Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: First Slave Owner in America was Black
Source:
Wikipedia
URL Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
Published: Jun 23, 2015
Author: Wikipedia
Post Date: 2015-06-23 14:28:57 by cranko
Keywords: None
Views: 14123
Comments: 50
Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as an indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company. Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet as an indentured servant to work on his Virginia tobacco farm. Servants typically worked under an indenture contract for four to seven years to pay off their passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. In the early colonial years, most Africans in the Thirteen Colonies were held under such contracts of indentured servitude. When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servants. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor. Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling.[10] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker. This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life. I love actual history. Not the stuff the left makes up, but real, actual history.
Anthony Johnson was an Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th century Colony of Virginia, where he became one of the first black property owners and slaveholders. Held as an indentured servant in 1621, he earned his freedom after several years, which was accompanied by a grant of land. He later became a successful tobacco farmer. Notably, he is recognized for attaining great wealth after having been an indentured servant and has been referred to as “'the black patriarch' of the first community of Negro property owners in America".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 48.
#5. To: cranko, Justified, BobCeleste (#0)
(Edited)
Blacks and free slaves has much more rights before the Revolution and a generation after for a while - then the Southern Slave states forced free blacks out of the states in many cases. In fact laws were passed that a free slave needed to move on or they would be re-enslaved again. So by the start of the Civil War southern blacks were less free with fewer rights than ever before. So your effort to white wash (pun not intended but it works) the south is a fail. If the USA was such a great nation it would have outlawed slavery before the British did between 1833 and 1843.
Oh please. A couple of decades is the difference between Britain being "great" and America being evil? Give us a break. America has a federalist system, not a a central one. It is also much larger than the U.K. So, change doesn't happen all at once -- it happens over time, one state at a time. Here are the U.S. States that abolished slavery before Great Britain: Vermont (1777), Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire (1783), Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut (1784), Rhode Island (1784), Northwest Territory (1787 - - Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were never slave states), New York (1799), New Jersey (1804), and Maine (1820). Who still practices Slavery today? Black Africans. This is yet another fact that the American left doesn't want us to know.
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the American population.
Nope. The American Civil War resulted in 620,000 dead Americans, which was less than 2% of a population of 32 million. NOT 10% to 30%. Less than 2%. Since we're talking about racism and slavery, the Rwandan Genocide killed 800,000 out of a measly population of 7 million. This didn't happen in the 1860's, it happened in the 1990's. How many did Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the other 20th century totalitarian dictators murder? Over 100 million. As I stated earlier, Africa still has a slavery problem today. Yet, America is held out as being uniquely evil by leftist dimwits. What a load of crap.
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the MALE American population. Your feeble attempts to make America look great comparing it to Rowan aside. Britain freed her slaves and not one death.............
Less than 2% of the population. If everyone who died was male, it would have been approximately 4% of the population. It's simple arithmetic (except for dimwitted leftists): 620,000 dead / 32,000,000 population = 0.019375. That's 1.9375% of the population dead. It's 3rd grade math, bozo. Perhaps this is why Greece is in so much trouble -- they can't add, subtract, multiply or divide!
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/
[Pericles #11] And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the MALE American population. [Pericles #21] 10% of military-age Northern men, 30% of military-age Southern men. http://www.history.com/news/civil-war-deadlier-than-previously-thought Goldman's claims appear absurd. Civil War statistics are arguable and argued, but Goldman's unsourced statistics appear to be pulled out of his ass and not supported by the most inflated sources. [...] Protestantism in America shifted from saving souls to social engineering. The sin of the South was too great to acknowledge; after the sacrifice of nearly 30% of its military-age man and the reduction of its standard of living by half, the defeated white South could not admit to itself that it had gotten precisely what was coming to it for wickedness of slavery. It is revolting to read Southern writers’ rationalizations for Southern wickedness, for example, David French last week in The National Review. [...] “Americans decided that they would rather not have a God who demanded sacrifice from them on this scale – 10% of military-age Northern men, 30% of military-age Southern men. 620K is not "nearly a million," and David P. Goldman cites nothing as the source of his inflated claim. It is revolting to read Goldman's horseshit. If 10 to 30% of a subset of the population was killed, 10 times the alleged dead yields the higher limit. 10/3 times the alleged dead yields the lower limit. The total population was 31,443,321. That would indicate the total male population was somewhere around 15 million. Total civil war deaths from disease was about double the amount from combat. About 90% of Black soldier deaths were from disease, largely due to discriminatory medical care. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/death-numbers/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/death-numbers/ [excerpts of stats] 2.5 -- Approximate percentage of the American population that died in the Civil War 2.1 mil -- Number of Northerners mobilized to fight for the Union army 880,000 -- Number of Southerners mobilized for the Confederacy 2 out of 3 -- Number of Civil War deaths that occurred from disease rather than battle 180,000 -- Number of African American soldiers that served in the Civil War 1 in 5 -- Average death rate for all Civil War soldiers 9:1 -- Ratio of African American Civil War troops who died of disease to those that died on the battlefield, largely due to discriminatory medical care 3:1 -- Ratio of Confederate deaths to Union deaths 9:1 -- Ratio of African American Civil War troops who died of disease to those that died on the battlefield, largely due to discriminatory medical care 303,356 -- Number of Union soldiers who were reinterred in 74 congressionally-mandated national cemeteries by 1871 0 -- Number of Confederate soldiers buried in those national cemeteries 58 -- Number of Confederate bodies thrown down a local farmer's well on a federal burial detail in 1862 10% of 2.1M union soldiers is 210,000. There were nearly 400,000 such deaths. 30% of 880K confederate soldiers is 264,000. This is within reality. Total deaths, per Goldman, would be 474,000. This stat should be 620,000 or higher, including non-combat deaths due to disease, accident, or unknown as POW, etc. STATISTICS WITH A SOURCE https://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm [excerpt of stats] 110,100 Killed or mortally wounded in battle. Confederate deaths: 289,000 94,000 Killed or mortally wounded in battle. ... (All statistics gathered from Time-Life Books: The Civil War series) Total deaths would be: 678,753, including non-battle deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war Union: Confederate: ... c. Civil War: All Union casualty figures, and Confederate killed in action, from The Oxford Companion to American Military History except where noted (NPS figures). estimate of total Confederate dead from James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford University Press, 1988), 854. Newer estimates place the total death toll at 650,000 to 850,000. See: Guy Gugliotta, "New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll", New York Times, April 2, 2012. Retrieved November 19, 2013. http://civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates: Battle deaths: 110,070 The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses: Battle deaths: 94,000 . . . Source: "The Civil War, Strange and Fascinating Facts," by Burke Davis
The issue was sourcing and I provided the ref. Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in- new-estimate.html?_r=0 For 110 years, the numbers stood as gospel: 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South — by far the greatest toll of any war in American history. But new research shows that the numbers were far too low. By combing through newly digitized census data from the 19th century, J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University in New York, has recalculated the death toll and increased it by more than 20 percent — to 750,000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in- new-estimate.html?_r=0 For 110 years, the numbers stood as gospel: 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South — by far the greatest toll of any war in American history. But new research shows that the numbers were far too low. By combing through newly digitized census data from the 19th century, J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University in New York, has recalculated the death toll and increased it by more than 20 percent — to 750,000. Your newest link is for an article about J. David Hacker's report (J. David Hacker. "A Census-Based Count of the Civil War Dead." Civil War History 57.4 (2011): 307-348. Project MUSE. Web. 24 Jun. 2015). Hacker's report is obviously not the source of David P. Goldman's spurious figures. Goldman's figures appear to have been conjured up from a magic eight ball. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/recounting-the-dead/#more-105317 Hacker's article is at the above link. Recounting the Dead The battlefield deaths are reported after battles. The deaths from illness and accidents, suicides, and whatnot are difficult to quantify. If someone is not included on a census report of 1870, it does not mean he died in the war, or that a death was attributable to the war. It is a SWAG. http://www.civilwar.org/education/higher-number.html THE CHANGING COST OF WAR A recent paper written by Binghamton University professor Dr. J. David Hacker argues that the true cost of the Civil War is somewhere between 650,000 and 850,000 lives. This is an increase from the traditional figure of 620,000 put forward by Union veterans William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore in 1889 after an exhaustive study of the army documents and pension records available at the time. Dr. Hacker used census records from 1850-1880 to construct a pattern of survival rates throughout the troubled decades. His research revealed that the period of 1860-1870 was approximately 750,000 men and women short of the normal survival pattern in the non-war years. Applying the tools of modern demographic and statistical analysis is immensely valuable to furthering our understanding of the Civil War--we are always striving to add new threads to the tapestry of our shared historical experience. Dr. Hacker provides important insight into the tragic loss of life from 1860-1870. However, his final estimate is very broad, includes civilian casualties, and is not directly linked to the war years of 1861-1865. The Civil War Trust will continue to use Fox's and Livermore's calculation of 620,000 military deaths in the Civil War. We look forward to continued research from Dr. Hacker and others. http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-casualties By Harold Holzer Eyebrows were conspicuously raised recently when a “demographic historian” from New York’s State University at Binghamton convincingly recalibrated the long-accepted Civil War death toll—boosting the grisly statistic by an astounding 20 percent. According to Dr. J. David Hacker, the traditional death toll of 620,000—which historians have accepted for more than a century—failed properly to account for several key factors, including the influx of immigrants into the armed forces, not to mention casualties among black women who found themselves victims of the onrush of war. Hacker employed a new range of statistical accounting to determine mortality, including a system called the “two-census method.” To measure deaths, he counts the number of 20- to 30-year-olds in the 1860 census, and the number of 30- to 40-year-olds who turn up in—or, more important, disappear from—the next count, 10 years later. The difference represents the number of young people who died in the intervening decade, and Hacker took an educated stab, based on a shrewd reading of regional loyalties, at determining how many of them likely perished on the battlefield and not home peacefully in bed. It’s useful to keep in mind that the long-accepted 620,000 tally was the work of two energetic but amateur historians, William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore, Union veterans who read every pension record, battlefield report and muster roll they could put their hands on. Fox published his Regimental Losses in the American Civil War in 1889—and through their extraordinary research we learned that the average Federal soldier weighed 143.5 pounds. [...] Inevitably, the new death-counting process proved more complicated than even this. For one thing, apparently, the reunited country’s 1870 census was something of a hash, with a level of undercounting that made the complaints around our recent 2010 census seem mild by comparison. Hacker admits it also remains difficult to count civilians who died in wartime. [...] The new Civil War death toll numbers have stirred the pot afresh. In reporting the new statistics, the Times, for example, took an unexpected pot shot at veteran historian James M. McPherson, one among countless scholars who have long accepted the earlier 620,000 number. The article called out the dean of the field for using that number “without citing the source in Battle Cry of Freedom, his Pulitzer-winning 1988 history of the war.” The fact that no one else has ever “sourced” the figures did not seem to matter in the new rush to up the gruesome ante. Harold Holzer is chairman of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation. As Holzer notes, the 1870 census was a hash. In addition, the census difference from 1860 to 1870 does not represent dead people. It represents people not in the 1870 census for whatever reason. There was a large swath of sparsely populated territory to the West that they could have moved to. The Lincoln and civil war mythologists would swoon over "helpful" studies if based on the output of a magic eight ball.
There are no replies to Comment # 48. End Trace Mode for Comment # 48.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: Pericles (#5)
(Edited)
If the USA was such a great nation it would have outlawed slavery before the British did between 1833 and 1843.
#8. To: cranko (#7)
Oh please. A couple of decades is the difference between Britain being "great" and America being evil?
#9. To: Pericles (#8)
(Edited)
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the American population.
#11. To: cranko (#9)
(Edited)
#20. To: Pericles (#11)
(Edited)
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the MALE American population. Your feeble attempts...
#21. To: cranko (#20)
10% of military-age Northern men, 30% of military-age Southern men.
#42. To: Pericles, cranko (#21)
[Pericles #8] And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the American population.
620,000 dead
Often referred to as the bloodiest conflict in U.S. history, the Civil War claimed more American lives than any other military action in which the country has taken part. Now, a professor at Binghamton University in New York has used 19th-century census data to show that the most commonly cited death toll—620,000—may significantly underestimate the true human cost, and that the real number of Civil War dead could be upwards of 20 percent higher.
America never recovered from its Civil War, which killed nearly a million combatants on both sides.
From 1861 to 1865, the Civil War ravaged America. It still holds several notorious records, such as the highest number of average deaths per day (504). Read more of the shocking statistics from the War that divided our nation.
Federal army deaths: 389,753
224,580 Died of disease
30,192 Died as POW
24,881 Misc non-battle deaths
164,000 Died of disease
31,000 Died as POW Union & Confederate:
Combat: 214,938
Other: 4-500,000
Total: 750,000~
Combat: 140,414
Other: 224,097
Total: 364,511
Combat: 74,524-94,000
Other: 225,000~
Total: 299,524~ At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total: 360,222
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total: 258,000
#44. To: nolu chan (#42)
#48. To: Pericles (#44)
Also:
By Guy Gugliotta
April 2, 2012
By J. David Hacker
September 20, 2011 9:38 PM Should the number be higher?
War by the numbers
Replies to Comment # 48.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]