Talk:John Casor

Untitled
Talk page for Wikipedia article John Casor

Blurb for DYK
Did You Know...

that John Casor in the Virginia Colony had the dubious distinction in 1654 of becoming the first person to be declared by a court a slave, in servitude for life as chattel (owned property)?

Is the correct?
I don't see any mention of servitude for life in the courts judgement. How do we know that the court wasn't simply requiring him to serve out his remaining indenture with his original master (that is finding he had no right to change his contract and change masters)? Rmhermen 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good observation. I am not the author of the article but the references to the article (PBS, etc.) came to this conclusion with evidence they did not present and explicitly name Johnson as the first known slaveowner because of this case involving Castor.  House of Scandal 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit by Johnson claimed "Johnson insisted that "hee had ye Negro for his life". The court ruled in Johnson's favor. Vaoverland 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone facts are bass ackwards the Library of Congress has the posted history on John Casor (they have spelled it incorrectly)and John Punch reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.200.174 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WAS JOHN CASOR REALLY VIRGINIA'S FIRST BLACK SLAVE?
Whether the first blacks brought to America beginning in 1619 were PREDOMINATELY slaves or indentured servants is still debated among historians, although all concede that a few early black Virginians did eventually achieve freedom one way or another. But at least some were also lifetime slaves. I lean towards believing they were primarily slaves; otherwise how did Virginians attract traders who could have sold the same blacks as slaves in the West Indies?

But the issue is clouded by short life spans in the Chesapeake through the first half of the 17th Century, often making the difference between seven years vs. lifetime servitude moot. In mid-17th Century Virginia, nearly half of all indentured servants died before finishing their terms. Furthermore, slaves sometimes achieved freedom in the 17th Century through self-purchase. In 1668, a full 29 percent of blacks in Northhampton County were free.

The entry is also probably mistaken in its claim that indentured servants automatically received 50 acres of land once free. Virginia's 50-acre headright went instead to whomever had brought over the servant or slave. Former servants only got land if their master had contractually agreed to include it as part of their freedom dues or if they could afford on their own to purchase it or a headright, for which there was an active secondary market.

Slavery began to replace indentured servitude as the primary form of labor in Virginia by the end of the 17th Century. The treatment of blacks, and their chances for freedom, concomitantly declined. Virginia's first slave code was enacted in 1680. At that date, blacks represented only 7 percent of the colonies' total population. By 1750 they were 44 percent.

Withal, John Casor, although owned by a free black, was almost certainly NOT the first slave for life in Virginia. He is probably not even the first named in legal documents. Probate records often mentioned slaves by name, and I wouldn't be surprised if some historian has uncovered the names of black slaves owned by some planter who died before 1654.

Jrhummel 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1640, a negro named John Punch was sentenced to serve as a servant for "the rest of his natural life." Punch was an indentured servant who ran away with other (European) indentured servants, but received a different punishment. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/notes.html#i35 This certainly disqualifies the distinction of Casor as the first slave for life, and that distinction should be removed. 65.242.6.5 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Aaron Wolfe, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation


 * There was widespread slavery (chattel slavery) in America but not in the actual thirteen North American colonies themselves. Lifelong endentured servants were still technically endentured servants (indentured slavery). Casor was the first "legally" recognised slave. Wayne (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's just not true. Massachusetts had slave laws as early as 1641, years before Casor.  Slaves were legally recognized earlier, but as simple economic transactions.  The point of slave laws was to provide additional limits on the rights of the slaves and dictate the family progression.  This whole entry is full of misunderstanding and contradiction with other wiki entries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Massachusetts).  It's also probably important to point out that although there is some history to the discussion of Casor, this court case only became a talking point in recent discussions due to the entertainer Glenn Beck making the point as a way to claim blacks were the first legal slave owners in the US.  I don't think that is a source Wiki should be using.

--Ex0du5 5utu7e (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * When I read the facts of the case I could not see where Casor's legal status converted to slave. The facts look like Casor claimed his freedom and left.  Parker hired him.  Johnson sued.  Parker said he knew Casor was still an indentured servant.  The court said Casor had to return to Johnson.  It looks like the court accepted Johnson claim and Parker's admission that Casor was an indentured servant, regardless of what Casor said.  The section doesn't say Casor was a slave for life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:C000:2F30:D025:E4CF:D2E1:A41A (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Spelling
Is there a reason why the spelling of Casor & Castor are both used here? Stars4change (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the possible copy paste notice
The section is remarkably similar to section 235 on this link.—Sandahl (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous statement
Text now reads "Although most historians believe slavery, as an institution, developed much later..." Celarly this is wrong, as the institution of slavery existed under the Romans and earlier. I'd be glad to fix it, but I'm not sure what the author had in mind here. Slavery in the Americas? Slavery in an English colony? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The source and passage pertains to slavery in the English Colonies. I feel the context of the article makes this pretty clear, but there is nothing wrong with adjusting the statement to make it self contained.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Casor. 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
 * Added tag to http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp940821/08190821.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823102210/http://www.theroot.com/views/did-black-people-own-slaves to http://www.theroot.com/views/did-black-people-own-slaves

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) 08:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)