"Antonio a Negro": America's first slave owner.

NOTICE: Most of these words are not my own, It is information I have gathered from various sources that I have posted at the bottom of this thread. I changed the words around a bit to better help everyone understand.

-

"Antonio a Negro" was among the very first Angola-African people to arrive in America. He came by boat on "The James" to Virginia in 1619, with other blacks and whites, as an indentured servant.

Indentured servant- A person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.

For nearly 12 years he worked on a plantation for the Bennetts, a wealthy white family. The Bennetts owned Antonio, but allowed him to farm a small plot of land for himself, in addition to the work he did on the Bennett plantation. There he grew tobacco and corn. He was also able to own several head of cattle while still a slave.

Antonio married a black woman named Mary and had four children. Antonio was praised for his hard work and good service, and he eventually became free. One of the first things he did was change his name to Anthony Johnson. Most servants did not have last names, or else they used the name of their master. By creating a new name for himself, Anthony Johnson was announcing that he was no longer an indentured servant.

Anthony Johnson worked hard to become a landowner, acquiring a patent for 250 acres of land. He eventually made enough money to buy an African slave of his own, John Casor.

Casor had also been imported as an indentured servant and attempted to transfer his remaining time of service to Robert Parker, a white colonist. However, Anthony Johnson brought suit in Northampton County court against Robert Parker in 1654 for detaining his servant, saying "hee had ye Negro for his life". In the case of Johnson vs Parker, the court of Northampton County upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave, saying:

"Seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master… It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit."

In other words, the court gave judicial sanction to the right of Negroes to own slaves of their own race. Indeed no earlier record has been found of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for crime.

The defendant, John Casor, thus became the first individual known to be declared a "slave" in what later became the United States.

And there you have it, folks. Before this court case, there was no such thing as a "slave". There were only indentured servants. Therefore, The first legal SLAVE owner in America was BLACK!

Sources:
Anthony Johnson

Anthony Johnson 2

John Casor

Legal Dispute

reply to post by SamTGonzalez


Uh oh, looks like both parties are guilty. There's blood on everyone's hands now. What would the progressives think of this? I'm assuming this is all true of course.

I think it goes to show that slavery is not exclusive to whites, it a human problem, not a white problem.

reply to post by freedish


Of course, slavery for the majority of our history had nothing to do with what race you were...that was a relatively new concept. Anyway, thanks for the interesting story.

Wow this is amazing to learn (once again on ATS). I never heard of this guy until now and wonder why it was left out of the education books. I knew there was black involvement in slavery trade of Africanaz as far as certain rich tribal leaders doing biz. with the Americanaz traders for goods in exchange for slaves. I didnt know one of the first to own slaves was a negro as well. How did this miss the books it would of helped curve a lot of hatred and anger built up between races in the Americanaz. Thanks for the update amazing..
S&F

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
...How did this miss the books it would of helped curve a lot of hatred and anger built up between races in the Americanaz...
S&F

Unfortunately the reason it missed the books is because it would have helped curve a lot of hatred and anger built up between races in the Americanaz.

great read, TY OP. More on the history of slavery must be taught in our school to cull misplaced animosity, all i remember about the lessons is my white teacher telling my ghetto school that the british where slavers, and of course me being italian and sicilian and all that made me british enough to be put in the same category and face some pretty harsh racial slander.

I find this interesting, but not surprising. Slavery was acceptable globally, not that long ago, and in is still practiced today, although mostly in secret. Also, I think it is important to note there is a difference between an indentured servant and a slave. Indentured servants served for a fixed period of time, no more than seven years, and were paying off their expenses from travel to the US, it was an arrangement they agreed to. Slaves were typically bought from Africa and served indefinitely, often for life, and their descendants were born into slavery.

However, as in this case, there were blacks that were indentured servants, worked off their debt, got their own land and either arranged for an indentured servant or slave. This was common practice.

Honestly, and I mean no offense, although I doubt that is any consolation but I am over the American colonial slavery debate.

First and most important to me, America is a country of immigrants, most immigrants did not come until well after slavery. For instance my family didn't arrive in the US until after 1870 and finished arriving in 1923, why am I, people like me, and people that came after expected to apologize and feel bad for blacks whose ancestors may have been slaves? Just because I'm of European descent? Because my ancestors were Irish and I am as white as new fallen snow, um....no.

Well I am tired of being blamed for my ancestors when my ancestors were not in the US and did not hold slaves in Ireland. It is equally as racist to assume all white are descendants of slave holders, so I wish they would quite pitting whites and blacks against each other on this basis.

Second, the majority of slaves, were sold into slavery, often by other Africans. It was only in 2007 that the majority of Africa had outlawed slavery, however it is still practiced in N. Africa. Seriously? Why does this always seem to be a little known fact, you start learning about American slavery in what third grade, why can't we be honest about it.

Awesome thread!!!! I never knew this or the concept.

Man I love ATS and it's members (most of them). Very interesting topic and such a unpopular topic.

Good work for exposing trust/history etc.

S&F>

Keep 'em coming!

haha wow, you truly learn something new every day! i'm gonna have to show this to a few people.

great post S&F
even though I already knew about this it's good to have it brought up here.

you certainly won't hear about this with from that stupid "reparations" crowd
if reparations were to be given they would also have pay them to a lot of Americans of Irish and Scots descent.

their ancestors didn't emigrate they were sold into slavery by Cromwell, another covered up bit of history.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
great post S&F
even though I already knew about this it's good to have it brought up here.

you certainly won't hear about this with from that stupid "reparations" crowd
if reparations were to be given they would also have pay them to a lot of Americans of Irish and Scots descent.

their ancestors didn't emigrate they were sold into slavery by Cromwell, another covered up bit of history.

Exactly! I was inspired to write this after I read the post about the NAACP covering up George Washington's statue on MLK day, because it OFFENDED them. What a bunch of ignorant bastards!

I have another one for you that you wont find in mainstream history books

Im Blackfeet and my grandfather left the rez.. my dad was raised 1/2 of his life on rez and then moved off and made his life in New Orleans with me and my mother. Naturally we had contact with relatives and spent time on rez, but I still wanted more info and when younger got into researching native history.. not just my tribe but all tribes in general as they related to the US of A, the forming, and her history. There was a lot of discussion of slavery and its history is evident everywhere in N.O so I was curious how we fit into it all. Come to find out.. Native Americans also owned slaves. Not a large percentage, but its true. Native Americans were also employed to track run away slaves. I was shocked because my family arent part of the 5 civilized tribes who were most involved with the whole slave thing and I never knew. I certainly was never taught it in school. I had also learned of blacks owning slaves as well and that whole thing not only in the South but the North too.. and how twisted the "official" history is from the truth. New Orleans had some of the first ever laws predating the civil war by a long time giving rights to blacks and mixed folks. They participated inthe slave trade, commerce, and had basically every right that whites did other than being able to live openly as a black/white couple in marriage. The lies that are perpetuated are truly staggering. Why engineer and promote racial disharmony and blatant lies?
History is a lot different than what we are taught and I guess we have to ask why and who benefits from the blatant lies and clever exclusions in what passes in education for "American History" .

Originally posted by Advantage
I guess we have to ask why and who benefits from the blatant lies and clever exclusions in what passes in education for "American History" .

those who survive to tell the tale are the ones who write the history books.

Originally posted by gougitousakusha

Originally posted by Advantage
I guess we have to ask why and who benefits from the blatant lies and clever exclusions in what passes in education for "American History" .

those who survive to tell the tale are the ones who write the history books.

IMO thats the problem.. we ALL survived.. yet the lies continue.

reply to post by Advantage


imma point my finger at lincoln and his cult personally

Originally posted by gougitousakusha
reply to post by Advantage

 

imma point my finger in lincoln and his cult personally

Me too, the guy who ruined the country, expanded the power of the federal govt ( and started the snowball to be what it is now) , an extortionist and genocidal weirdo... but he is praised as one of the greatest presidents?? Honest Abe?? Odd to me!

reply to post by Advantage



It's called divide and rule. get everybody fighting each other instead of the psychopaths.

don't forget the real origins of thanksgiving
the OS is all quite true, with the extermination of the tribe that helped the pilgrims survive the winter left out.

NAACP covering up George Washington's statue on MLK day, because it OFFENDED them. What a bunch of ignorant bastards!

sounds like more divide and rule IMO.

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
In other words, the court gave judicial sanction to the right of Negroes to own slaves of their own race. Indeed no earlier record has been found of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for crime.

Why the court did that? Isn't that morally wrong?
Class slavery was more common everywhere. But then why it turns into racial slavery?

I'm struggling to understand the point of this post. Slavery is just as much the black mans fault as the white mans? Forgive me if my post sounds dense. Some ATS folks aren't as sharp as others.