.

 

[Asclepias]

Who cares.
Slavery is history, forget about it!

Right after the Jews forget the Holocaust or the Herero forget theirs at the hands of the Germans.

Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are issues that get forgot in the Holocaust also. People forget that many non-Jews were murdered during the Holocaust also, Gays, Intellectuals (actually they were the first victims of Hitler, since many tried to stop him), Roma, etc. Jews were the vast majority of the victims but others get forgot.

However, there is a big difference btw Jews remembering the Holocaust and Blacks using slavery as an excuse for the ills of their community. Jews remember it, because they have to be conscious of genocidal threats and take their enemies seriously. When Black remember slavery , they use it as an excuse to their own communities self-inflicted ills and failure and routine leave out aspects like the white abolishist the helped Blacks from the beginning, fought to end slavery, got Blacks the right to vote and fought the bloodest war in US history to free them! Much different!

Again I remind you that all the super powers pitched in and created a state for the European Jews and support them to this day. They dont have anything to complain about or have a reason to offer excuses.

 

[GHook93]

The Jews don't continually blame Germany because the Super powers set up a state for them by taking land in the middle east and protecting them. they have been groomed to be successful idiot.

Not true in the least, but from an uneducated fool like you who would expect less. Not the thread for this argument anyways.

Yes the big difference was that Black people had to be abducted, work for free, raped, brainwashed, and killed.. the Jews were just killed idiot.

Again get an education! AFRICANS were abducted and sold by other AFRICANS, the Europeans didn't hunt down and capture the slaves, it was AFRICAN and ARAB slave traders!

Wow did you just say the Jews were made slaves by the NAZIs. Wow your a fool. It was well documented that many were worked to death as slaves!

Why do you say Blacks invented slavery? Ancient Greece at 1 point boasted a slave for every household. The word slave comes from the Slavic people.

No one stated that, but don't let that job you from lying!

 

[Pauli007001]

Ghook, you have been corrected so your memory must be short.

99.5% of American slaves were not owned by blacks, hmmm.

Wow you are a mental midget! I never stated that slaves in America were owned by blacks, where did you get that? I stated the legal precedent for slavery of African Americans was started by a African immigrant to the US against another African immigrant who was supposed to be an indentured servant, but got a court order that turned him into a slave. Hence gave a legal precedent in the New World for the Slave Trade!

However you were dead wrong because Hugh Gwyn is the person who legally first owned a slave you dumbass.

Hugh Gwynn was not.
The first slave owners were African.

 

[Asclepias]

Wow you are a mental midget! I never stated that slaves in America were owned by blacks, where did you get that? I stated the legal precedent for slavery of African Americans was started by a African immigrant to the US against another African immigrant who was supposed to be an indentured servant, but got a court order that turned him into a slave. Hence gave a legal precedent in the New World for the Slave Trade!

However you were dead wrong because Hugh Gwyn is the person who legally first owned a slave you dumbass.

Hugh Gwynn was not.
The first slave owners were African.

OP's Claim:

Anthony Johnson - The Father of US Slavery

Wrong, incorrect, ignorant,

Hugh Gwyn was the first slave owner. Change the OP but dont try and lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow you are a mental midget! I never stated that slaves in America were owned by blacks, where did you get that? I stated the legal precedent for slavery of African Americans was started by a African immigrant to the US against another African immigrant who was supposed to be an indentured servant, but got a court order that turned him into a slave. Hence gave a legal precedent in the New World for the Slave Trade!

However you were dead wrong because Hugh Gwyn is the person who legally first owned a slave you dumbass.

Hugh Gwynn was not.
The first slave owners were African.

Not in the British colonies. And, yes, you wrote the legal precedent for slavery of African Americans was started by a African immigrant to the US against another African immigrant who was supposed to be an indentured servant, but got a court order that turned him into a slave. The precedent had already been set.

Don't lie, you get caught.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ghook, you have been corrected so your memory must be short.

99.5% of American slaves were not owned by blacks, hmmm.

Prove it?

Provide a source for that nonsense!!

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.


Source

 

[paperview]

This thread is stupid.

Slavery was legalized in Massachusetts in 1641.

There were laws regarding fugitive slaves there in the 1630's.

Dumb dumb dumb

 

[paperview]

Ghook, you have been corrected so your memory must be short.

99.5% of American slaves were not owned by blacks, hmmm.

Prove it?

Provide a source for that nonsense!!

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.


Source

Grooms strikes again to the Illogical loneman.

Robert Grooms writes for the Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 1994 by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial.

No one in historical circles takes him seriously. He is a JOKE.

 

[paperview]

It is certainly true there were black slaveowners, but I'm sure, as you know, those free blacks were often prisoners in their own states. Law in many Southern states forbade them to even leave the state - unless it was permanent, they were restricted in commerce, legal matters, etc...; just simply living for a free black, even ones who had built up wealth was not as some would have you believe. As the war approached, even more laws were written that could snatch away their "freedom" at any given moment
...and of course, Dred Scott made it clear they were not even citizens of the country they lived in.

Yes, some black slaveowners bought slaves to purchase their kin's freedom, some did it for economic, pragmatic reasons, and some were just as dastardly as their fully white counterparts. All true.

But Grooms inflates numbers by playing with statistics and presenting a much different picture than actually was.
He also fails to mention a good portion of those "negro slaveowners" were mulattoes.

Mary Chestnut wrote about those mulattoes:

"God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system and wrong and iniquity. Perhaps the rest of the world is as bad—this only I see.
Like the patriarchs of our old men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines, and the mulattoes one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children
—and every lady tells you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own she seems to think drop from the clouds, or pretends so to think."[Link]

More often than not, those "black slaveowners" many refer to, were by all appearances, quite white.

 

[paperview]

More on where Illogical Loneman pulls his sources from:

Background
Named after Harry Elmer Barnes, a prominent 20th-century anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, The Barnes Review was created by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme right-wing Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), another Holocaust denial organization.

Carto created The Barnes Review as a rival to IHR after he was forced out by the IHR's leadership in 1993 for financial mismanagement.

Claiming that its mission is to "tell the whole about history," TBR really practices an extremist form of revisionist history that includes defending the Nazi regime, denying the Holocaust, discounting the evils of slavery, and promoting white nationalism.

The Barnes Review magazine has published articles entitled "Adolf Hitler — An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize?", "Treblinka Was No Death Camp", "Is There a Negro Race?", "‘Reconquista': The Mexican Plan to Take the Southwest", and "David Duke: An Awakening." The Barnes Review, like most of the radical-right institutions started by Willis Carto over the decades, also gives voice to any number of wild conspiracy theories.

... The list of historical lies and distortions goes on and on and on. . ."

Barnes Review | Southern Poverty Law Center

 

[jwoodie]

Lest we forget, slavery was a British institution that was inherited when the United States was formed. That being said, the widespread sexual contact between slave owners and their "property" reeked of moral hypocrisy. The detrimental effect on the Black family, especially with respect to fathers, has continued to this day.

 

[GHook93]

Your OP is blatantly false and it is well known that Hugh Gwyn is the first slave owner. Even though it does not excuse the actions of Antonio Johnson who was an indentured servant himself prior to gaining freedom.

Genealogists and historians describe John Punch as the first documented slave because he was an indentured servant sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. His master Hugh Gwyn was legally recognized as a slave owner before Anthony Johnson.[16] 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 slave in Virginia. It is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

Interesting link regarding the POTUS connection in this.

Little Known Black History Fact: John Punch | Black America Web

Find name the court case or produce the court transcripts. I will help you because you are not that smart. The case is Re Negro John Punch. How your article blatantly lies. At the time people came in as indentured servants. Very similar to slavery, but not the same thing. In the John Punch case, the Indentured Servant was sentence to life indentured servitude for his crimes of breach of contract. Technically slavery, but it didn't set a legal precedent to enslave Africans. It set a legal precedent to put people to force labor for punishment for a crime (still goes on today and was SPECIFICALLY left out of the 13th amendment). Unjust for the crime, but it didn't set the legal precedent you claim.

The legal precedent to enslave Africas was set by the Johnson v. Casor case. In that case Casor finished his term and Johnson sued stating the he was his slave not indentured servant and the court erroneous held for Johnson, despite two white Property Owners arguing on his behalf, this was the precedent that VA used to set up their slave laws!

The African American Experience
Some Negro servants were forced to serve for life by masters who simply refused to acknowledge that the period of indenture was completed. A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker (1654) in Northampton County, involving John Casor, the black servant of Anthony Johnson, Virginia’s first free Negro and first black landowner. In November 1653 Casor complained to a white planter visiting his master that although he had been indentured for seven years, Johnson had kept him “seven years longer than he should or ought.” Johnson insisted that he had “ye Negro for his life,” but after being warned that unless he released his servant, the latter could recover his master’s cows as damages, he freed Casor, who then bound himself to the white planter. Johnson petitioned the Northampton County court for the return of his servant, and in March 1654, the court ordered Casor returned to Johnson and handed down the judgment that Casor was Johnson’s servant for life, that is, his slave.

Other evidence that Virginia Negroes were serving for life in the 1650s is the fact that in 1660, in an act concerning runaways, the Assembly stated that “in case any English servant shall run away in company with any Negroes who are incapable of making satisfaction by addition of time…[he] shall serve for the time of the said Negroes absence.” While it does not say so in so many words, the statute indicates quite clearly that Negroes served for life and hence could not make “satisfaction” by serving longer once they were recaptured. This phrase gave legal status to the already existing practice of lifetime enslavement of Negroes.

I would be willing to agree that Johnson was not the first slave owner, but his lawsuit brought about a precedent that facilitated African enslavement and was used to set up the first slave trade laws.

Yet of course your article falsifies the terminology to fit it's narative try, but the precedent for slavery to be legalized was by the Johnson case!

.

 

[bodecea]

I know what libs will combat this with. They won't care that the story quoted the actual case that set the legal precedent. They will instead attack WND as racist (doesn't matter a black man wrote the article.

I digress. The father of US slavery was Anthony Johnson a black land owner in the New world in the 1600s. Back then most of the poor settlers (mostly white, but some black) came over as indentured servants. Indentured servants were like slaves, but not quite slaves. Back then indentured servatude was legal, but slavery was not.

Anthony Johnson acquired another black man by the name of John Carson as an indentured servant. Carson term of servitude was up and he wanted his land and freedom, so Johnson took him to court stating he was acquired as a slave not an indentured servant. The court sided with Johnson and the first slave (of any race) was created in the US. This court ruling was used as a means to bring other slaves to the US and the US slave trade was born.

One needs to stop and think for a minute. What if this black man didn't bring this case? Would we have had slavery in the US? Maybe not. We might have kept up the indentured servitude system. In fact, the peasants of any society are always against slavery. First, slaves take jobs they would have worked (since they do not cost any wages and they can be beaten into working harder) and second, they never benefit from their work, because they are too expensive to own.

Father of U.S. slavery was a black man
The Virginia Company, however, changed the rules. They would now allow anyone to pay a person’s transportation to the colony in exchange for a period of indentured servitude, subject to certain caveats. Under the new rules, knowledge of a skill of any kind was not included in this contract and whoever paid the cost of passage would receive the 50 acres of land for each passage purchased. Indentured servants would now get nothing but a trip and often found themselves without rights or freedom. As one white indentured servant, Thomas Best, wrote from Virginia in 1623, “My master Atkins hath sold me for 150 pounds sterling like a damned slave.”

Indentured servants, especially whites, could (and often did) slip away, become part of another settlement and simply disappear. A permanent, economically beneficial solution for the elites was sought and implemented.

Note: The Bible points out a common failing and path to social injustice: “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Nothing against money per se, but the love of same precipitates activities that generate misery; not a high endorsement for a concept it is supposed to propagate and undergird. (As an aside, the overwhelming majority thinks the Bible is a religious book designed to promote religion. In actuality, there are seven references to religious/religion in the Bible, and six of them are negative.)

Here, history takes a bizarre turn. When I came upon this one particularly astonishing bit of information, I was flabbergasted.

Part of the problem with facts is they can cause discomfort when they do not conform to our preconceived notions. Not once had I ever heard so much as a whisper of this, and it flew in the face of everything I knew – everybody knew – about the origins of slavery in the English colonies. Talk about political incorrectness!

Remember the aforementioned Anthony Johnson? He raised livestock, prospered and as was customary with prosperous landowners, indenturing one black and several white servants. Johnson had sued in court and won several cases, but one case in particular would set the stage for a dramatic shift in the workforce. There are several reports as to the origin of this landmark case, which would indelibly change the American cultural landscape and impact relationships between blacks and whites for centuries.

One report says John Casor, a black indentured servant, “swindled” Johnson out of the remainder of his servitude. Another says the family convinced Johnson to free Casor. Still another says Casor “convinced” a white neighbor, Robert Parker, that he was being illegally detained. Whatever the reason, Johnson was not satisfied with the status quo and took Casor and Parker to court, alleging that Casor had not been obtained as a servant, but as a slave.

Understand the true significance of this case. Johnson was not suing to have John Casor fulfill some measure of a debt of servitude. Instead, he insisted the court grant his petition that “he had ye Negro for his life.” He was claiming the services of John Casor for the remainder of Casor’s natural life. To my knowledge, there is no earlier record of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for crime. Anthony Johnson was asking the court to award him John Casor (who had committed no crime) as a slave.

Parker and one other influential landowner, both white, sided with Casor. However, the court ruled for Johnson. In the original language taken from the original documents is the decision of the county court:

“Court of Northampton; Eight Mar, Anno1654:
Whereas complaint was this daye made to ye court by ye humble peticion of Anth. Johnson Negro ag[ains]t Mr. Robert Parker…”

I needed to read it slowly and in modern English:

“Whereas complaint was this day made to the court by the humble petition of Anthony Johnson, Negro, against Mr. Robert Parker that he detains one John Casor, a Negro, the plaintiff’s servant under pretense that the said John Casor is a freeman. The court seriously considering and maturely weighing the premises do find that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unrightly keeps the said Negro John Casor from his rightful master Anthony Johnson, as it appears by the Deposition of Capt. Samuel Goldsmith and many probable circumstances. Be it therefore the Judgment of the court and ordered that said John Casor, Negro, shall forthwith be turned into the service of his said master, Anthony Johnson, and that the said Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit and execution. (Eighth March, Year 1654)”

This is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery (not for a crime) in the New World.

Johnson – who had himself been captured in Angola and brought to America as an indentured servant – was a black man.

From evidence found in the earliest legal documents, Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nation’s first official legal slaveholder.

The father of legalized slavery in America was a black man.

John Rolfe was the first slave owner...he purchased blacks from a Portuguese vessel that came to Jamestown.

 

[Asclepias]

Your OP is blatantly false and it is well known that Hugh Gwyn is the first slave owner. Even though it does not excuse the actions of Antonio Johnson who was an indentured servant himself prior to gaining freedom.

Genealogists and historians describe John Punch as the first documented slave because he was an indentured servant sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. His master Hugh Gwyn was legally recognized as a slave owner before Anthony Johnson.[16] 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 slave in Virginia. It is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

Interesting link regarding the POTUS connection in this.

Little Known Black History Fact: John Punch | Black America Web

Find name the court case or produce the court transcripts. I will help you because you are not that smart. The case is Re Negro John Punch. How your article blatantly lies. At the time people came in as indentured servants. Very similar to slavery, but not the same thing. In the John Punch case, the Indentured Servant was sentence to life indentured servitude for his crimes of breach of contract. Technically slavery, but it didn't set a legal precedent to enslave Africans. It set a legal precedent to put people to force labor for punishment for a crime (still goes on today and was SPECIFICALLY left out of the 13th amendment). Unjust for the crime, but it didn't set the legal precedent you claim.

The legal precedent to enslave Africas was set by the Johnson v. Casor case. In that case Casor finished his term and Johnson sued stating the he was his slave not indentured servant and the court erroneous held for Johnson, despite two white Property Owners arguing on his behalf, this was the precedent that VA used to set up their slave laws!

The African American Experience
Some Negro servants were forced to serve for life by masters who simply refused to acknowledge that the period of indenture was completed. A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker (1654) in Northampton County, involving John Casor, the black servant of Anthony Johnson, Virginia’s first free Negro and first black landowner. In November 1653 Casor complained to a white planter visiting his master that although he had been indentured for seven years, Johnson had kept him “seven years longer than he should or ought.” Johnson insisted that he had “ye Negro for his life,” but after being warned that unless he released his servant, the latter could recover his master’s cows as damages, he freed Casor, who then bound himself to the white planter. Johnson petitioned the Northampton County court for the return of his servant, and in March 1654, the court ordered Casor returned to Johnson and handed down the judgment that Casor was Johnson’s servant for life, that is, his slave.

Other evidence that Virginia Negroes were serving for life in the 1650s is the fact that in 1660, in an act concerning runaways, the Assembly stated that “in case any English servant shall run away in company with any Negroes who are incapable of making satisfaction by addition of time…[he] shall serve for the time of the said Negroes absence.” While it does not say so in so many words, the statute indicates quite clearly that Negroes served for life and hence could not make “satisfaction” by serving longer once they were recaptured. This phrase gave legal status to the already existing practice of lifetime enslavement of Negroes.

I would be willing to agree that Johnson was not the first slave owner, but his lawsuit brought about a precedent that facilitated African enslavement and was used to set up the first slave trade laws.

Yet of course your article falsifies the terminology to fit it's narative try, but the precedent for slavery to be legalized was by the Johnson case!

.

What about the law suit that resulted in John Punch being a slave for life? That was a legal precedent was it not?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ghook, you have been corrected so your memory must be short.

99.5% of American slaves were not owned by blacks, hmmm.

Prove it?

Provide a source for that nonsense!!

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.


Source

Grooms strikes again to the Illogical loneman.

Robert Grooms writes for the Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 1994 by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial.

No one in historical circles takes him seriously. He is a JOKE.

These are his sources.

Prove they're a joke.

1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.

6. Black Masters, p. 62.

7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.


10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

 

[paperview]

Prove it?

Provide a source for that nonsense!!

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.


Source

Grooms strikes again to the Illogical loneman.

Robert Grooms writes for the Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 1994 by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial.

No one in historical circles takes him seriously. He is a JOKE.

These are his sources.

Prove they're a joke.

1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.

6. Black Masters, p. 62.

7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.


10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

We've been through this before, little dawgie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...9-are-blacks-americans-too-8.html#post3297859

One data point. Manipulation of numbers, No historian takes the takes Grooms seriously.

Not going to debate long-since debunked bullshit with you again. You're not worth it.