Skip to comments.Father of U.S. slavery was a black man
Posted on 02/25/2013 7:50:35 AM PST by re_tail20
February has been officially designated, recognized by many and even celebrated by some as Black History Month or National African-American History Month. While it is acknowledged in some other countries (most notably Canada and the U.K.), it is primarily devoted to the achievements of African-Americans in the U.S. It will, henceforth, include the historical fact that Barack Hussein Obama became the first African-American president of the United States.
However, early American history also reveals another dramatic first involving a black American.
In truth, it should be considered a joint celebration. We are, in actuality, acknowledging the achievements of both blacks and America. Since we are celebrating the achievements of both, it may be appropriate to begin at the beginning.
Black History remembrance began as Negro History Week in 1926 by Carter G. Woodson, a son of former slaves. The second week of February was chosen in honor of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln (both born in that week), and in 1976 the entire month was declared Black History Month.
Now to the beginning. It is well known that the first colonials arrived on these shores following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607. Perhaps what is not so well known is the fact that following the Thirty Years War, the European economy was extremely depressed. Consequently, many skilled and unskilled laborers there were without work, and the New World offered hope and a chance for a new future.
According to some reports, one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants, and this included some Africans, who arrived in Jamestown in 1619. This distinction is critical; indentured servants were not slaves.
The first blacks to arrive in America were not slaves but indentured servants.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Perhaps I should have thought of this before, but since it’s officially called “Black History Month”, does that mean it’s not really offensive to call black people “black”? I thought we’re supposed to call them African-Americans. Will they be renaming it “African-American History Month”?
He landed in Philadelphia in 1749, worked as a carpenter and cabinet maker. In 1750 he remarried, a lady also from Switzerland and probably also indentured.
When they finished indenture they headed West, ended up in S.W. Virginia. They had 14 or 15 kids, most of the boys learned woodworking and metalworking, several made some really nice flintlock rifles, the whole works, lock stock and barrel..
My dad is reading Bernard Bailyn’s ‘The Barbarous Years’, concerning the North American Colonies from 1600-1675.
Now those were remarkably harsh times for everyone involved. You could make a case that the indentured servants of that time, mostly British, lived very rough lives, but their masters didn’t have it much better.
One interesting story I heard in New Orleans concerned the digging of the canals. The canals were dug by Irish laborers because the work was considered far too dangerous for risking slaves. Slaves were expensive, something we often don’t consider.
it is absolute hogwash to equate those two
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
I am/was NOT equating the two.
The Reparations remark on my part was sarcasm and, yes, not a very funny joke.
My ‘protest’ is that YES, the blacks had it rough, no one should be enslaved to anyone else and if you are of Irish descent and a ‘certain’ age you must have heard the statement “an Irishman is nothing but a ‘N’ turned inside out”.
I personally, as probably 99.99999+% of the people on this forum have never owned a slave and am (have been) getting tired of having to absorb the blame for the actions of a few people 150+++ years ago.
My statement is only to ‘point out’ that not everyone arrived in this country on the Cunard Lines in 1st class - which is what ‘they’ would have you believe - Except of course, for the Blacks.
Again, while the plight of Blacks is and was deplorable, their plight was ‘started’ by their ‘OWN’ and yes, if there were no Market, chances are we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Anthony Johnson, the black slave owner, sued in court to prevent “economic damage” if John Casor, another black, was allowed his freedom. The court bound Casor over to Johnson as his personal slave. This case established the case for slavery in colonial America.
In the end, Johnson's victory was a tactical triumph but a strategic defeat. After Anthony Johnson's death, the laws in Virginia were again changed. Blacks were stripped of their property rights (to acquire and to pass on) and became slaves to white colonists. Now you know the rest of the story.
In the first Florida census, in 1820, my ancestors owned six slaves. It lists their names, ages, and how much they were worth.
indeed...with a price tag neverending
Yeah..... but did they have a wooden clock? :D
You never said a truer thing. The “gift” that keeps on costing, and costing, and costing...
What chaps my azz is the way leftists throw all the negative statistics re Mississippi in our faces but won’t admit or recognise that MS has the highest percentage of blacks of any state, hence our position in negative indicators.
But maybe there’s a silver lning to that-let everyone continue to believe that we’re such a horrible backwards state, and the leftists won’t target us as an option when searching for a new state to ruin after they ruin their home states.
I’ve lived here all my life, have seen plenty of other places, including out of country, and wouldn’t live anywhere else for love or money.
As long as MS manages to keep out the news (because we’re never in it for a good reason) and fly under the radar, life is good in the free state of Mississippi. Most people here know the score from living it, and keep to themselves.