Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
One black achievement we can all celebrate
- Thread starter TNHarley
- Start date
ricechickie
Gold Member
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,718
- 13,425
- 2,280
Context-
At some point between 1625 and 1640 Anthony and Mary gained their freedom and moved to Virginia’s Eastern Shore where they purchased a modest estate. They began raising cattle and hogs and by 1651, Johnson claimed 250 acres of land along Pungoteague Creek. He claimed the land by virtue of five headrights, one of which was in the name of his son, Richard Johnson. It is impossible to know if Anthony imported the other men whose names appear on the headright land claims, but it is possible that he did. It is also possible that he purchased headright certificates from other planters. Either way, 250 acres was a sizeable plantation by the standards of the day. By 1654 Johnson’s two sons, Richard and John, both owned acreage adjoining their father’s land.
In addition to being a landowner, Anthony Johnson was also a slaveholder. Court records reveal that Johnson won a 1655 case against white planter, Robert Parker, to retain ownership of Johnson’s slave, John Casor. Casor, with the help of Robert Parker, tried to claim that he was an indentured servant, not a slave. Although the courts initially found in Parker’s favor, temporarily freeing Casor, they subsequently reversed the decision, returning Casor to the service of his master, Anthony Johnson.
http://www.blackpast.org/aah/johnson-anthony-1670
At some point between 1625 and 1640 Anthony and Mary gained their freedom and moved to Virginia’s Eastern Shore where they purchased a modest estate. They began raising cattle and hogs and by 1651, Johnson claimed 250 acres of land along Pungoteague Creek. He claimed the land by virtue of five headrights, one of which was in the name of his son, Richard Johnson. It is impossible to know if Anthony imported the other men whose names appear on the headright land claims, but it is possible that he did. It is also possible that he purchased headright certificates from other planters. Either way, 250 acres was a sizeable plantation by the standards of the day. By 1654 Johnson’s two sons, Richard and John, both owned acreage adjoining their father’s land.
In addition to being a landowner, Anthony Johnson was also a slaveholder. Court records reveal that Johnson won a 1655 case against white planter, Robert Parker, to retain ownership of Johnson’s slave, John Casor. Casor, with the help of Robert Parker, tried to claim that he was an indentured servant, not a slave. Although the courts initially found in Parker’s favor, temporarily freeing Casor, they subsequently reversed the decision, returning Casor to the service of his master, Anthony Johnson.
http://www.blackpast.org/aah/johnson-anthony-1670
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 93,431
- 55,556
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #5
And then shit hit the fan lolContext-
At some point between 1625 and 1640 Anthony and Mary gained their freedom and moved to Virginia’s Eastern Shore where they purchased a modest estate. They began raising cattle and hogs and by 1651, Johnson claimed 250 acres of land along Pungoteague Creek. He claimed the land by virtue of five headrights, one of which was in the name of his son, Richard Johnson. It is impossible to know if Anthony imported the other men whose names appear on the headright land claims, but it is possible that he did. It is also possible that he purchased headright certificates from other planters. Either way, 250 acres was a sizeable plantation by the standards of the day. By 1654 Johnson’s two sons, Richard and John, both owned acreage adjoining their father’s land.
In addition to being a landowner, Anthony Johnson was also a slaveholder. Court records reveal that Johnson won a 1655 case against white planter, Robert Parker, to retain ownership of Johnson’s slave, John Casor. Casor, with the help of Robert Parker, tried to claim that he was an indentured servant, not a slave. Although the courts initially found in Parker’s favor, temporarily freeing Casor, they subsequently reversed the decision, returning Casor to the service of his master, Anthony Johnson.
http://www.blackpast.org/aah/johnson-anthony-1670
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,718
- 13,425
- 2,280
Yes, it is true. More, from the root-
How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.
Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?
It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."
Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
So, some ownership was for benevolent purposes, others not so much.
How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.
Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?
It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."
Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
So, some ownership was for benevolent purposes, others not so much.
And then shit hit the fan lolContext-
At some point between 1625 and 1640 Anthony and Mary gained their freedom and moved to Virginia’s Eastern Shore where they purchased a modest estate. They began raising cattle and hogs and by 1651, Johnson claimed 250 acres of land along Pungoteague Creek. He claimed the land by virtue of five headrights, one of which was in the name of his son, Richard Johnson. It is impossible to know if Anthony imported the other men whose names appear on the headright land claims, but it is possible that he did. It is also possible that he purchased headright certificates from other planters. Either way, 250 acres was a sizeable plantation by the standards of the day. By 1654 Johnson’s two sons, Richard and John, both owned acreage adjoining their father’s land.
In addition to being a landowner, Anthony Johnson was also a slaveholder. Court records reveal that Johnson won a 1655 case against white planter, Robert Parker, to retain ownership of Johnson’s slave, John Casor. Casor, with the help of Robert Parker, tried to claim that he was an indentured servant, not a slave. Although the courts initially found in Parker’s favor, temporarily freeing Casor, they subsequently reversed the decision, returning Casor to the service of his master, Anthony Johnson.
http://www.blackpast.org/aah/johnson-anthony-1670
Moonglow
Diamond Member
So that's why they call it a "Johnson"...is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
- Banned
- #8
Yes, it is true. More, from the root-
How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.
Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?
It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."
Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
So, some ownership was for benevolent purposes, others not so much.
And then shit hit the fan lolContext-
At some point between 1625 and 1640 Anthony and Mary gained their freedom and moved to Virginia’s Eastern Shore where they purchased a modest estate. They began raising cattle and hogs and by 1651, Johnson claimed 250 acres of land along Pungoteague Creek. He claimed the land by virtue of five headrights, one of which was in the name of his son, Richard Johnson. It is impossible to know if Anthony imported the other men whose names appear on the headright land claims, but it is possible that he did. It is also possible that he purchased headright certificates from other planters. Either way, 250 acres was a sizeable plantation by the standards of the day. By 1654 Johnson’s two sons, Richard and John, both owned acreage adjoining their father’s land.
In addition to being a landowner, Anthony Johnson was also a slaveholder. Court records reveal that Johnson won a 1655 case against white planter, Robert Parker, to retain ownership of Johnson’s slave, John Casor. Casor, with the help of Robert Parker, tried to claim that he was an indentured servant, not a slave. Although the courts initially found in Parker’s favor, temporarily freeing Casor, they subsequently reversed the decision, returning Casor to the service of his master, Anthony Johnson.
Johnson, Anthony (? – 1670) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed
Then you have to consider who was selling the slaves on African shores... The blacks who captured them in the first place.
I'm still pissed at the Italians because of what they might have done to some of my slavic ancestors. My reparations should be quite high once the interest is accounted for.
jillian
Princess
is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 93,431
- 55,556
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #11
Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
jillian
Princess
Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 93,431
- 55,556
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #13
So, its only bigotry depending on what skin color the laborers are? Thats racist!Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
jillian
Princess
So, its only bigotry depending on what skin color the laborers are? Thats racist!Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
ok, cookie.
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 93,431
- 55,556
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #15
I would definitely enslave you. Not sure what you would be good at though.. Can you use a vacuum?So, its only bigotry depending on what skin color the laborers are? Thats racist!Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
ok, cookie.
- Banned
- #16
I would definitely enslave you. Not sure what you would be good at though.. Can you use a vacuum?
Considering how much bullshit I've seen Jilly suck up here, I'll bet she could vacuum a 1000 acre pasture in 10 minutes.
Bruce_T_Laney
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #17
Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
Blacks were not the only slaves in the History of the World or this Country...
Native Americans endure slavery and genocide but hey why would you care and the fact still remains Free Slaves also owned Slaves but again that does not matter to those like you!
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,718
- 13,425
- 2,280
Not only Native Americans, but Europeans as well.
Barbary slave trade - Wikipedia
Barbary slave trade - Wikipedia
Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
Blacks were not the only slaves in the History of the World or this Country...
Native Americans endure slavery and genocide but hey why would you care and the fact still remains Free Slaves also owned Slaves but again that does not matter to those like you!
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 93,431
- 55,556
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #19
Nobody cares about that.Not only Native Americans, but Europeans as well.
Barbary slave trade - Wikipedia
Why is supporting free labor bigotry?is Anthony Johnson. The first person to have slavery legally recognized, which, changed the colonies workforce completely.
Yippy!
yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
Blacks were not the only slaves in the History of the World or this Country...
Native Americans endure slavery and genocide but hey why would you care and the fact still remains Free Slaves also owned Slaves but again that does not matter to those like you!
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,718
- 13,425
- 2,280
It is all an important part of history.
All slavery was wrong, no matter the color of the skin by those selling, or enslaved. People were known to sell their own children to pay a debt.
But it dates back to the beginning of time.
All slavery was wrong, no matter the color of the skin by those selling, or enslaved. People were known to sell their own children to pay a debt.
But it dates back to the beginning of time.
Nobody cares about that.Not only Native Americans, but Europeans as well.
Barbary slave trade - Wikipedia
Why is supporting free labor bigotry?yeah, you're not a bigot or anything. you just play one on the interwebs
depends. do white trash get to be the slaves this time?
Blacks were not the only slaves in the History of the World or this Country...
Native Americans endure slavery and genocide but hey why would you care and the fact still remains Free Slaves also owned Slaves but again that does not matter to those like you!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 204
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 355
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 259
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 494
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 93
- Views
- 418
- Replies
- 9K
- Views
- 269K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-