First State Recognized Slave Was Owned by Anthony Johnson - a Black Man

huge gwyn had indentured servants as lifelong slaves were not legal till johnson took it to court. but ill go look it up to see what you talkin bout.

The first official slave owner was Hugh Gwyn (a white man) who owned John Punch (a black man) in 1640 thus making Hugh Gwyn the first slave owner in America. Anthony(Antonio)Johnson (a black man) owned John Casor (a black man) in 1654.

If you were to check the pbs website you refer to in your post you'll see that it was Hugh Gwyen in 1640 in Virgina to own a slave not Anthony Johnson who got his slave in 1654 as you say also you would see that Mass. legalized slavery in 1641 so your claim is totally wrong and is proved to be so by the very site you claim proves your statement

Great Post. Informative and concise.

its funny how you no thinking people still worrying about something none of yall witness, But in reality you all are slaves by the same Elites. You just to blind to see it. You a robot dont own a dam thing its not black/white its the ELITES/vatican against all of us. Now WAKE UP before you end up in a camp or a grave site just look this is all by design to keep us fighting. peace out.

This post is irrelevant, uninteresting and not surprising.

This is not really that surprising, unless you buy into the notion that only white people, specifically English speaking white people had slaves. In reality slavery has been a social norm for as far back as the historical record reaches. It could be found on every continent and among nearly every people. Nor is slavery an institution rooted in racism, as people enslaved members of their own races more often than they did others before advanced in technology and the division of labor made conquering other peoples possible. It is likely rather that slavery as an institution grew out of the fact before advances in technology, man himself was chief means of doing work and slavery was the cheapest means of its employment. The Africans were enslaving each other, and had an established slave trade among the various tribes and kingdoms, complete with transcontinental slave routes, long before Europeans set foot in Africa and long after we abolished it. Likewise did the natives in america have slaves of their own race before Europeans arrived. This is all not to say that the slavery in America was therefore justified or not horrific for those involved, however it was certainly not unique.

In fact from a historical perspective the oddest aspect about European/American slavery is for how relatively short it existed and how pervasively the once common place institution came to be despised. The middle east for example, who was civilized before Europe still had slaves after it was abolished in its younger neighbor. Due to the philosophical revolutions that took place in Europe in the 18th century slavery could no longer be morally justified and came to be seen as anathema to morality itself. Therefore it was the Europeans, specifically the British, who used the reach of their empire and the power of their navy to abolished slavery where they could, including parts of Africa, Asia and the middle east. This is also the reason Britain did not side with the south in the American civil war even though it was in their economic interest to do so.

Those who think that American slavery was somehow worse should seriously examine the history of slavery around the world. It is very easy to see how American slavery seems unique when viewed from the comfort of the present, so far removed from the thing itself and so padded by our narrow and often politically minded perception of reality. Which is why I know it will be easy for many of you to look at what I've written and see some sort of agenda or apology for slavery. But, understanding wicked deeds in the context of which occurred and comparing them to similar occurrences does not absolve them of evil or diminish their significance to the effected parties. And, it is foolish to waste our time fixating solely on human suffering of slavery, which is naturally apparent to all to have been repulsive, while ignoring the world in which it existed. Without such broadminded understanding of the past events, especially those most morally challenging, we will be unable to understand the world and the people in it and unable deal with and prevent similar problems in our own time.

OK! First of all let me point out that I am an educated Black women. OK. I have read up on some of this. There were SOME and I repeat SOME african tribes that after the slave traders came and terrorized the tribes and stole their people, decided that raiding other tribes and " selling them" would assist in protecting their tribes. Also note that even in Africa raiding tribes took the conqured tribe, mostly women and children and old people as slaves. Now there have been slaves through out the millenium. Some were treated good and some where treated badly. But what the slavers did to the africians was worse. What is the result of this? you may ask. A people without their native tongue and customs. Families torn apart. The Africians who were brought here against their will was beaten, raped, and murdered. They were not allowed to speak their native tongue. Many Africians lept to their deaths from the slave ships and many a mother killed their own children rather than have them live their life as slaves. Now remember, I did not say all of them did, I said some. Now let us look at the American Indian. Something that I did not know. The American Indian was actually the first slave in America. The slave trade was going good before they found Africa. Now the Indians fought and killed alot of white people and whites were having a grand old time killing Indians. Giving them blankets that they knew was infected with chicken poks, killing nations of Indians and yes, using them for slaves. Now check that out. What Indians survived were put on reservations and had they children taken away and taught what language? Yes, thats right, English? Took away everything they had and put them on land that was worth nothing and plied them with alcohol. Lets us all read our history, shall we.

just popped in to see who took the race bait and was going for the negative ten vote badge.maybe i can ruin it for you an vote you up to keep you at nine mwahahahaha

Going to have to rethink that reparations argument a bit.

I cannot help but get a creeping feeling the post was deliberately made in order to point a finger at African American slave owners of old. The effect is to be able for others to say, “Nah, nah, nah you did it TOO!!!” More ominous is the direct connotation that white guilt over Black slavery can now be forgotten.
However, but, and on the other hand (I had to say that because right now people are getting emotionally worked up), the Entire picture of slavery, as a lesson to never be repeated, must know NO color.
Here’s a fact: Certain African tribes cooperated for profit in the slave trade, by rounding up other African tribes to be sold.
Hurray then, we are all guilty of a heinous human behavior! No one is innocent when everyone is guilty.
Here is a relatively good thing. THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALL DEAD!!!
The question we must ask ourselves today is, will our individual choices and decisions always consult our better beliefs, our higher selves, our souls, before we make decisions that affect others, regardless of color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, gender orientation, etc.
Nearly everything is about changing minds toward the better for all upon this planet.

Interesting, not exactly something one would expect.

Interesting. Never heard this before. The specific link you provided doesn't say anything about Johnson owning a slave... Maybe I'm missing something; please provide links. In the meantime, I'll try to find some too. Thanks.
Edit: It looks like the link you provided in the comment section clears up my confusion. I'll read on. Thanks.

Don't care to speculate on the validity of the claim of this article, but the Dutch people that really started the slave trade "bought" just about all those Africans from; other Africans.

People are bad, it's a fact and as a personal rule if you abuse one group of people it shows your willingness to abuse another and I have no use for you.

It's not about color, you got white people in this country that descended from other poor whites never having any slaves owned in their history, and couldn't imagine affording the gold grills they've heard about on BET.

Are these poor white people barely making enough money to cover bills any more respected than the average "black man"?

Did the wealthy plantation owners who had children with slaves really hate that "color" so much?

No it's all about greed and oppression, and in some cases fear and manipulation of the lower classes that don't really see how it is.

Green that's the color of choice, and it's amazing how accepted anyone is when they have a supply of it.

So are you saying that two wrongs make a right? Or that this excuses the white slave owners...you had to dig deep to find one black slave owner and with that one individual the obvious intent is to somehow suggest that black men were not overwhelmingly owned and abused by white men..nice try..no cigar.

Huh, that's pretty shocking.

dude who post this you gots to be from the south and a retard. you still want to have a slave dont you. dont worry your time is up here on this planet and you better try to get to know more melanated people, the darker the better and you might start feeling powerful energy from the gods.

the trimsmith:

1st of all you aint trim, I see your fat beer belly hiding behind that shirt. 2nd - You make me sick you ugly $hit. Native Aficans didnt sell peaople slaves. It first of all was the African Slave TRADE wtf wul the ave bought them with Euros?! We captured them and then confused the hell out of them.. Since we didnt speak the same language, and told them basically we keep them or you all die. We gave them some monkey shit collected from the ground as a trade and littered their country with disease and trash. And it says right there in the article this so called first slave owner had to buy his freedom..... So HOW THE f*** could he have been the first slave owner if he was BUYING HIS FREEDOM. I HOPE you dont have children and if ou do please give them up for adoption. TALK about selective "knowledge" you haven't selected any! Dont you dare try to blame this on the native Africans you disturbed hick @$$ Hole

Yes. Just the information that no one wants to acknowledge. Many types of people owned slaves, who sold them? (Native Africans!) I love the Liberal's views on History, so selective in their ''knowledge'' of the past.

damn what have the you folks have to say about that mess?

From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery

We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time.

One of the places we have the clearest views of that "terrible transformation" is the colony of Virginia. In the early years of the colony, many Africans and poor whites -- most of the laborers came from the English working class -- stood on the same ground. Black and white women worked side-by-side in the fields. Black and white men who broke their servant contract were equally punished.

All were indentured servants. During their time as servants, they were fed and housed. Afterwards, they would be given what were known as "freedom dues," which usually included a piece of land and supplies, including a gun. Black-skinned or white-skinned, they became free.
Historically, the English only enslaved non-Christians, and not, in particular, Africans. And the status of slave (Europeans had African slaves prior to the colonization of the Americas) was not one that was life-long. A slave could become free by converting to Christianity. The first Virginia colonists did not even think of themselves as "white" or use that word to describe themselves. They saw themselves as Christians or Englishmen, or in terms of their social class. They were nobility, gentry, artisans, or servants.

One of the few recorded histories of an African in America that we can glean from early court records is that of "Antonio the negro," as he was named in the 1625 Virginia census. He was brought to the colony in 1621. At this time, English and Colonial law did not define racial slavery; the census calls him not a slave but a "servant." Later, Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson, married an African American servant named Mary, and they had four children. Mary and Anthony also became free, and he soon owned land and cattle and even indentured servants of his own. By 1650, Anthony was still one of only 400 Africans in the colony among nearly 19,000 settlers. In Johnson's own county, at least 20 African men and women were free, and 13 owned their own homes.

In 1640, the year Johnson purchased his first property, three servants fled a Virginia plantation. Caught and returned to their owner, two had their servitude extended four years. However, the third, a black man named John Punch, was sentenced to "serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life." He was made a slave.

Traditionally, Englishmen believed they had a right to enslave a non-Christian or a captive taken in a just war. Africans and Indians might fit one or both of these definitions. But what if they learned English and converted to the Protestant church? Should they be released from bondage and given "freedom dues?" What if, on the other hand, status were determined not by (changeable ) religious faith but by (unchangeable) skin color?

Also, the indentured servants, especially once freed, began to pose a threat to the property-owning elite. The colonial establishment had placed restrictions on available lands, creating unrest among newly freed indentured servants. In 1676, working class men burned down Jamestown, making indentured servitude look even less attractive to Virginia leaders. Also, servants moved on, forcing a need for costly replacements; slaves, especially ones you could identify by skin color, could not move on and become free competitors.

In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to legally recognize slavery. Other states, such as Virginia, followed. In 1662, Virginia decided all children born in the colony to a slave mother would be enslaved. Slavery was not only a life-long condition; now it could be passed, like skin color, from generation to generation.

In 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation, where he died five years later. But back in Virginia that same year, a jury decided the land Johnson left behind could be seized by the government because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien." In 1705 Virginia declared that "All servants imported and brought in this County... who were not Christians in their Native Country... shall be slaves. A Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves ... shall be held to be real estate."

English suppliers responded to the increasing demand for slaves. In 1672, England officially got into the slave trade as the King of England chartered the Royal African Company, encouraging it to expand the British slave trade. In 1698, the English Parliament ruled that any British subject could trade in slaves. Over the first 50 years of the 18th century, the number of Africans brought to British colonies on British ships rose from 5,000 to 45,000 a year. England had passed Portugal and Spain as the number one trafficker of slaves in the world.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html