The Curious Case of Anthony Johnson

The mark of slave-turned-master Anthony Johnson. Source: Wikipedia

by James A. Bacon

The man who would come to be known by the English name of Anthony Johnson was born in the Angola region of southern Africa, enslaved by the Portuguese, and transported to Virginia for sale. There he was sold to a colonist, and then resold to a merchant planter by the name of Edward Bennet around the year 1622. None of the American colonies had yet legalized slavery — Massachusetts would be the first in 1641; Virginia would not follow until 1661 — and the only legal framework for bondage was indentured servitude. Accordingly, Johnson entered his service to Bennet as an indentured servant.

Bennet sent some 50 servants, including Johnson, to a point on the James River to clear grounds for a tobacco plantation. The following month, the party was attacked by the Powhatan Confederacy headed by Chief Opechancanough, who was bent upon exterminating and expelling the English colonists. Johnson was one of only a  handful of survivors. After that harrowing episode, he proceeded to serve out his term as a servant and was given his freedom. As was standard practice at the time, he was given tools and allotted land. He settled along the Pungoteague River on Virginia’s Eastern Shore.

An enterprising man, Bennet took advantage of the so-called “headrights” system, in which anyone who imported labor to the colony was granted 50 acres per head. By acquiring a dozen or more servants — some English, some of African origin — he built an estate of more than 1,000 acres, which he named Angola. Thus, Johnson was one of the only — perhaps the only — documented instance in history of an African who became the master of White Englishmen in the American colonies.

Johnson’s story is well known to historians of the early colonial era. I came across it in the book, White Cargo, a history of indentured servitude, and there is a detailed entry about Johnson in Wikipedia. The tale does not fit the America-born-with-the-sin-of-slavery interpretation of the 1619 Project. History is complicated. It defies simplistic oppression narratives. While Africans may have arrived in Virginia in 1619, slavery did not.

Ironically, Johnson played a not-insignificant role in the legal evolution of indentured servitude into Black slavery. Johnson had a Black African servant with the English name of John Casor who ran away sometime in the 1650s and sought the protection of a neighboring (White) planter. Casor went to court arguing that he had served out the full term of his servitude, but Johnson counter-claimed that Casor was a servant for life. After two years of drama, the Northampton County Court ruled that Casor was indeed Johnson’s property, commanded that he be returned, and ordered Johnson to be compensated for lost labor. Twenty years later, Casor still was recorded as the property of Johnson’s African-born widow, Mary Johnson.

The institution of slavery took decades to evolve into the inherited, race-based system that Americans commonly think of as slavery. It wasn’t until 1671 that Virginia made all “non-Christian servants” newly-shipped into the colony slaves for life. (Remember, at this time, Muslim Africans along the Barbary Coast were routinely enslaving European Christians, mainly in the Mediterranean.) Two years later, the legislature validated the enslavement of Indians. Additional laws were passed piecemeal, but the system was not formalized until enactment of Virginia’s first slave code in 1705.

Throughout most of the 1600s, Virginia planters relied more heavily upon the indentured labor of English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish servants than of Africans. Many White servants indentured themselves voluntarily in exchange for trans-Atlantic passage and the promise of land at the end of their term, but many were convicts, prisoners of war, or kidnaped from the streets of English port cities, and they were transported to the colonies against their will. As the authors of “White Cargo” argue, their condition was indistinguishable from that of Black slaves. They were frequently beaten and starved; their new-born children were indentured until they reached the age of 21; they often ran away, and when they were recaptured, given extended terms of servitude. Indeed their condition was often worse. Some plantation owners were determined to eke the maximum profit from their servants before their terms expired. Half or more died in servitude. By contrast, plantation owners had an incentive to keep their Black slave property alive and healthy.

The 1600s were an ugly period of history. The world was dominated by empires and kingdoms in which a few rulers presided over systems of hierarchy and servitude, and reigning religions and ideologies justified their rule. One can view the history of the United States in isolation as a never-ending succession of cruelties and injustices unto the present day, oblivious to the fact that the history of every people was characterized by cruelties and injustices. Or one can approach American history with the question: how did we get from Point A (universal hierarchy and oppression) in 1607 to Point B (a democratic republic guided by the principles, if not always the practice, of liberty, equality and universal justice)?

I adopt the latter view. As time permits, I will explore in future posts the theme of hierarchy and servitude through Virginia history.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

121 responses to “The Curious Case of Anthony Johnson”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    A more balanced take…

    https://www.aaihs.org/the-curious-history-of-anthony-johnson-from-captive-african-to-right-wing-talking-point/

    For instance:

    “Walsh contends that the few Africans who came to the Chesapeake colonies as indentured servants have “confused the issue of the fate of the great majority,” arguing that, unlike European bonds-people, most captive Africans lacked basic information in the documents, including names, ages, and arrival dates. They were rendered anonymous in the historical record, differentiating them from European servants who at least maintained an ethnic identifier beyond their indenture. Thus, even if Africans were not “enslaved” by the later standards of the 19th century, they were certainly not viewed as equal to white servants. These early distinctions eventually shifted toward concrete identifications of chattel enslavement and its explicit links to Blackness throughout the Atlantic.”

    1. And yet… Anthony Johnson was released from his servitude, acquired land, obtained white servants, acquired more land, and had standing in the Northampton Court.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Research indicates that when Johnson died in 1670, his plantation was given to a white colonist, not to Johnson’s children. A judge had ruled that he was “not a citizen of the colony” because he was black. [13]

        1. From Wikipedia:

          In 1657, Johnson’s neighbor, Edmund Scarborough, allegedly forged a letter in which Johnson acknowledged a debt, whether this debt was real or not is unknown. Johnson did not contest the case. Johnson was illiterate and could not have written the letter; nevertheless, the court awarded Scarborough 100 acres (40 ha) of Johnson’s land to pay off his alleged “debt/”

          Anthony Johnson moved his family to Somerset County, Maryland, where he negotiated a lease on a 300-acre (120 ha) plot of land for ninety-nine years. He developed the property as a tobacco farm, which he named Tories Vineyards. Mary survived, and in 1672 she bequeathed a cow to each of her grandsons.

          Research indicates that when Johnson died in 1670, his plantation was given to a white colonist, not to Johnson’s children. A judge had ruled that he was “not a citizen of the colony” because he was black. In 1677, Anthony and Mary’s grandson, John Jr., purchased a 44-acre (18-hectare) farm which he named Angola. John Jr. died without leaving an heir, however. By 1730, the Johnson family had vanished from historical significance.

          So, yeah, a White neighbor took advantage of Johnson’s illiteracy and defrauded him. And, yeah, 60 years after the founding of Jamestown, the Virginia legislator enacted laws that discriminated against non-Christians (Blacks and Indians), paving the way for full-fledged slavery.

          So, in the context of my column, what’s your point?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            is this not the truth: ” A judge had ruled that he was “not a citizen of the colony” because he was black. ”

            Why do you do this Jim?

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Remember Dredd Scott!!

      2. And Anthony Johnson argued in court that John Casor was to be his servant for life–and so the court ruled. Would be interesting to know if that ruling was used in other legal actions supporting slavery that eventually led to the confiscation of Johnson’s estate.

      3. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        No one has disputed your iteration of the tale, only the moral you draw from it.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      ” Though it is not the only myth attached to American slavery, the meme-ing of Anthony Johnson manifests the unique challenges scholars face in combating historical misinformation. As one of the few documented Black landowners in 17th-century Virginia, his unique story has morphed into a manipulative trope used by right-wing activists. From the 1960s–90s Johnson was predominantly known among academics who studied slavery, but interest in his (misrepresented) life has recently gained traction with the advent of digital sharing, discussion sites, and public forums. For instance, as of July 12, 2019 Johnson’s Wikipedia page claims he was a “colonist” sold by “Arab slave traders,” though there is no citation for the latter claim, nor is it supported by historians. It was likely added by a user who hoped to redirect blame from the Atlantic Slave Trade toward the “Arab Slave Trade,” a popular talking point among right-wing commentators. In his podcast disputing reparations for slavery, conservative pundit Michael Knowles reiterated this myth about Johnson without reviewing the available literature. Such historical distortions seek to minimize Europe’s culpability in expanding African slavery and discredit the system’s intergenerational impact upon African Americans.”

      this is what JAB does…here.. IMO and the bigger question – why?

    3. LarrytheG Avatar

      ” Though it is not the only myth attached to American slavery, the meme-ing of Anthony Johnson manifests the unique challenges scholars face in combating historical misinformation. As one of the few documented Black landowners in 17th-century Virginia, his unique story has morphed into a manipulative trope used by right-wing activists. From the 1960s–90s Johnson was predominantly known among academics who studied slavery, but interest in his (misrepresented) life has recently gained traction with the advent of digital sharing, discussion sites, and public forums. For instance, as of July 12, 2019 Johnson’s Wikipedia page claims he was a “colonist” sold by “Arab slave traders,” though there is no citation for the latter claim, nor is it supported by historians. It was likely added by a user who hoped to redirect blame from the Atlantic Slave Trade toward the “Arab Slave Trade,” a popular talking point among right-wing commentators. In his podcast disputing reparations for slavery, conservative pundit Michael Knowles reiterated this myth about Johnson without reviewing the available literature. Such historical distortions seek to minimize Europe’s culpability in expanding African slavery and discredit the system’s intergenerational impact upon African Americans.”

      this is what JAB does…here.. IMO and the bigger question – why?

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        ” … manipulative trope used by right-wing activists …”

        That phrase is all I need ti see from your unsourced quote to know it is modern day wokeism rather than an honest attempt at history.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    What happened to Johnson and his family and descendants, as members of the black race, AFTER slavery was over?

    Was he subject to the same Jim Crow and White Supremacy as other people of color?

    It’s not about the slavery. It’s about the treatment of people after they were freed from slavery.

    Yes, we do call that “oppression” but it’s about REAL oppression that followed slavery.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      I wonder if his descendants were able to remain free and keep their property… surely that is known…

      Edit: from wiki:

      “Research indicates that when Johnson died in 1670, his plantation was given to a white colonist, not to Johnson’s children. A judge had ruled that he was “not a citizen of the colony” because he was black.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I don’t think JAB really wants to know. He’s primarily focused on showing that slavery as not so evil, more equal opportunity…. and the rest of it is that awful “oppression narrative”.

  3. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Were Anthony Johnson the rule, it would be substantial testimony to those who assert American exceptionalism. Except, however, Mr. Johnson’s tale is not the rule.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      something about Conservatives and dealing with the larger truth… they just can’t seem to….

      1. Yeah, Larry, I can hardly wait for the day we are told that that the history is “settled,” that any views contrary to the 1619 dogma are “disinformation,” and that LarrytheG has been appointed commissar in charge of correct thinking.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          good old fashioned whitewashing of history going on here…. revisionist history by the usual suspects….

          but hey… making progress… James McCarthy did not get labeled as a serial misrepresenter! 😉

    2. By talking about Johnson as an exception to “the rule,” you are essentially saying that the institution of slavery and race in America remained fixed, uniform and unchanging from 1607 through 1865, a period of 250 years. You’re welcome to that view, if you want to defend it. I hew to the view that the colonies originated with one set of attitudes and institutions inherited from the old world, and then modified the old institutions and created new ones in response to local conditions, economic imperatives, and evolving political philosophies.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        So.. I guess JAB won’t be adding
        James McCarthy to the other “serial misrepresenters”? 😉

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Working on a nomination.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        1959. They didn’t need runaway slave laws in Jim Crow.

        1. 2022. Republicans have stolen the supreme court, cancelled the Voting Rights Act, and brought back Jim Crow!

          3 centuries of uninterrupted racism.

      3. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Never stated nor even suggested slavery was “fixed” in American history. If y’all believe the people of the colonies “originated with one set of attitudes inherited from the old world”, consider again that proposition. Was slavery an institution “modified” in the colonies? Share some of those modifications that encouraged “unalienated right to liberty.”

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Were Anthony Johnson the rule, it would be substantial testimony to those who assert American exceptionalism. Except, however, Mr. Johnson’s tale is not the rule.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I apologize to you James. It’s just an interesting story. And, I understand, it’s just Sunday filler because it’s difficult to cover the sound of crickets coming from the Virginia Republicans — to a person — about the national leadership courting Fuentes and Ye.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      How about blue and red national leadership washing millions at the FTX laundry? Why would anyone trust two people that look like gerbils. Bob Ross has better hair than Candy Sammy.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a63c4e63521b00b1702cc2f838e99576cb9bc6d28d9e9858198a1d5ce562c57a.jpg

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Why would anyone THINK that crypto is a safe way to protect your money – gerbils or “normal” looking?

        😉

        when one asks what “backs” crypto assets… last I heard it was a bunch of computers “mining” by “solving” complex math problems.

        😉

        Govt-printed paper beats the socks off of them…. 😉

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          New York State just banned electricity produced by coal from powering the servers that “create” crypto. We can all relax now. Planet saved.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Power ain’t the problem. Water is.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        He hated the perm too.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Bob Ross for President. Is he still above ground? He was a cool dude. The only painting I could do was the ones with numbers on the canvas.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            If we’re going to elect a dead guy then I’m still all in for Pat Paulsen.

          2. Pat Paulsen? A clue to who Nancy is: a woman of a certain age. Other clues: ” a sound thrashing” = she reads (or watches Masterpiece Theater). “Look up Negro Seaman Acts” = she reads history. “[A]s we were writing slavery into law, some places like England and New England were writing it out” = reads history selectively. In fact, New England abolition featured a twenty year waiting period (as Jefferson tried to do when he was in the Virginia legislature). The result? The slaves all sold south. Taking his cue from New England, Matthew Maury wrote the only realistic way to end slavery in the South was to sell them further south: to Brazil. Nancy writes lots of posts = retired, nothing better to do. She harangues but with a sense of humor. My guess is: a mother (you have to have a sense of humor) perhaps now grandmother. Went to expensive schools. Probably segregated grade school, but desegregation by high school. She is sincere in her concern about black people but at arm’s length. When was the last time one came over for dinner?

            Nancy, how close am I?

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Miss. But remember in calories burned, a Miss is as good as a mile.

          4. Alas. Well I hope you and Mr. Bacon collaborate sometime as Bret Stevens and Gail Collins due on NYT columns: pick a topic and have at it.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I doubt very seriously if he would be interested. More like Akroyd and Curtin…

          6. I can ‘hear’ Jim Bacon writing Nancy, you incredibly ignorant slut now…

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You can hear him writing? He lets you sit that close?

            James! Don’t let him get behind you!

            ‘sides, Jim is a gentleman. He might think it, but never say it, much less write it, about a genteel woman, or even a slattern such as me.

          8. Okay.

            Did you not see the quotation marks?

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes. But good humor sometimes requires…

          10. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Besides, I figure we, you and I, were beyond adding emojis.

          11. Okay.

            Did you not see the quotation marks?

          12. Your base premise was mistaken. Nancy Naive is not a woman. I’m not at all sure what his screen name means, though.

            It could be an anagram of his real name, I suppose, but I’ve searched records in Virginia for Ivan Nancey, Vanni Yance, and Yancey Vann, with no success.

            Of course, he owns a dog and a sailboat. so his screen name could be an anagram of Canine Navy.

            But he’s not offering any clues, so I suspect his real identity will remain a mystery…

          13. She’s a he? A gentleman of a certain age (old enough to remember Laugh-in’s Pat Paulsen and the classics of Saturday Night Live) well read, sense of humor, and has a dog? I wish to propose marriage to him/her/it/them. After the ritual exchange of tax returns, of course.

  6. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I don’t see how this advances the “defense of the white man” meme for so much of the writing on this blog. Understanding that American chattel slavery didn’t arrive with the founding, but developed later and intentionally through local legislation, is a far deeper stain on our ancestors. I suspect it was different in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, where it seems the Indians were enslaved from the get go and then supplemented with enslaved Africans, but without the legal basis that (dare I say evolved) in the British colonies, the major slave trade of the 18th and then 19th Century might not have developed here. Far less profit in transporting folks on indenture contracts, such as some of my ancestors coming to NY and PA.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    See? Slavery wasn’t all bad, say the Jefferson apologist…

    Watch for future cites of Johnson from the TJC.

    1. Larry, Nancy and Eric, you are serial misrepresenters of my views. If you so consistently misrepresent my views, how can I avoid concluding that you don’t consistently misrepresent every source you cite?

      If I have to devote my every comment to correcting your misrepresentation, it is impossible to carry on a meaningful dialogue with you.

      For the benefit of readers, I will repeat the so-what graph of my post:

      The tale does not fit the America-born-with-the-sin-of-slavery interpretation of the 1619 Project. History is complicated. It defies simplistic oppression narratives. While Africans may have arrived in Virginia in 1619, slavery did not.

      I will say this, though, your comments vividly illustrate how progressives will defend the 1619 narrative no matter what it takes. It is equally clear that no body of evidence could ever dent your views in the slightest.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        They will defend 1619 (or as you point 1661) until they draw their last breath.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I don’t even know what it is….
          ya’ll are messed up when you accuse others of things they don’t even know what you’re accusing them of! 😉

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I don’t care about, nor have I ever mentioned Project 1619, nor even Project X the Unknown.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            yeah, but… it’s what progressives believe… at least according to Conservatives.. and if you can’t believe Conservatives on this.. what can…. oh wait…

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            yeah, but… it’s what progressives believe… at least according to Conservatives.. and if you can’t believe Conservatives on this.. what can…. oh wait…

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Project. My wife often calls me that.

          4. Mine too, in her more charitable moments.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I’m a “work of art” to mine.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            a work in progress………..

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            …piece of work…

          8. How does what you post differ from what 1619 claims?

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I dunno, you tell me. Presumably, you’ve read both. For me to answer that, I’ve have to read the Project 1619 stuff. Worse than that, I’d have to read my posts.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            Why would you claim that someone supports the 1619 project if you really don’t know?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        There is no misrepresentation here. Jim is purposely evading the truth and he does this serially.

        I’m NOT defending the 1619 narrative, never said a word about it.

        I’m focusing ENTIRELY on the complete story of this man which you seem to have purposely left out and only related the partial history.

        You say it’s “complicated”.

        No, it’s not. You purposely are not telling the complete story and you are ignoring what happened to the vast majority of black people AFTER slavery ended and Jim Crow and White Supremacy reined for generations.

        tell the truth.

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        You cite a handful of anomalies in the 300 years of the history of slavery and suddenly *poof* all is okay, eh? Yes, there were black slave owners, and some 1900 freemen joined the Confederate army in Louisana. Of course, as soon as the Union took NOLA, they surrendered — had to, they were never given weapons — and joined the Union forces, where they WERE given arms.

        But that’s okay. Continue with your 1950’s TV representation of history. It’s amusing. But, please, try not to forget that Jefferson did not spring from the mind of Zeus, or Yaweh, or whoever. He was born of a non-virginal woman.

        1. I never said and never implied that “all is OK.” That’s you making stuff up.

          American slavery was evil. Period. End of story. I don’t repeat that with every other breath because it is so self-evident, and I’ve said so repeatedly anyway. But if it’ll make you feel better, I’ll add a post script to every blog post to the effect that American slavery is evil so readers of these comments can be spared your tiresome insinuations that I believe otherwise.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Don’t. Forget the postscript. Just capitulate and take down the Confederate statues. Then, you can continue to “print the legend”.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Slavery was no more or less “evil” than a LOT of other barbaric practices of that era.

            What WAS evil that you ignore and often fail to even mention is what was done to black folks AFTER slavery – for generations. THAT (Jim Crow, White Supremacy was EVIL!

          3. It would be nice if the democrat party would admit the evil of Jim Crow and quit employing the Jim Crow tactics they invented.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Agreed. You have my vote that Jim Crow was evil and renounce Jim Crow laws. Done!

          5. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            It’s not that you believe otherwise. You must acknowledge that your views have influence and when presented as doctrine are to be challenged.

      4. LarrytheG Avatar

        There is no misrepresentation here. Jim is purposely evading the truth and he does this serially.

        I’m NOT defending the 1619 narrative, never said a word about it.

        I’m focusing ENTIRELY on the complete story of this man which you seem to have purposely left out and only related the partial history.

        You say it’s “complicated”.

        No, it’s not. You purposely are not telling the complete story and you are ignoring what happened to the vast majority of black people AFTER slavery ended and Jim Crow and White Supremacy reined for generations.

        tell the truth.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          That’s not what romantics do.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Slavery was a really bad thing.

            But then we “fixed it”. Yup, we did.

            So what’s the big deal and why can’t we be forgiven for it?

      5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Eric, you are serial misrepresenters of my views. If you so consistently misrepresent my views…”

        I made no comment at all on your views. You are making things up at this point…

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          you commented…… 😉

      6. DJRippert Avatar

        Progressives don’t want history taught as it actually happened. They want a modernized version of history. Why? Because progressives are fundamentally racist. They associate all power, knowledge and ambition to White people because they a fundamentally racist. How could a Black man, born in Angola, end up owning land and slaves? That goes against the progressives’ racist view that only White people had the gumption to take advantage of the prevailing situation at the time.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          how could they take that black man from Angola’s land away from him because he was black?

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Yes! Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Something like that.

      7. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Methinks you doth protest too much. Yes, your tale does not fit a universal model but, at the same time, does not prove the proposition. It is a singular, perhaps unique, tale about an individual. It’s a scintilla of evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt which frames some criticism of your tale. If all accept your offering, there exists neither debate nor other sources to contradict.

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I don’t see how this advances the “defense of the white man” meme central to so much of the writing on this blog. Understanding that American chattel slavery didn’t arrive “from elsewhere” with the founding, but developed later and intentionally through local legislation, is a far deeper stain on our ancestors. I suspect it was different in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, where it seems the Indians were enslaved from the get go and then supplemented with enslaved Africans, but without the legal basis that (dare I say evolved) in the British colonies, the major slave trade of the 18th and then 19th Century might not have developed here. Far less profit in transporting folks on set-term indenture contracts, such as some of my ancestors coming into NY and PA. The indenture process died out way earlier than slavery.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Ya know, it’s more interesting that as we were writing slavery into law, some places like England and New England were writing it out.

      Maybe we should all read “The Little Prince” again and contemplate the notion of taking responsibility. When you tame someone, you are forever responsible to them.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        When the “crown” gives huge plots of land to favored gentry – it’s not worth much without folks to “work” it.

        Apparently there were too few indentured servants or they wanted too much money… slavery was a quick and easy answer.

        But there was hell to pay once they were given their “freedom” and they weren’t going to forget it anytime soon.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Off about 150 years, aren’t you, Nancy?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          You don’t think the South wasn’t codifying slavery right up to 1861? Look up Negro Seaman Acts, aka turning freemen back into slaves.

          I seem to recall that 1781 was a banner year for American slaves. They became 3/5th of a person five years after Vermont abolished slavery.

          When you endeavor to keep men as property, you need to constantly update the rules, or have a Supreme Court.

          1. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            The reason that they became 3/5 of a person was to reduce congressional representation of the south. Yes, slaves were counted for purposes of congressional representation.

            They probably shouldn’t have been counted at all.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            how about indentured servants? 3/5 ?

          3. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            I don’t know, but a lot of the people I deal with in Virginia appear to be operating with 3/5 of a functioning brain.

          4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Slaves were also counted for taxation. As Hamilton once said taxation and representation go hand in hand. At the Constitutional Convention delegates from states where slavery was less prevalent preferred counting slaves only for taxation purposes not representation. Southern delegates it was the other way around. 3/5ths was the only way to bring southern states to the signing table at the convention. Yesterday and today have a common thread. It is always about the money.

          5. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Nope. It was to mitigate taxation. They did not “become” 3/5ths. They were defined by fraction.

          6. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            “Three-fifths compromise – Compromise between northern and southern states at the Constitutional Convention that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives.”

          7. 1789.

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            1822.

          9. 1888, 2020, 2284, etc.

      3. England did not outlaw slavery until 1833.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Yes. The King abolished trade 1803(?). The Parliment abolished slavery in 1833. As someone pointed out, most laws abolishing slavery included grandfathering and for various reasons. I think NJ’s law free slaves under a certain age immediately, and slaves over another age not at all(?) maybe. The idea being lifelong care. They didn’t want old white guys showing old black guys the door, and vice versa. Hey, kinda made sense to someone.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          1834 in the Caribbean. Lord Dunmore built the Bahama’s with it’s help.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Spanish Catholic royalty failed an attempt to abolish slavery in the conquered territories. Economics overcame morality.

  9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Or one can approach American history with the question: how did we get from Point A (universal hierarchy and oppression) in 1607 to Point B (a democratic republic guided by the principles, if not always the practice, of liberty, equality and universal justice)?”

    If JAB’s point here is that in the early 1600’s African indentured servants were treated as well as, if not better than those of European origins (hardly a given), then it sure seems like the trip from Point A to Point B (not sure we have reached that point yet) was one of our darker trips with many brutal steps backwards. Not one we should be so proud of, I’d say.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Which is why one has to wonder, “Why all the statues and monuments?”

      “We’re not proud of slavery, just the men who fought for it.”

      Say what?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        did we fight a war over indentured servants?

  10. Seems to me there are some people here trying to be hyperbolic when Jim is plainly trying to make a simple point: that times and motives changed over here in America. Indentured servitude of course was not the same as slavery; 1619 to 1705 was not the same as 1705 to 1865 in Virginia, for Blacks or Whites. Slavery evolved, and with it the practice of denying the humanity of the enslaved; but it was not always so.

    My ancestor’s German family sent him to America in the 1740s to check out the New World; they couldn’t afford to pay to send him so he went under indenture to the ship owner for seven years labor. He landed in Philadelphia, where there was a market (we’d have called it a slave market) where the indentures were auctioned off. He later wrote about the experience: not speaking English yet being auctioned off in that language; being stripped down and inspected all over for injuries and good teeth. He was lucky; his indenture was bought by a German merchant in nearby New Hope, and when his indenture was served he set up his own store nearby and eventually married his former boss’s daughter.

    Africans had no such cultural connections; they did not understand the legal system or have a network of established friends looking out for them; they were rarely in a position to marry the boss’s daughter. But Jim’s point remains: in the early days, the English tradition was an indenture for a limited term and a personal obligation (not affecting one’s wife or children), and those who worked off that indenture were free, and their humanity and citizenship thereafter was a given. It was when those attributes were taken away by action of law that true “slavery” began in the Colonies, following the Caribbean sugar-plantation model, not the indenture model of northern Europe.

    Jim, I look forward to more installments in this series.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I doubt you need worry, more will come.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Why’d it require a civil war to end slavery and indenture when those practices caved to exceptionalism?

    3. LarrytheG Avatar

      these are not the same – slavery, indentured servitude.

      These are not the same – free slaves – apartheid .

      Slaves were not longer term versions of indentured servants in any way, shape or form.

      Freed slaves were not free and equal citizens compared to others and especially not folks that once were indentured servants who were not oppressed for following generations of Jim Crow and White Supremacy.

      Equivalencing them is distorting the truth.

      Looking ONLY at slavery in isolation without looking at what happened to freed slaves for generations is selective and revisionist history.

      It’s not just about slavery.

      1. Certainly did not say they were the same, either. The contrast is the point: 17th century “indenture” had many of the characteristics of slavery (as did its close cousin “apprenticeship”), but the humanity of the indentured still remained fundamentally respected. And, legally, this remained true of slavery until the deliberate legal de-humanizing of chattel slavery in the southern colonies over the course of the 18th century. That took the law in Virginia in a shamefully immoral direction; more importantly it took southern American culture in that direction. And though the law changed after the CW, the culture did not, thus “Jim Crow,” thus segregation — and I daresay, thus today’s racist politicians.

  11. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    What exactly is JAB taking issue with regarding the 1619 date? From this site:

    https://hampton.gov/3580/The-1619-Landing-Report-FAQs

    “Were the first Africans indentured servants or enslaved?
    The historical record does not say for sure, but most historians agree the vast majority of Virginia’s earliest Africans were enslaved. Certainly, they were enslaved on board the Spanish ship San Juan Bautista. When they arrived in Virginia, they were traded as commodities. There are no historical records to indicate they were given regular indenture contracts used by English servants. Once in Virginia, a few Africans may have been treated in a manner similar to white indentured servants or had an opportunity to earn freedom, but existing records do not indicate this was the experience for most Africans, who were enslaved from the outset.”

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I guess from his remark that slavery didn’t arrive in 1619 is his salient point. Big fuzzy duck. So the first 20 weren’t slaves — when they arrived — in the conventional notion of slavery. How many remained so? What of #21?

      I as near as I can tell it’s just the year he’s defending. Okay, make it 1650. Certainly by then…

      Better still let’s save 1619 for something really juicy. How about, oh I dunno, genocide. I think that 1619 was the year that Hampton settlers went into a Kecoughtan village and killed the whole bloody lot. Takes a big white man to skewer a baby with a sword. Don’t waste powder on women and children.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Clever ant not clever sophistry is a requisite skill for many on BR.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Yeah, first sophist don’t stand a chance around this place.

  12. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Who, what, when, where, why, eh? Lots of factors made US slavery kind of unique.

    Everything depended upon timing, size, accessibility, and product. How easily can you control the indigenous population, and how much labor do you need to produce the product you want?

    Caribbean island? No problemo. Superior firepower, and *poof* you have the slave power you need. Where they gonna go? Means of escape. They gonna swim?

    North America? Australia? Big difference. They don’t want to be slaves and they just leave. There ain’t enough of you and you can’t follow them. They can go anywhere, and they were used to living a nomadic and primative lifestyle. Your plantation is in Richmond, or Botany Bay. Okay. We’ll just live a hundred miles away. Come find us.

    Of course, this just lead to viewing the indigenous people as vermin and the just kill ’em attitude.

    Is there a critical size? Yeah. North Island New Zealnd. The Brits had no problem enslaving a large portion of the Maori with a little help from local chiefs. South Island was different. Rain forest and terrain.

    Now throw in labor needed. What product(s)?

    Cotton, tobacco, surgar cane, hemp, etc. are labor intensive. Timber? Not so much.

    Caribbean islands, you needed more slaves than available locally for sugar, so you import them. Same with North America with the export products. In the South, the products were labor intensive. In the North, they were not.

    Australia and New Zealand. Small labor requirements for the products. Indentured, prisoners, and indigenous were capable of meeting labor needs for wood.

    And, of course, timing. Brits were realizing the problems with slavery just about the time we were breaking away. Evangelicals were into binding with the word of God, not chains. And when the rest of the English speaking world was abolishing slavery, the South doubled down with a war — a massive war — to keep it. When they lost, they doubled down again with Jim Crow, and when CRA 64 ended that, the South doubled down again and voila Trump.

    Don’t you guys ever get tired of losing?

  13. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    The information raises complicated questions about many subjects, facts and values. Why not teach all of it? It would be a tremendous opportunity to stretch the minds and reasoning skills of students. We need people who can see life beyond the overly simplified statements that we see from politicians and journalists. Few things in life fit in a single box. And the earlier we learn this in life, the better for each of us and for society.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      As a journalist, JAB hardly offers simplified statements.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        How about those people who work for the NYT, WaPo or any TV network?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Those people who work for WAPO and NYT are hardly in the monolithic position of a blog owner. Those multiple folk express multiple points of view.

          1. Oh goody. It’s another Jim Mccarthy silly MSM walk. You have not been paying attention to the conformity required to be employed by either the NYT or Wash Post.

    2. Thank you TMT, that is precisely the point of free speech and the reason why any of us read this blog.

  14. LarrytheG Avatar

    Slavery is not what happened to black folks per se. As pointed out, slavery was practiced around the world.

    We don’t go several generations and ask why blacks are still suffering from “slavery” when their ancestors were freed long ago. We don’t compare freed slaves to indentured servants that served their debt and were “freed”.

    What happened to blacks that caused generational impacts was our version of apartheid – Jim Crow and White Supremacy and it never had a distinct end point where it all went away and from that point on there was no impact on descendants. There were and continue to be generational impacts. We did not “fix it” by ending slavery.

    That’s my primary objection to speaking of slavery as if it was a normal/typical thing and it went away and blacks were no different than Irish or Polish immigrants who were “also” discriminated against.

    Comparing the two or comparing slaves to indentured servants as if they are similar circumstances in light of what was done to blacks for generations is promoting a lie IMO.

    Slavery without following generations of apartheid is not the same.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It was Southern gentleman, still stinging from a sound thrashing, deciding that hurting others made them feel better about themselves.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        southern women also? UDC?

        JAB and Conservatives want to cherry-pick their way through slavery with a premise that not only was it not just with regard to blacks but then we saw the error of our ways and got rid of it…. and yes “progressives” still want to talk about “oppression”.

        Whitewashing history is what Conservatives seem to not be able to stop doing.

        And now this morning, we have DJR , an admitted Trump supporter lecturing “progressives” on racism… ug….

  15. Ruckweiler Avatar

    Interesting story. Of course, the race hustlers who are making a blooming fortune off of racial conflict (read recently that Kendi was paid $40,000 for a speech/presentation) would ignore this because then whites could demand reparations? What caught my eye was that Johnson had legal standing to sue regarding Casor.

Leave a Reply