Talk:Anthony Johnson (colonist)

Untitled

Whoever said that this article is an AFD please explain your reason why. - Sfrostee

"long list of times they have been blocked"? ONCE is alot of times for a new editor?OK I guess??--68.9.116.87 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

68.9.116.87 has never been blocked for vandalism. (→Netscott) 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like he's a sock puppet so I was right. -Sfrostee

These words are quoted from New International Encyclopedia

JAMESTOWN The first permanent English settlement within the limits of the United States, founded in May, 1607, by a small company under Captain Newport, in Virginia, on the banks of the James River, about 32 miles from its mouth. Here in 1619 the first legislative assembly in America was held, and here in the same year slavery was first introduced into the original thirteen Colonies.

It's none of my business, of course, but this page titled Anthony Johnson (American Colonial) appears to be an attempt to claim that the first slaveholder in the United States was a Negro, not a white man who owned negroes. I have always heard that slavery was enacted by the legislature of Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This page is at variance with all of the history books and with New International Encyclopedia, too. Velocicaptor 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

--Understood, I will fix the sentence so it is not confusing.

---

reread the article, you said "but this page...appears to be an attempt to claim that the first slaveholder in the United States was a Negro." It says a paragraph before "He was one of the original 20 African slaves brought to Jamestown." I fixed the confusion anyway and added a source. Sfrostee 14 May 2007

No slavery as of 1619, it was law by 1662

As an institution, slavery did not exist in Virginia in 1619. Slavery as we know it today, evolved gradually, beginning with customs rather than laws, and the institution of slavery evolved legally over a period of time, from indentured servitude to life long servitude. NPS website says that John Punch, a runaway indentured Servant, was the first documented slave for life in 1640. Virginia, Guide to The Old Dominion of the WPA Writers' Program stated that the court case of Anthony Johnson in Northampton County was the first. The NPS site goes on to say that, by 1662, slavery was recognized in the statutory law of the colony. Sources: [1] [2] Vaoverland 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Oh so Johnson was not a slave but rather one of the first African laborers in Virginia. That must be how he bought his freedom, he was an indentured servant. I will correct it. Sfrostee 15 May 2007

"Anthony Johnson was the most wealthy freed slave ever up until the end of the Civil War 200 years later." Should this be freed slave or free Black man? Reb 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

-Anthony Johnson is one of the major reasons slave reparations can never be enacted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwefel (talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, oh wow. 93.138.158.151 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Juana or Mary?

His wife's name is first given as Juana, then as Mary. Did she change her name? Is this the same person? Hypocryptickal (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. They were from Angola which at that time Had been incontact with Portugal. The Angolans hand converted to Catholocism and taken portugese names. (In particular in the cities and settlements which tells us something about who these people were.)--71.239.120.235 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Issues - fixed

Mischievous and misleading edits e.g.:

Ironically, Anthony Johnson is the first man known to have owned a slave despite that he was himself a black man.

Poor grammar, spelling and poor context for some statements. I've done what I can. Centrepull (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Birth Year

I will change it to year of birth unknown. 1620 is the year of his first appearance, not his birth. 99.6.41.121 (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Angolan African?

An 'Angolan African?' That's like saying, 'David Cameron, an English European.'

I'm removing the redundancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.224.131 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And I'm putting it back, welcome to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.139 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GOTO 10 ; You all are utter morons. Then again, I’ll welcome myself to Nazimerica. — 78.34.202.5 (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What about John Punch?

Another Wikipedia article on John Punch (slave) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)) suggests that, in judgement against him for an attempt to escape while an indentured servant, John Punch was actually the first "indentured servant for life" in Virginia, in 1640, well predating the case in this article. Jefferson made comments on the deteriorating condition of records from the 1600's ... possibly much has been lost. I have been unable to locate any interim laws establishing the legitimacy of slavery, until a law in 1662 decided "Negro women’s children to serve according to the condition of the mother." WHEREAS some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or ffree, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother." (http://www.studythepast.com/slaveryvirginiatimeline.pdf) Tomligon (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite being indentured for life Punch was still considered to be an endentured servant. Wayne (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Where? Where is it officially established that John Punch wasn't a slave while John Casor was a slave? They were both indentured servants. The Johnson vs. Parker court decision said nothing about Casor being a slave for life, it only ruled that Parker could not take Johnson's property away from him and ordered that Casor be returned back to Johnson since he was still Johnson's property. No where in the court decision was he officially recognized as slave instead of an indentured servant. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The court accepted testimony that Casor had never had a contract of indenture. This means Casor was never an indentured servant but a slave. Wayne (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you provide no source for this. Every document claims that Casor was an indentured servant and even the actual transcript from the case talks about his indentured time with Johnson. Also, just because the court accepts testimony doesn't mean it establishes such testimony as truth. In the court decision there is no mention of the word "slave" or any indication that Johnson was awarded Casor for life. It only determined that Casor still belonged to Johnson and therefore Parker had to return him. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For more clarity, Anthony Johnson argued that he saw no indentured servitude contract and that he had Casor for life. Parker argued that Johnson had an indentured contract with Casor but admitted that he had not set him free. The court transcript says that more people saith he was not freed than do and made a decision off of the fact that Casor was not freed from Johnson. It was in no way an affirmation that Casor was a slave for life, it merely agreed that since he wasn't freed, he wasn't legally able to enter a new indentured servitude contract with Parker. Owners of indentured servants could keep their slaves/servants passed the contract time for a variety of reasons. Johnson had just lost his farm to a fire and wouldn't free Casor because he needed servants to help him rebuild his plantation.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

PBS is a single source which you appear to have used WP:OR to interpret. The majority of historians support Johnson being the first slave owner. As I said below, I am rewriting the article so please don't make any more changes as it is disruptive. If you have a problem use the Talk page and we can discuss it. Make a new section at the bottom instead of adding to an old discussion in the middle. Wayne (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed incorrect wording about slaves

Massachusetts slave laws (1641) predate Anthony Johnson's court case. There were slaves in the continental US going as far back as the 1620's in Massachusset's. Reference to these are easily found, even in Wikipedia's page on the Mass slave laws. This interpretation of Johnson as first slave owner has some history, but has been debunked in the literature and only remains due to recent promotion by Glenn Beck. I think Wiki would prefer to be consistent with recorded history and it's own articles and references elsewhere here. So I've renamed that section to something more neutral and took out outrageous claims like "first slave". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex0du5 5utu7e (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It also appears the original wording of that paragraph only stated that he was the first legally recognized in Virginia, which is true. That claim had the same reference as the removed "first slave" generalisation, which was added later. The reference used makes no such general claim.--Ex0du5 5utu7e (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Introduction 2nd Paragrah

Second paragraph currently reads as follows:

"Slavery has been rife throughout all of ancient history. Most, if not all, ancient civilizations practiced this institution and it is described (and defended) in early writings of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians. It was also practiced by early societies in central America and Africa. (See Bernard Lewis’s work Race and Slavery in the Middle East1 for a detailed chapter of the origins and practices of slavery.)The Qur’an prescribes a humanitarian approach to slavery — free men could not be enslaved, and those faithful to foreign religions could live as protected persons, dhimmis, under Muslim rule (as long as they maintained payment of taxes called Kharaj and Jizya). However, the spread of the Islamic Empire resulted in a much harsher interpretation of the law. For example, if a dhimmis was unable to pay the taxes they could be enslaved, and people from outside the borders of the Islamic Empire were considered an acceptable source of slaves."

I do not understand what this is doing here. A general description of the history of slavery does not belong in an article about a specific person. Not one word about the subject of the article. I'll delete it if nobody objects.221bbaker (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Racism in the article

Why is it only “true” slavery, if it‘s a black and African person? They don’t have a monopoly on victimhood. — 78.34.202.5 (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-write

I'm currently re-writing the article so it will look a little disjointed until I finish. Please avoid corrections for now and bear with me for a few days. Wayne (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Slave vs. Indentured servant

I see you've yet to provide a source and to claim I've only used one source is a lie. Pretty obvious you're not keen on substantiating your position or representing the truth. You haven't provided one source that actually establishes what made John Casor a slave vs. an indentured servant. The truth is that this is conservative separatist propaganda to try and alter history by making a black man partially responsible for slavery in what would become America. You can easily trace back all of the copy and pasted sites saying JOhnson was the first slave owner to find that they all get it from 1 or 2 sources. The first source doesn't even make that claim, since you can search the book and it says nothing about Johnson being the first slave owner. The other source (http://books.google.com/books?id=cCsUBMj2cvQC&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false) does say he was the first slave owner, but contradicts itself because the sentence preceding this claim says that Virigina in 1640 "had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery." So clearly they were referring to JOhn Punch, and how can a person be sentenced to slavery in 1640, yet Johnson becomes the first slave owner in 1654? So let's discuss how badly and erroneous this wikipedia entry is.

1. Massachusetts legally recognized slavery in 1641, over 10 years before Anthony Johnson sued Parker for taking John Casor. That would mean there were officially legal slave owners LONG before Anthony Johnson's case.

http://www.constitution.org/bcp/mabodlib.htm

http://www.slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm

http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/constitution_and_slavery.html

http://historyofmassachusetts.org/slavery-in-massachusetts/

OMG, that's 4 sources from a cursory search that confirm that Mass. legalized slavery back in 1641. Hell, one of them is the official website of Massachusetts. Pretty sure that hold more weight than some biased and prejudice historian that didn't bother to substantiate his claim and you reverting this article to say that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in what would become mainland America is just egregious and atrocious. Also note how NONE of these sources is from a PBS documentary, though PBS confirms this information as well.

2. In 1650 Connecticut legalizes slavery. So if one state wasn't enough for you, here's a second state that legalized it 4 years before Johnson v. Parker. Meaning that there were legal slave owners in what would become mainland America before Anthony Johnson.

http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf

http://www.my-father-was-a-slave.com/slave-codes-of-connecticut.html

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1650

http://www.fairfieldhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/SlaveryTimeline_CT.pdf

http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2007/12/slavery-in-connecticut.html

http://understandingrace.org/history/gov/colonial_authority.html

What's that? 5 sources from the first Bing search that say Connecticut legalized slavery in 1650, 4-5 years before when others try to claim that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? It looks like Anthony Johnson is becoming less and less of historical importance as we discover there were countless slave owners before him. Also seems like you're trying very hard to protect a flat out lie that not only I have pointed out, but numerous others have pointed out before me.

3. In 1640 John Punch was the fist man sentenced to lifelong slavery in VIRGINIA, thus making his owner, Hugh Gwyn, the first true slave owner...IN VIRGINIA. Not only was John Punch sentenced to indefinite servitude 14 years before the Johnson v. Parker verdict but many historians agree that this was the first slave. These historians also describe how Africans arriving in Jamestown in 1619 were most likely not slaves, but that slavery evolved in the colonies through a number of practices and enacted laws. Guess what? They list John Punch as the first man sentenced to indefinite servitude and make no mention of Anthony Johnson. Probably because the Johnson case didn't play a historical role in the evolution of slavery, since there were many slave owners before him. "Whatever the status of these first Africans to arrive at Jamestown, it is clear that by 1640, at least one African had been declared a slave." <--That's John Punch.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400017.html <---oooo an encyclopedia entry

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm <---An official government website

http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf

http://www.studythepast.com/vabeachcourse/bacons_rebellion/slavelawincolonialvirginiatimeline.pdf

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html <--This one talks about the evolution of slavery in Virginia and doesn't mention Casor

http://hnn.us/article/147607 <---This one says Africans were held by slaves for hundreds of years in colonies before John Punch

Wow, again, just a cursory search of the first page of Bing results and I have 6 different sources that call John Punch the first SLAVE. That's spelled S-L-A-V-E not I-N-D-E-N....you get the idea. Apparently what historically qualifies someone as a slave and not an indentured servant is being forced into slavery for the remainder of their life. Hence, John Punch was the first slave IN VIRGINIA to be officially legally documented. John Casor had nothing to do with being the cause or source of the change in how English Colonies treated black people with the exception that they acknowledged that black people could own slaves.

4. As I said in my last post, nearly every article talking about John Casor refers to him as an indentured servant. Most of the articles are websites that allow public posting or creation of pages. Most articles that try to claim he was the First Slave in America don't provide any sources and the ones that do provide sources list Wikipedia, or 1 or 2 actual history books. One of those I've already showed an egregious error in that it contradicts itself. It refers to Virginia legally sentencing at least 1 man to slavery in 1640 yet tries to claim that Casor is the first slave. You'll also notice the most of the sites verbatim say the same things, meaning they copy and pasted their material from a common source. To get to the bottom of this, I found the original court transcript to see what the court decision actually said. The court decision only established that John Casor still belonged to Anthony Johnson and was based on witness testimony, even by the defendant, that they knew Johnson had not released Casor from his servitude with him. The court said nothing about slavery, they said nothing about him serving indefinitely or for the remainder of his life. I found no other court case citing this case as precedent for any slave issues or any legal issue at all. It's clear that the court decision has been misconstrued to fit a narrative, and once again I'll leave a link here.

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655

For you to keep reverting this article to say that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in what would be America is a downright intellectual dishonesty. Even when you look at the facts of the case, John Punch was clearly a slave before Anthony Johnson, and 2 other colonies legalized slavery years before. Just because they assert something is true, doesn't mean it is true. It shows an utter disregard to the actual facts of history and to slave laws that were established long before the Johnson v. Parker trial. And look, I didn't use a single PBS source in this post, so for you to try and pretend that only PBS is the only entity making these claims is just ignorant. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The only reference you used for your edits was PBS and if you want to see my sources just look at the ones I added to the article. The majority of your links are websites and those that are academic do not support your claim. I'm using books written primarily by historians for references and they support that the majority academic view is that Punch was not a slave and that Casor was. The minority view, that Punch was a slave, is not even particularly significant but it will be mentioned in the finished article just as it is in other slavery related articles. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPA. In regards to your links:

• Section 1: In 1641 Massachusetts legalized bond slavery. Another name for this is indentured servitude.
• Section 2: Many websites confuse indentured servitude with slavery.

Your first link says that all 20 of the first Africans to arrive in Virginia were slaves yet admits all were freed after serving a fixed period. People who arrived without contracts were forced to become indentured.

The second link says the slave code "never obtained the force of a general law" which indicates slavery was not legal. The third, fourth and fifth links repeat the errors found in the second.

The sixth link conflates slavery with indentured servitude which is shown clearly by saying blacks in Virginia in 1639 were slaves when Virginia law said they were not.

• Section 3: Many of these sites incorrectly call Punch a slave.

The fourth link only uses the word slave in it's title, it first uses the word slave in the article body for events in 1662.

The fifth link (Law Library of Congress) calls Punch an indentured servant sentenced to "serve his said master...for the time of his natural Life" which is not a slave and even goes on to mention that the first slave laws were introduced in the 1660s.

• Section 4: This link supports that the court found that Casor had no indenture. It is also the first time a U.S. court has ordered servitude for life with no crime being committed. Academics believe this is slavery. Wayne (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For all the misinformation you've intentionally left in this article, you only cited 2 claims with sources. The first citation is "Slavery was established in Virginia in 1655, when Johnson convinced a court that his servant John Casor (also a black man), was his for life." and you used http://books.google.com/books?id=kezflCVnongC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q=1655&f=false as the source for this wrongful quote. This source says absolutely nothing about Slavery being established in 1655. You can easily do a book search and see that it only mentions 1655 twice. Once for when Spain left something, and the other was only saying the date of the Johnson v. Parker decision. It does not assert that this decision established slavery and you are obviously wrong. This source also doesn't say that Casor was the first slave. It only describes the court case between Anthony Johnson and John Casor and makes no reference to it's importance in history or any claim that it established slavery in Virginia or that Casor was the first slave. This book also erroneously interprets the court decision, the decision never said that Casor was a "slave all along" but only that he wasn't a free man or free from his servitude with Johnson. Regardless, your source works against you because it says "Afican-American colonists arrived in Virginia in August of 1619. Most came as indentured servants (or slaves; the two labor systems had not yet diverged)." (Sweet, 118.) So even this source, as do many others, verifies that slaves arrived in Virginia in 1619. I'll also note that your source was actually an essay written by Frank Sweet and in that essay Sweet cites a book called "Myne Owne Ground" as his source for information when talking about John Casor (http://essays.backintyme.com/item/12). Upon reading relevant sections of "Myne Owne Ground" in regards to John Casor, this book makes no assertion that John Casor was the first black slave. It also doesn't say that the court granted Casor to Johnson for life and doesn't assert that this court decision established slavery in Virginia. Even when talking about the significance of this case, the author, T.H. Breen, doesn't talk about it setting a precedent for slavery. He only talks about how this case was important in understanding the mindset of white plantation owners and their frequent abuse of power compared to how justices and other property owners regarded their unfair practices. Isn't it odd that an entire book dedicated to explaining the life of Anthony Johnson and is ultimately the source of all of your conservative propaganda doesn't support any of the claims you and others are trying to make? T.H. Breen actually cites the NHCR microfilm archives as his source of information and he makes no outrageous assumptions about their content. Funny how your "majority of historians" actually dissolved to one historian who didn't even assert the erroneous claims you're trying to make. All your other "historians" seemed to have just reinterpreted others' essays and publishings based off of this book. This is not looking good for you at all.

Your second source is actually my source. Your second cited claim in contention is "While some genealogists and historians describe John Punch as the first slave, he was technically still an indentured servant, as he was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life in servitude as punishment for escaping" The source you listed for this doesn't confirm what you're trying to inflect with this sentence. As a matter of fact, this source is talking about things that lead to the distinction between indentured servants and slaves and uses the Punch case as a reference to indicate a racial distinction. This source says nothing about people wrongfully misconstruing what John Punch was. It is well known that he was an indentured servant who tried to escape and was then sentences to indefinite servitude WITHOUT A CONTRACT, otherwise known as slavery. By your own admission, the difference between an indentured servant and a slave is a contract determining the length of indenture servitude and a slave has no contract. Punch's punishment is not an indentured contract, it is a sentence to slavery. You also missed the point of this source, as well as all the others. Each of them records a timeline of significant events that lead to the evolution of slavery. Nearly all of them refer to John Punch directly or indirectly by acknowledging slavery was inacted and recognized in 1640/1641. NONE of them mention anything about Casor. Why? Because Casor had no significant role in the history in slavery and the only people who want to pretend that he was the first slave are liars with a clear agenda, like the one you so naively demonstrate again and again.

All your other wrongful claims about Anthony Johnson being the first slave owner are not cited. Here you only have 2 claims that are cited and both of them don't confirm what you say they do. Even worst than that, I give you nearly 15 different sources and you try to disregard them or ignore them based on your own interpretation of terms and semantics. Then you try to rebuttal with 2 sources, one of them being my own? Wow, the intellectual dishonesty is appalling and it's clear you have a bias. You try and claim that everyone else wrongfully used the word "slave" but who are you to decide? That's the point, you're a biased prejudice wants to arbitrarily draw a line in history and pretend that the word "slave" first applied to John Casor, when in fact, NO HISTORICAL DOCUMENT CLAIMS HIM TO BE A SLAVE. There are many historical copies documenting slavery in Mass and Connecticut and even the arrival of African slaves in Jamestown in 1619, but no historical document affirming that Casor was the first slave. You also try to dismiss my source for John Punch being the first slave by pretending that the majority of historians claim Johnson was the first, yet provide NOTHING to substantiate this claim. The audacity you have to claim that government websites mistakenly use the word "slave" is just hilarious. As if you're some benevolent being who gets to decide the historical meaning and context of words. You're not, that's why we compile all available data and make a determination from it, and my argument holds much more support than yours, which is NONE.

I'll also note that the Mass. laws in 1641 DID legalize slavery by establishing that people could be sentenced to servitude/slavery if they were judged by authority. This is why every source I gave accurately refers to this as the first instance of legalized slavery in the English colonies. Your opinion does not supersede law or override the positions held even by the state of Massachusetts itself. Also, you again didn't read a source and intentionally misrepresented it by quoting "never obtained the force of a general law" and pretending that was in regards to Connecticut. The truth is, this portion of the text was talking about a province in RHODE ISLAND and had nothing to do with Connecticut. They were saying that Rhode Island never adopted it into general law which is completely separate from Connecticut. I mean, you're just so bad at this, trying to make up arguments to discredit information I submit by intentionally taking it out of context. I'll refrain from editing the page for one more day unless I see accurate information posted on the page or you actually present a substantiated argument that doesn't hinge on your "because I said so" mentality. Scoobydunk (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you only commenting on two sources that have been in the article for a considerable time while ignoring the five sources I actually added with my edits? All five make the distinction between servitude and slavery and were written by authors with PhDs in history. I've asked you to read WP:NPA and you have chosen to ignore it. This behavior is taken very seriously by Wikipedia so try and be civil. Wayne (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I already explained why I commented on those 2 sources, because there are only 2 lines, regarding this subject, in the entry that actually cite a source. So I researched those sources and thoroughly debunked them. Unlike you, I didn't just dismiss or disregard those sources, I actually read them for the content in question and found that it didn't exist. If you want to substantiate your argument then you need to actually cite the claims you make with a direct source so I can effectively investigate it for its accuracy. It's intellectually dishonest to point me to 5 sources and say "Oh, it's in there somewhere," as a means of substantiating your position. To debunk your claim, I need to know the exact claim you're making and where you got that information from. What you're doing is no different than me making all of my changes and then listing the entire internet as a source, requiring you to search the entire web in hopes of debunking my statements. So, list the exact claim you want to make and cite what source you got it from, I'd appreciate the page number but generally doing a search for "John Casor" yields effective enough results. You clearly have a lot of work to do on top of the fact that you have yet to rebuttal my last post or defend your position. Also, I looked through some of your recent edits to Anthony Johnson and many of the information you've added and the sources for them have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The 2 or 3 that I checked talked about Antonio vs Anthony, the Jamestown census, and other facts about his life and I didn't see anything to support the claims in question, which is why I asked you to specifically make the claim and then give the source that specifically articulates and substantiates that claim.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of sources tend to conflate indentured servanthood with slavery; in my experience, this comes up a lot with topics such as the Illinois Salines and the associated Crenshaw House. Indentured servanthood is legally the process of person A binding himself to person B for a fixed term of years; it may be for such a long time that it's effectively lifelong, and person B (or C) may have coerced person A into making what's officially a free choice, but from a legal perspective, indentured servanthood and slavery are distinctly different concepts/institutions. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate someone new entering the discussion. Most people agree that indentured servitude and slavery aren't the same thing, but do you have an actual court case that distinguishes between the two or defines the two as different? That's the soul of this discussion and something that's still not agreed upon by many historians. The point I'm making is that there were a number of events, court decisions, and laws that lead the english colonies from being mostly indentured servants to mostly slaves. At what point did they stop being indentured servants and start being slaves? We know slavery existed in most dominant cultures throughout history, so did they become slaves when they were transported on slave ships (not indentured servant ships) and entered into the slave trade? Did they become slaves at the first slave auction in Jamestown in 1638? Was it the Massachusetts laws passed in 1641 that legalized slavery as a form of punishment through judicial authority? Did they become slaves when Connecticut passed slave laws in 1650? Did they become slaves when Virginia passed the 1662 slave laws saying that a child born by a slave mother would also be a slave? Was is it in 1692 when slaves were tried in a separate court and denied a trial by jury? Or maybe, was it, when the first person was forced into servitude for life? The point is, there was no defining point when indentured servitude ceased and slavery began and if you want to define that point as the first person being forced into servitude for life, then it's not Casor but John Punch that was the first legally recognized slave AND that's only if you want to define it as such.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We cant define anything. There are no specific court cases and there is no argument that historians have different opinions, but we have to go with the mainstream view when editing regardless of our own views and that view is that Casor was the first slave sanctioned in legal documents. Wayne (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that historians have different opinions as I've listed opinions that differ from yours through a variety of sources. So this statement is just downright fallacious. You also have yet to prove that this is the mainstream view. Where's your source for that? It doesn't exist because it's not the mainstream view. Many believe that slaves and indentured servants were shipped to Jamestown in 1619. Many believe MAss enacted the first slave laws in the colonies followed by Connecticut. Many believe that John Punch was the first slave. I've already provided sources for all of these statements and yet you've yet to specifically site 1 source saying that it is the mainstream belief that Casor was the first slave. Scoobydunk (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And those many are incorrect. The 1619 blacks may have been slaves because they were intended for a Spanish colony but when they arrived in Virginia they were given indentures and all were freed by the 1630s. You keep providing sources but they are all equating indentured servitude with slavery which most historians do not do. Bonded slavery is ownership of a person's labour through a contract (not a slave) while chattel slavery is ownership of the person (a slave). Casor was not the first slave, the mainstream view is that he was the first legal slave. Wayne (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"And those many are incorrect." I'll direct your attention to something you showed me WP:NOR. This is merely your own analysis to advance your own position. You have yet to provide a source that negates all the other historians and sites that claim slavery legally existed well before Johnson v. Parker in a variety of ways. Get that? I said "legally" existed, because all of the arguments I've provided have hinged on that aspect of laws passed and court decisions. So using the word "legal" doesn't qualify your claim and refute mine, because all of my claims are legally recognized. You also keep saying "mainstream" and, again, provide no sources. Not only that but arguing the validity of information because the majority of historians accept it is a logical fallacy on 2 accounts. The first being argumentum ad populum and the second being appeal to authority. We can collectively look at the embodiment of sources and come to a inclusive truth but instead you want to ignore and dismiss opinions contrary to your own, misrepresent them as "wrong" and then pretend your position is the only right one while providing no sources to support your claim. This is known as original research and is against Wikipedia policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wanted to add another source to support one of my arguments which is an article written by Dr Jeffrey B Perry. He sites his sources and is an independent scholar that points out that the court decision and court record of the sentencing of John Punch doesn't ever claim that he was an indentured servant. http://hnn.us/article/147609 He mentions, and correctly so, that the court specifically acknowledges that the two other runaways Victor and James Gregory had indentured contracts. Those two had their contracts extended and after their indenture expired, they were both sentenced to serve the colony for 3 years. However, the punishment for John Punch makes no determination that he was an indentured servant or that he had a contract of indenture. The court simply sentenced him to servitude for the rest of his natural life. http://www.virtualjamestown.org/practise.html He claims that there is no official document claiming that John Punch was ever an indentured servant and explains how he was likely a chattel bond servant which is NOT the same as an indentured servant. Now, clearly we've already discussed multiple historians and sources that refer to Punch as an indentured servant, but most of them agree that once he was sentenced to servitude for life, WHICH IS NOT A CONTRACT OF INDENTURE, that he became the first legally documented slave, making Hugh Gwyn the first legal slave owner. Your OR that tries to claim contrary to this fundamental truth is against wikipedia policy, so I'd suggest a source unless you're willing to concede this point. To spell it out for you, a reliable source that actually refutes John Punch not being the first slave and proves that Casor was the first slave. Even if you find this source, the wikipedia article is suppose to reflect both credited sources, not just your position which also goes against the NPOV policy of wikipediaScoobydunk (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of the Illinois Salines. Do you have JSTOR access? If so, check here, which makes a clear distinction between the two; slavery was illegal in Illinois, but indentured servanthood was legal, and with indentured servants were the Salines worked to the point that they furnished more than 10% of the state's revenue. The lack of court cases and the continuation of the practice (up to the point that it too was outlawed) points to the existence of a distinction. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The page you linked to doesn't say anything about indentured servitude vs. slavery, so find the right page and link it or tell me it and i'll be happy to read it. Also, it seems the time period you're discussing is in the 19th century and occurred WAY after the time period that is in dispute in this section. We are talking about when english colonies started slavery and the process/point in which the labour force in the english colonies ceased being primarily indentured servants and officially became slaves. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Sources

This is a continuation from the discussion at [3]. Wayne seems to be arguing that he has six sources and therefore the case is closed. I have found problems with both the reliability of the sources and Wayne's interpretation of them. Wayne's six sources:

Kozlowski -- See [4]. This is a juvenile book intended for ages 11 and up.

Conway -- See [5]. Also a juvenile book.

Danver -- His expertise, based on his writings, is as a generalist -- he does not appear to be a recognized specialist on either slavery or colonial America. See [6]

Miller -- His expertise appears to also be outside the field of slavery or colonial America. See [7]

Federal Writers' Project (1954). Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion (see [8]) -- This is a result of a project by the WPA -- it is debatable whether it qualifies as a reliable source since we don't know the actual writers. However it does state of the Casor case "As far as is known, this was the first judicial sanction in the English colonies of life servitude where crime was not involved." This is probably more accurate language than the attempts to classify someone as the first legal slaveholder"

Toppin -- Seems like a good source. His actual language, however, is that Casor was "the first black we know of to be made a slave in a civil case in Virginia". This language is also more accurate than what is being put into the wikipedia article. Note that he restricts the case to civil court, as opposed to criminal, and limits the scope to Virginia, not mainland America. This link [9] shows what Toppin had to say about Punch. Note that the boldface heading of the section states "SLAVERY BEGINS IN VIRGINIA: THE CASE OF JOHN PUNCH" and the body of the section states, "Again, this would indicate that slavery had become an accepted custom long before laws were passed to make it legal." This source actually supports Scoobydunk rather than Wayne. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I missed one:

Park -- Park describes Johnson as "the first freed slave in North America". Obviously then Johnson had an owner. If you accept Park as an authority, then don't you also need to list Johnson as a former slave rather than as an indentured servant? He also refers to Johnson as "the first African holder of indentured servants" -- he does not call him the first slaveholder.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox -- Known As

I think Johnson's story is much greater and of more historical significance than the fact that he was the winning party in a civil suit. I think more appropriate language would be something like:

A black freedman, he became a man of substance who farmed independently, held slaves, and left his heirs sizeable estates.

This language is a paraphrase of Ira Berlin in "Many Thousands Gone" (p.30) when he writes that "Like other men of substance, Johnson and his sons farmed independently, held slaves, and left their heirs sizeable estates." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

One problem with that is that it was not uncommon for freed blacks to become men of substance at that time. In fact blacks attained a higher success rate than did the white population. It was only due tot he court case that we read about Johnson at all. Wayne (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)