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:   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)

Just to correct the initial post in this section, the WPA says that Anthony Johnson was the first to own a slave where a crime was not committed or not as the result of a crime. "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 because Hugh Gwyn was legally made a slave owner when his servant, John Punch, was sentenced to lifetime slavery for trying to escape. So both sources are correct, it's just that Vaoverland left off the part about "crime was not involved" which misrepresents the statement and puts it at ends with other sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2013 (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)

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)


 * Really? Blacks in colonial Virginia had it better than whites? I'd love to see your sourcing for that claim. In fact what is relevant to this discussion is that most blacks held in servitude didn't even have it better than white indentured servants. Your other claim that "It was only due tot he court case that we read about Johnson at all" is easily rebutted. The fact is, Johnson is usually written about by historians without any reference to him being the first legal slaveholder. Examples:


 * Alan Taylor in "American Colonies" (p. 154) writes that Johnson was "The most successful and conspicuous black freedman." Taylor does not even mention the Casor case.


 * Ira Berlin in "Many Thousands Gone" (pp.29-30) dedicates almost a page and a half to Johnson and only mentions the Casor case in the final paragraph -- a mention that doesn't claim that either Casor or Johnson were the first of anything. What Berlin does say (fn. 3 p. 386) is that "Anthony Johnson's primacy and 'unmatched achievement have made him and his family the most studied members of the charter generation in the Chesapeake."


 * James Oakes in "The Ruling Race" (p. 47) briefly mentions Johnson and the Casor case but only acknowledges that the case recognized "the right of blacks to hold slaves" -- pretty much what the current edit by Scooby says.


 * James Oliver Horton in "Slavery and the Making of America" (p. 29) devotes almost a page to Johnson. He does not mention the Casor case at all.  Similar to Berlin, Horton judges Johnson's historical significance to the fact that "he and his family had achieved something few blacks in succeeding generations could duplicate."


 * Alden T. Vaughan in "The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth-Century Virginia" from "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography" ([see http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4249092?uid=3739840&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102597451031]) writes a 45 page bibliographic essay covering the issue of slavery in Virginia during the time Johnson was alive. He mentions the Casor case only in a footnote and again doesn't claim that Johnson or Casor were the first of anything.  What he does write (p. 328) is that Johnson was "the best known case" of a free black in early Virginia.  His significance that historians have "widely cited" is that "he not only achieved freedom but also in turn acquired black servants."


 * Unlike the sources that you have cited, all of the above have superior credentials as historians of slavery and/or colonial America. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said Blacks had it better than whites, I said they attained a higher success rate. There were very few blacks in Virginia, 23 at the 1624 census and perhaps 300 or so by 1650 of which around 30% were free, and the percentage who became land owners was higher than for the white population in general until slave laws were introduced. The Punch case is one of the first that indicated that blacks were treated differently from white indentured servants. None of the reference you give contradicts the original version of this article and where do you get off claiming your sources are superior historians than Toppin? Toppin was an African American historian specializing in African American history. The Virginia Historical Society called him "one of the greatest living authorities on African American history." According to Toppin, Anthony Johnson was "properly obscure" but became notable for both the Casor case and as an example of the freedom blacks had in Virginia. It is the legal standing of slavery we are talking about not what people believe is slavery, for example, in his book Toppin says that blacks had worked as slaves in Maryland since the colony's founding in 1634 but he qualifies it by saying that "the first Maryland law recognizing slavery did not come until in 1664." This position is also noted in this university website where it refers to slaves prior to Casor but still calls Casor "the first legal slave in America". Wayne (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked into the Toppin book more carefully and was surprised that I couldn't find an actual review of it on JSTOR or anywhere else. What I did find at  and  however is that this is just another juvenile text book.  So how do I get off "claiming [my] sources are superior historians than Toppin?"  Well, first I have located more of them, second, they write for grown ups, and third, their works are reviewed in scholarly journals and accepted as serious works by the academic community.  If Toppin wrote scholarly books or articles, then these should be used if they are on topic.  You have repeatedly claimed that your views represent mainstream historians, but you have yet to show you have any familiarity at all with mainstream historians of the Johnson era.


 * Back to your unsubstantiated claim that "It was only due tot he court case that we read about Johnson at all." I have shown that not to be the case, haven't I? Despite your effort to diminish his accomplishments (other than a single court case), I have shown that historians actually emphasize these accomplishments (see the section above on sources that you have yet to address). Part of what I said above:


 * Ira Berlin in "Many Thousands Gone" (pp.29-30) dedicates almost a page and a half to Johnson and only mentions the Casor case in the final paragraph -- a mention that doesn't claim that either Casor or Johnson were the first of anything. What Berlin does say (fn. 3 p. 386) is that "Anthony Johnson's primacy and 'unmatched achievement have made him and his family the most studied members of the charter generation in the Chesapeake."


 * I have also shown, and you have failed to rebut, that the Casor case had little significance to the evolution of slavery and that the significant legal actions, such as the Maryland one you refer to, occurred well after, and independent of, the Casor case. Historians are able to describe in detail this evolution without any reference to the Casor case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Too bad Toppin doesn't say Casor was the first slave. Also, your website says that servants were sentenced to slavery 14 years before Casor. So the website contradicts itself. If there were people legally sentenced to slavery in 1640, then Casor can't be the first legal slave. On top of that, we know that statement is false because we've already established that Spain had legal slaves in America since 1560. It's clear your school website didn't bother to do thorough research or carefully construct their wording to make accurate claims. Also, North Shoreman's listed sources do conflict with what you consider to be important about the Johnson trial and about Anthony Johnson himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You've been in this debate longer than I have, although I have read all of the discussions. Am I correct that no source, reliable or otherwise, actually labels Johnson as the first legal slaveholder and that his status is just assumed because of his ownership of Casor?  While this seems to be a logical jump, isn't it equally logical to assume that every slaveholder before Johnson was illegal?  Yet there is general agreement that slaves existed throughout the colonies.


 * Virginia was still part of the British Empire and slavery was legal throughout the empire. By order of Queen Elizabeth in 1562 Britain entered the slave trade -- black slaves may have been in London since 1555 (there is debate as to whether the original 5 slaves were actually slaves). King James in 1618 and King Charles in 1631 granted additional authority.  By 1601, due to the British population explosion that threatened famine, there were so many black slaves in England proper that Elizabeth tried to have them deported to Liberia. (see "Though the Heavens May Fall" by Steven M. Wise pp. 16-18)  The fact that colonial courts eventually affirmed the status of slaves, does not change the fact that British subjects already had the legal right to own slaves.  Absent a specific reliable source identifying Johnson (or whomever) as the first legal slaveholder, isn't my OR here just as good (or bad) as Wayne's? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The only sources that do say this about Casor are tertiary or contradict themselves. I'm not as well versed in verifying reliable sources as you are, but I have found no reliable source that makes this claim and have found that the claim is question is just an assumption based on incomplete information. As far as "legal" vs. "legally recognized" you are correct and that's a part of the discussion we haven't delved into. Essentially, everything is legal until it is made illegal or determined to be illegal by a legislative body or court. That is why trying to claim that Casor is the first "legal" slave is inaccurate because many slaves were held legally before him. So you're right, it's not logical to assume that slaves were held illegally before that. I believe that was the point you were making, pointing out that it would be absurd to consider slaves before Casor illegal. If it were illegal then the judge wouldn't have ruled in Johnson's favor to begin with. To compromise, I changed the language to "legally recognized" which is more accurate than "legal" but it still has to be properly qualified for Punch and maybe even for Manuel in 1644. By saying "legally recognized" you can also get around Mass legalizing slavery in 1640 and Connecticut legalizing it in 1650, which is why I said it was a compromise. We also need to qualify the statement with either "in Virginia" or "in the English Colonies" for reasons you have pointed out about the British empire, James, Charles, and Elizabeth. So I settled with a statement saying "John Casor was the first legally recognized slave in the English colonies where crime was not involved." This statement accurately recognizes all of the research all of the parties have done, but to truncate it and leave out certain descriptors would sacrifice the validity of the statement due to the sources we've provided through our research. I also agree with you that this statement has been watered down so much that it is of no significance and I prefer the suggestion you made regarding Anthony Johnson. The numerous historians you and I have found don't recognized Johnson for his civil suit and almost every source that explores the evolution of slavery in the English colonies don't mention Johnson or Casor at all. I hope this answered your question, but I feel you already knew this and were just looking for confirmation. I concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. However I am not so much interested in sources saying "Castor was the first legally held slave" as I am in sources that specifically claim that "Johnson was the first legal slaveholder." My impression is that no sources have been presented that specifically claim Johnson was the first legal slaveholder. Actual historians, with their reputations on the line and their awareness of the undeniable facts that the ownership and sale of slaves had been accepted as legal by Europeans for centuries, are unlikely to try to identify who the first legal slaveholder in America was. It would be a pointless exercise -- especially since it was legislative acts from the 1660s on that ultimately determined the legal structures of slavery in America.  Some court cases have great significance, but I have seen no indications that this county court ruling had any effect on later decisions to the state's control of slavery and race relations.


 * Relying on just what we actually know from reliable sources, I agree with you that any statement describing just the Casor case in the Infobox would be "watered down so much that it is of no significance". The case should probably be included in the body of the article, but only after explaining the context of slavery as it existed before 1650.  The fact that Johnson could bring a successful lawsuit and be allowed to testify on his own behalf is only one part of Johnson's life that reflects on how different race relations were in 1650 as compared to 1776 or 1861. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Slavery in Britain was illegal, no statutes legalising slavery were ever passed. The English did take part in the slave trade and did buy slaves but under common law, the moment a slave set foot on British soil they were free (indentured servants). They were allowed to testify in court and had the same rights as a white indentured servant. A slave could take his master to court for bad treatment and could have a habeas corpus. The case of Hector Nunez in 1587 shows that under common law a master could not legally force a black servant to serve him. The trial of John Lilburne in 1637 put a limit on the level of physical punishment that could be given to a black servant. In 1677 and again in 1694 courts ruled that slaves were trover but this was overruled in 1696 (Chamberlain v. Harvey) which found that there could not be a action of trover in the case of a black slave because the law did not recognize blacks as slaves, "one may be a villain in England but not a slave." Slave owners still had a right to labour when they brought slaves to England, but the slave was not their chattel and could not be treated as such. Wayne (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your analysis is way too simple. William M. Wiecek ("Somerset: Lord Mansfield and the Legitimacy of Slavery in the Anglo-American World." William M. Wiecek. The University of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 422, No.1 (Autumn 1974) p. 95) takes note of the cases you cite but concludes:


 * "The highest courts of both common law and equity had spoken on both sides of, and all around, the legal issues of slavery and their opinions, reported sometimes poorly and always long post hoc, were more a matter of oral tradition than of cold print. The judges and counsel had raised and occasionally canvassed many of the issues presented by the problem of incorporating ownership of man into a legal system which boasted that its greatest glory was being in favorem libertatis when Granville Sharp sought to raise, and Lord Mansfield to evade, the problem of slavery in England and the Empire,the issues were far from settled."


 * He further notes:


 * "By 1770,some fourteen to fifteen thousand slaves resided in the British Isles. In addition,an unknown number of free blacks lived in the realm, numerous enough to create a special group of London beggars known derisively as 'St. Giles' blackbirds.'"


 * In the 1600s slavery existed throughout the western world on both sides of the Atlantic. A county court case in Virginia in 1654, although of interest since it involved a black slaveholder, did not have any impact on the evolution of slavery in America. Anthony Johnson's role in history goes way beyond his participation in this case and your claim that "It was only due tot he court case that we read about Johnson at all" has been totally rebutted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "totally rebutted."Scoobydunk (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. You seem to have an exception ability to ignore what people tell you and only select specific wording that supports you. I never just said "It was only due to the court case that we read about Johnson at all," I also said "and as an example of the freedom blacks had in Virginia." Wayne (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not true -- here's the diff ]. As I've shown, Johnson is more than "an example" but the most successful free black of his era. Why do you still oppose, since you've apparently changed your mind without changing your position, adding this info to the InfoBox? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's called cherry picking. I also said both. By the 1650s there were around 300 blacks in Virginia, around 20% of the free blacks owned land and half of those had married white partners, "most successful" is subjective and some became more successful than Johnson in later years. Wayne (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm following the reliable sources, none of which call him the first slaveholder. Why exactly should we ignore the sources I've quoted while relying on the high school text books that you're so fond of? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Tom didn't cherry pick, he quoted you directly IN CONTEXT and he's not trying to suppress information to prove his point. You on the other hand have done nothing but cherry pick. You've ignored the various sources and information we've presented. You even ignore what your own sources say and leave out qualifiers like "civil case". You cherry picked again by trying to use success "rate" to claim that blacks were more successful instead of using any other metric.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "to ignore what people tell you and only select specific wording that supports you." Now why does that sound familiar? Oh, that's because that's all you've done in this dispute. Either way, your phrasing tries to give equal weight to the 2 reasons we read about Johnson and Tom as clearly pointed out that it's mainly for what Johnson has accomplished in terms of freedom and property that we read about him and not his court case. Trying to give these two equal weight is also against WP:POV i believe.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Indentured servants better off than free immigrants
I noticed that an editor requested a citation for a statement in this article that declared that indentured servants who completed their contracts of indenture were better off than immigrants that arrived freely. I started to do some research and I found an article published by The Journal of American History that actually seems to claim the opposite. It is an article written by Aaron S. Fogleman titled From Slaves, Convicts, and Servants to Free Passengers: The Transformation of Immigration in the Era of the American Revolution and he says on page 47 "Although indentured servitude offered opportunity to some struggling European migrants, opportunities were even greater for those who traveled as free passengers." He goes on to explain that the majority of those arriving freely were of higher social status than indentured servants and were looking to improve their economic situation. I'll give some time for someone to produce a reliable scholarly source expressing the opposite before making changes to the article.

Also, you can find the article I linked on Academicroom.com if you don't have a JSTOR account, but wikipedia blocked the link which is why I put down the JSTOR one.-Scoobydunk (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Very few people of "higher social status" emigrated, the majority were working class and the sources confirm that indentured servants who had completed their contracts were significantly better off than this class of immigrant. Wayne (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Academicroom.com is on the blacklist of spam websites, apparently because the link was being used to replace better references on WP by editors and socks connected to the website.


 * I know why Academicroom is blocked, I was merely informing people they could read the article there if they wanted to. The concerned editor noted that the information in the article, which you've just reasserted, is not cited. So if you want to defend that portion of the article and contest the information and source I've provided, then you need to supply your own scholarly source that contradicts mine. Also, I wasn't talking about all immigrants, I was specifically talking about free immigrants and my source says they were generally of higher social status compared to indentured servants and had greater opportunity than indentured servants who completed their contracts. It specifically says, "Free immigrants came from socially diverse backgrounds, but in general they were of a higher social status than indentured servants." Like I said, I'll wait a few more days before making changes to provide ample time for people to provide sources for the information in question. Even if the sources are found, I'm not convinced this detailed information about indentured servants even belongs in this article as it does nothing to expound upon Anthony Johnson's early life. But, we'll see what information arises and make a decision from there about how or if this information should be tied into the articleScoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This wiki is not about Punch, slavery, or indentured servitude
I removed a portion of the wiki on the grounds it doesn't belong in this wiki and the information is largely misleading if not outright bogus. Lifetime indentured and life time convicts(who could then be used for labor) existed before Punch and Casor. The Casor instance is important on the grounds that it essentially allowed someone to own another for life even though the other person had done nothing wrong. It is completely different than indentured for life due to criminal punishment.97.83.233.68 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to take the time to actually read the other talk discussions before making sweeping changes. We've identified from numerous scholarly and peer reviewed sources that John Punch was the first known legal slave for life in the English colonies. His inclusion in the article is necessary to clarify when John Henderson Russel says "where no crime was committed". Another editor who shared your viewpoint couldn't find 1 strong reliable source that claimed John Punch was a lifetime indentured servant, while I found 4-6 strong reliable sources that confirmed he was reduced to lifetime slavery. The criteria we used for determining the strongest of sources were 1) written by a historian with a PhD. in a related field 2) published in a scholarly journal, university press, or specialized journal and 3) was written within the last 50 years. Be sure to read the "Strong Sources" section on the John Punch talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Punch_(slave)
 * a legal punishment is NOT slavery. Just like a life sentence for murder is not slavery. I do not care what a bunch of incompetent "scholars" think when most are not historians but simply hacks.  If they said the moon was amde of cheese I'd revert them too. I don't care what their crackerjacks box of credentials are. That said, the material in question does not belong here in this wiki, as this is not a wiki specifically for dealing with Punch or a greater issue of slavery. 97.83.233.68 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, wikipedia is not suppose to be a reflection of what its editors thinks. So what you do and do not care about are completely irrelevant. One of the tenants of wikipedia is verifiability and for that you need reliable sources. Those sources are then broken down into a hierarchy of most reliable to least reliable with the most reliable taking priority of less reliable sources. Also, the colonies did have prisons and that was a separate institution than slavery which was the ownership of a person by another. Punch was sentenced to slavery, not lifetime in prison as the sources I linked you to verify.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom Philip Sheldon Foner 1975:"'They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians believe that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker.'"Although this article is not about Punch, mention is required as some historians do consider him to have been a slave. Mention should be relevant and the above source supports the current version indicating that academic opinion varies. Wayne (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No where in that quote or in the work does it say that "some historians considered him to have been a slave" or anything remotely similar. What you've quoted only speaks to when slavery, as an institution, was established. Though historians differ on when slavery was established as an institution, that doesn't mean they differ on whether or not Punch was a slave, and Foner doesn't speak to that. As a matter of fact, Foner, in that same piece, says that the John Punch decision institutionalized slavery. So your addition is not supported by this source and you'll need to find a reliable source that does actually say that specifically about John Punch and how historians describe his status. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote makes it obvious that "some" is the most accurate descriptive. If some historians don't believe slavery existed until the 1860s then it follows that they believe Punch was not a slave and no amount of rhetoric on your part can change that. Foner calls servitude for life "one essence of slavery," not slavery per se and considers the Casor case "precedent-setting." As the quote supports the current wording you will need to find a reliable source that specifically says that Punch being a "slave" is the mainstream view. Wayne (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not rhetoric, it's English. He uses "some" to describe when historians consider the institution of slavery was established, NOT about whether Punch was a slave. That's a fact. It says it right there. You're clearly making an assumption that if some historians think slavery, AS AN INSTITUTION, didn't start until the 1660s, then there was no slave before that, which is not true, violates WP:OR, and that's not what Foner is saying. When you say that "the quote makes it 'obvious'" then what you're admitting to is that the quote doesn't say that and that you're interpreting it to say what you want it to say. Here is what WP:WEASEL says "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view." Scoobydunk (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Foner has analyzed and interpreted which explains the varying views of historians. You have taken a few sources whose interpretations support your POV and are claiming that they trump the ones that don't to produce a mainstream view that all lifetime indentured servitude was slavery. You cant do that. On this subject, academia is divided and there is no specific mainstream view. Wayne (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What Foner analyzed and interpreted is NOT what you added to the article. If you want to add what Foner actually wrote, then that's fine. Some historians disagree about when slavery was instituted in the colonies but he says nothing about disagreement on whether or not Punch was a slave and you've yet to find a single scholarly source that argues that Punch remained an indentured servant. The varying views of historians is about when slavery, as an institution, was established in the colonies, which is not what you added. Secondly, the way the article was written didn't mention anything about a "mainstream" view, it only factually stated that Genealogists and Historians considered Punch the first instance of slavery. That is a fact and is not a violation of WP:OR as there are multiple sources attesting that Punch was a slave and/or the earliest/first instance of lifetime slavery. You don't have a single source proclaiming he wasn't and your addition of "Some" violates WP:OR and WP:POV by means of WP:WEASEL. All Foner demonstrates is that academia is divided on when slavery as an institution began, not on whether Punch was a slave. As a matter of fact, I have a source that says nearly all scholars recognize that BOTH indenture servitude AND slavery existed by 1640 in the colonies.


 * "On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989.


 * This verifies that almost everyone acknowledges that slavery existed by the 1640s. That doesn't contradict Foner because Vaughan is not speaking to slavery as an institution like Foner is, he simply saying that almost everyone acknowledges that slavery did exist by the 1640s and that refutes your original research interpretation of Foner.


 * Also, I'd appreciate if you didn't create strawman arguments. I never claimed or tried to produce an argument that all lifetime indentured servitude was slavery. So, there's no need to say "You cant do that," because I didn't do that...EVER. You're the one who tried to argue that Punch was sentenced to lifetime indentured servitude and over the past 4 months have failed to provide a single source to support that claim. So like you said, "You cant do that."Scoobydunk (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the OR analysis of which/how many genealogists and historians consider John Punch a slave since it's not necessary. The rest of the article is written as a "matter of fact" from the sources, so this statement can be represented the same way. Since we don't supplement every other factual claim with "historians consider" then we don't need to qualify statements regarding John Punch with such wording. This way there is no OR interpretation of how prevalent the information is amongst historians and no representation of a minority/majority view which shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion notice
Those watching this page should be aware of the discussion(s) underway at WP:NPOVN related to this article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Add protection padlock template
Please add an appropriate page-protection padlock template to the top of this page. Thanks. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * -, this is disruptive mess clogging up User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is very inappropriate. I've closed the request and added an appropriate list request on WP:RFPP. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 February 2014
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252 {\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;} \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\sl320\partightenfactor0

\f0\fs22 \cf2 \cb3 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 \{\{pp-dispute|small=yes|expiry=18:00, 11 April 2014\}\}\ \{\{other people|Anthony Johnson\}\}\ \{\{Infobox person\ \}\}\ \ Anthony Johnson (c1600 &mdash; 1670) was an Angolan who achieved freedom and became a property owner and slaveholder in the Colony of Virginia in the early 17th century. 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 for being the first legally recognized slaveowner in the English colonies.\ \
 * name       = Anthony Johnson\
 * image      = Anthony Johnson (slave).jpg\
 * alt        = \
 * caption    = Anthony Johnson c. 1650.\
 * birth_name = \
 * birth_date = c. 1600\
 * birth_place = Angola\
 * death_date = 1670\
 * death_place = Colony of Virginia\
 * nationality = \
 * other_names = Antonio\
 * occupation = Farmer\
 * known_for  = The most prominent former black indentured servant to obtain freedom, wealth, and slaves of his own.\

Biography
\ \

Early life
\ Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as a slave or indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company. \ \ The Virginia Muster (census) of 1624 lists his name as "Antonio not given," with "a Negro" written in the notes column, and records that he had arrived in Virginia in 1621 aboard the James. There is some dispute among historians as to whether this was the Antonio who became Anthony Johnson, as the census lists several "Antonios," with this one being considered the most likely. Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet as an indentured servant to work on his Virginia tobacco farm. Servants typically worked 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 contracts of indentured servitude. With the exception of those indentured for life, they were released after a contracted period with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts expired or were bought out. Johnson took ownership of a large plot of farmland after he paid off his indentured contract. \ \ Johnson almost lost his life in the Indian massacre of 1622 when his master's plantation was attacked. The Powhatan, who were the Native Americans dominant in the Tidewater of Virginia, were upset at the encroachment of the colonists into their land. They attacked the settlement on Good Friday and killed 52 of the 57 men where Johnson worked. \ \ The following year (1623) "Mary, a Negro" arrived from England aboard the ship Margaret and was brought to work on the plantation, where she was the only woman. Johnson and Mary married and lived together for over forty years. \ \

Freedom
\ Sometime after 1635, Antonio and Mary gained their freedom from indenture. Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson. Johnson first enters the legal record as a free man when he purchased a calf in 1647. On 24 July 1651 he acquired \{\{convert|250|acre|ha\}\} of land under the headright system by buying five indentured servants, one of whom was his son Richard Johnson. The land was located on the Great Naswattock Creek which flowed into the Pungoteague River in Northampton County, Virginia.: \ \ In 1652 "an unfortunate fire" caused "great losses" for the family, and Johnson applied to the courts for tax relief. The court not only reduced the family's taxes but on 28 February 1652, exempted his wife Mary and their two daughters from paying taxes at all "during their natural lives." At that time taxes were levied on people not property, and under the 1645 Virginia taxation act, "all negro men and women and all other men from the age of 16 to 60 shall be judged tithable." It is unclear from the records why the Johnson women were exempted, but the change gave them the same social standing as white women, who were not taxed. During the case, the justices noted that Anthony and Mary "have lived Inhabitants in Virginia (above thirty years)" and had been respected for their "hard labor and known service". \ \

Casor suit
\ When Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro" and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servant. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant Johnson had apparently bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened, and Johnson was persuaded to set Casor free. \ \ 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. 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. \ \ Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave when he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants. \ \

Significance of Casor suit
\ The Casor suit was significant because it demonstrated the culture and mentality of planters in the mid-17th century. The individuals in this trial made assumptions about the society of Northampton County and their place in it. According to historians T.R. Breen and Stephen Innes, Casor believed that he could form a stronger relationship with his patron Robert Parker than Anthony Johnson had formed over the years with his patrons. Casor considered the dispute to be a matter of patron-client relationship, and this wrongful assumption ultimately lost him the court and the decision. Johnson knew that the local justices shared his basic belief in the sanctity of property. The judge sided with Johnson, although in future legal issues, race played a larger role. \ \ The Casor suit was also significant as an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most African immigrants could not read and had no knowledge of the English language. Slave owners found it easy to take advantage and force them into slavery by simply refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts. This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Even though Casor had two white planters confirming his claim to freedom from his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor. \ \

Later life
\ In 1657, Johnson\'92s white neighbor, Edmund Scarborough, forged a letter in which Johnson acknowledged a debt. Johnson did not contest the case. Although Johnson was illiterate and could not have written the letter, the court granted Scarborough 100 acres of Johnson\'92s land to pay off his "debt". In this early period, free blacks enjoyed "relative equality" with the white community. Around 20% of free blacks in Virginia at this time owned their own homes, and half of those were married to white women. \ \ By 1665, racism was becoming more common. The Virginia Colony had passed a law in 1662 that children were born with the status of their mother, according to the Roman principle of partus sequitur ventrem; therefore, all children of slave women were born into slavery. This was a reversal of English common law, which held that for English subjects, children took the status of their father. Africans were considered foreigners and not English subjects. \ \ Johnson moved his family to Somerset County, Maryland. He negotiated a lease on a \{\{convert|300|acre|ha|adj=on\}\} plot of land for ninety-nine years. Johnson used this land to start a tobacco farm, which he named Tories Vineyards. \ \

"One of the first" or "The First" slave holder in the colonies?
Hi. In the opening paragraph of this article, it states that, "Notably, he is recognized...for being one of the first legally recognized black slaveowners in the English colonies." This leads the reader to conclude that there were other legally recognized black slave owners at the same time as Anthony Johnson, or that there were white slave holders in the colonies before Mr. Johnson. (This claim is not sourced in the opening paragraph as well, by the way.) However, on the page Slavery in the United States under the section "Black Slaveholders," it clearly states that "An African former indentured servant arrived to Virginia in 1621, Anthony Johnson, was the first true slave owner (the first to hold a black African servant as a slave) in the mainland American colonies." This claim is backed by a citation, namely, Breen, T. H. (2004). "Myne Owne Ground" : Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676. pp. 13-15: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199729050.

Since there is a discrepancy between the referenced claim that Johnson was "the first" slave holder (of all slave holders, and not only black slave owners) and this site's claim that he was merely "one of the first legally recognized black slave owners," could you please either provide citations for your claims or else conform to the referenced claim that Johnson was "the first true slave owner" in the colonies? Thanks114.162.170.83 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to answer your questions.
 * 1. I'm pretty familiar with T.H. Breen and his "Myne Owne Ground" and he doesn't make any claim that Johnson was the "first true slave owner". So I think an actual quote would be necessary to make that claim. As a matter of fact, this article already includes information from Breen taken directly from page 15 of his "Myne Owne Ground" which discusses the importance of the Casor suit, never stating that it legalized slavery or made Johnson the first slave owner. A search of "Myne Owne Ground" using Amazon books for "first slave" or "first true slave" yields 0 results. Like I said, I'm pretty familiar with what Breen wrote about Johnson and I don't remember him making any claim to him being the first slave owner.
 * 2. About your concerns about implications made with "one of the first" in the first paragraph, generally information in the introduction doesn't need to be cited because it gets expounded upon later in the article, which is the case here. This sentence is also the result of many revisions that tried to insert and remove different language and words, resulting in what it is now. Essentially, historians know that there were other slave owners before Anthony Johnson, some of them being white and some of them being black. Anthony Johnson is the first legally recognized black slave owner, but he's not the first legally recognized slave owner. If you continued to read the article, you'd see that in 1640, 14 years before the Casor trial, John Punch was a negro that was sentenced to lifetime slavery for trying to escape. His master was a white man by the name of Hugh Gwyn. So between multiple edits where people were removing certain terms and inserting other terms, we're left with a sentence that is not wrong but has been muddled down to represent the variety of views held by historians. He was the "first legally recognized black slave owner" or "one of the first slave owners" but both of these lack inclusion of the fact that there were other legal slave owners before him, possibly other black slave owners before him, etc.
 * 3. The significance, or lack thereof, of Anthony Johnson often gets misrepresented. The truth is, if you want to remove "black" as a descriptive qualifier for a 1 sentence summary of Johnson, then the most accurate sentence would read "Anthony Johnson was the first legal slave holder resulting from a civil suit in Virginia." <--This sentence has so many qualifiers that it starts to become convoluted. He wasn't the first slave owner in the colonies because Spain had slaves over 100 years before the Johnson v. Parker trial. Massachusetts legalized slavery with their Bodies of Liberties in 1640ish, followed by Connecticut in 1652 so he wasn't even the first legal slave owner in the English Colonies. And, if we limit it just to Virginia, then Hugh Gwyn was legally made a slave owner in 1640 when John Punch was assigned to him for the remainder of his life. So this claim about Johnson needs to be stipulated with "of a civil case" or "not resulting from crime" to hold any accuracy.


 * Here you can find sources for John Punch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 06:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is only record of one or even a few legal slave owners before Johnson, it would certainly be appropriate to note that he was one of the first legal slave owners.  That one of the first legal slave owners is black is also notable considering the popular stereotype of slavery being introduced by whites.70.16.98.26 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution and interest in the subject. It's certainly worth noting, but it's unclear if there were other black slave owners before Johnson. Slavery existed in the Barbary Coast and Florida had the institution of slavery for almost 100 years before Virginia. Historians can't say definitively who the first slave holder was, they can only comment on who the first "documented" slave holders were, since all they have to go on are the records that have survived over the years. So Johnson is the first legally documented black slave owner, but that doesn't mean he was the first black slave owner which is why "one of" is used in the lead.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 April 2014
The year range at the very beginning of the article should have an unspaced en dash rather than a spaced em dash. —Frungi (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Frungi (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anthony Johnson (fighter) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability
Undid reversion because the source cited doesn't meet the same standards of reliability scrutiny that other sources meet. Both Foner and Breen discuss Anthony Johnson's success of being a planter and property owner while overcoming the adversity of indentured servitude, with the Casor vs. Johnson case being only a footnote of a larger umbrella of his accomplishments. Previous talk page discussions address this in more detail.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony Johnson (colonist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014135617/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books%2Fgreenwood to http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books%2Fgreenwood
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nabbhistory.salisbury.edu/settlers/profiles/johnson1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess
I just stumbled onto this article and I have no idea what's going on, it's been vandalized beyond recognition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.203.4 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Native American or Angolan?
An editor has introduced new material justifying their authority to do so with this edit summary, "American Indigenous Accawmacke Indians are authorized to edit this history. Johnson is listed as Indian by Helen Roundtree." It is fine if they want to introduce this material, if it is adequately sourced, as an alternative theory. The editor claims that Johnson was born as a Native American rather than in Africa. However, it is not proper to eliminate sourced material that appears to represent the most accepted version. As the editor themselves says in their edit, "Most references falsely classify him as Black or African American."

While the editor does provide one source, it is not clear how much of the material added comes from this source. The edits are further complicated because the formatting used screws up the reference templates. The old status quo of the article should stand until the editor discusses the article here, explains their purpose, and receives some consensus to make reasonable changes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

False picture
That is a picture of Lewis Hayden not Anthony Johnson. This have been proven Keo mackey (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"In the early 1620s, Portuguese slave traders captured the man who would later be known as Anthony Johnson in Portuguese Angola, named him António, and sold him into the Atlantic slave trade."

This introduces a false narrative about the capture of António (Anthony Johnson). Antonio was not brought to the colonies by Portuguese slave traders. He was probably not captured by Portuguese slave traders who did not go out hunting slaves. It is more likely he was purchased from the Africans who did capture him for sale in exchange for guns or liquor or trade goods. I read that he was a passenger on the ship the James which landed in Virginia in 1621/22 (around New Years). He was listed as a Negro, servant to Edward Bennett. This totally doesn't jib with being captured by the Portuguese.

I get it, the true narrative places some culpability on Africans and Muslims who were dealing in slaves long before 1619 but is wiki going to be a reliable source or push a narrative? Leastwise without documented evidence the best you could say is you can not tell how Antonio came into the colonies. 2403:6200:8833:F366:C8F4:6651:5574:8D31 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, any website that pretends the image of 19th century abolitionist Lewis Hayden is Johnson (somehow dressed in the fashion of 200 years in the future) is clearly NOT a reliable source, failing to make even the most basic of fact checks. I presume some have repeated the misinformation from simple ignorance, but the use of the image of Haden seems to have started out as part of a deliberate hoax (seems to first started popping up on white supremacist sites over 20 years ago). -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)