[Rushtalk] Wow. Father of U.S. slavery 'was actually BLACK'

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Mon Feb 25 21:36:24 MST 2013



UNTAINTED HISTORY




Father of U.S. slavery was a black man




Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow reveals true history of legal human bondage

Published: 1 day ago
author-image
  by <http://www.wnd.com/author/bkinchlow/>Ben 
Kinchlow 
<mailto:benkinchlow at benkinchlow.com>Email | 
<http://www.wnd.com/author/bkinchlow/?archive=true>Archive
<http://www.wnd.com/author/bkinchlow/feed>
rss feed
<http://www.wnd.com/author/bkinchlow/feed> Subscribe to feed
Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author 
and businessman. He was the long-time co-host of 
CBN's "The 700 Club" television program and host 
of the international edition of the show, seen in 
more than 80 countries. He is the founder of 
<http://www.americansforisrael.net/>Americans for 
Israel and the African American Political 
Awareness Coalition, and the author of several 
books.<http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/#>More 

    * <http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/print/>
    Printer Friendly

    * Text smaller
    * Text bigger

February has been officially designated, 
recognized by many and even celebrated by some as 
Black History Month or National African-American 
History Month. While it is acknowledged in some 
other countries (most notably Canada and the 
U.K.), it is primarily devoted to the 
achievements of African-Americans in the U.S. It 
will, henceforth, include the historical fact 
that Barack Hussein Obama became the first 
African-American president of the United States.

However, early American history also reveals 
another dramatic first involving a black American.

In truth, it should be considered a joint 
celebration. We are, in actuality, acknowledging 
the achievements of both blacks and America. 
Since we are celebrating the achievements of 
both, it may be appropriate to begin at the beginning.

Black History remembrance began as Negro History 
Week in 1926 by Carter G. Woodson, a son of 
former slaves. The second week of February was 
chosen in honor of Frederick Douglass and Abraham 
Lincoln (both born in that week), and in 1976 the 
entire month was declared Black History Month.

Now to the beginning. It is well known that the 
first colonials arrived on these shores following 
the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia 
Company in 1607. Perhaps what is not so well 
known is the fact that following the Thirty 
Years’ War, the European economy was extremely 
depressed. Consequently, many skilled and 
unskilled laborers there were without work, and 
the New World offered hope and a chance for a new future.

According to some reports, one-half to two-thirds 
of the immigrants who came to the American 
colonies arrived as indentured servants, and this 
included some Africans, who arrived in Jamestown 
in 1619. This distinction is critical; indentured servants were not slaves.

The first blacks to arrive in America were not slaves but indentured servants.

In 1619, all indentured servants (white or black) 
had specified periods of servitude ranging from 
four to seven years and received precisely the 
same treatment and rewards. At the conclusion of 
their respective periods of servitude, each was 
entitled to freedom, citizenship and a land grant 
of 25 to 50 acres. Throughout the early colonial 
period when all land was held in trust for the 
king, the basis of land disposition were grants, 
dispensed by the local government in accordance with the king’s wishes.

Land grants in Virginia were issued in accordance 
with a particular system. Under this system, 
every person who paid his own way to Virginia 
would be entitled to 50 acres of land, known as a 
“headright.” There was no stigma attached, and 
all families, black or white, subsequently 
enjoyed all the rights and privileges of other 
citizens in the community. A father could 
indenture a family of four, and since each family 
member was entitled to 50 acres at the conclusion 
of the period of servitude, they were given their 
freedom and the family would qualify for a parcel of 200 acres.

Using this method, one colonist, Anthony Johnson, 
by indenturing his own family members, was able 
to secure 250 acres of land. His sons, utilizing 
the same strategy, gained an additional 650 
acres. The Johnsons settled on “Pungoteague 
Creek” on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and thrived for almost 40 years.

For the indentureds, there were both economic and 
civic benefits associated with this practice: 
British law protected the rights of the 
individual, the master’s power over his 
indentured servants was limited, and a specific skill must have been taught.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I needed to read it slowly and in modern English:

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

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

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

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

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

Do we celebrate that as part of Black History Month? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130225/416ac3bc/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list