Posted on 02/22/2020 11:06:26 AM PST by kathsua
I agree. This author of the piece being discussed may be a long-time blogger, but he appears to be more of a janitor, his chosen profession, than a true historian, despite his statements about taking many history courses. In my view, he garbles the facts badly here. Years ago, when I was lurking (before I signed onto FR), someone posted a thread to discuss some somewhat grainy photostats of the original Crown Court case in Virginia (?Thomas v. Johnson) that altered the status of African indentured servants in the British colonies. The photostats were hard to read, but still legible. This case led to a change,from Africans having bondage durations identical to those white bond servants, to that of becoming lifetime slaves. Why? Slaveowner Johnson (a freedman from Angola who obtained his manumission in the 1630s, acquired some land, worked hard, and became affluent, and then purchased Thomas) argued that under the traditional slavery practiced in subSaharan Africa, he as an African owned Thomas for life, as well as Thomas’s offspring. For the full story, if you cannot locate that original discussion thread (I could not do so quickly), I suspect you would have to read accounts written by legitimate historians 30-40-50 yrs ago or more. For instance, Samuel Eliot Morrison’s Oxford History of the American People (written in the late 1960s, and a major work at the time) may suffice. Morrison was an eminent Yale professor of maritime history, and the book has several tidbits of information that true believers in the more current/revised versions of the history slavery in the US would find to be either eye-opening or shocking. And not supporting of the ongoing animus. To me, the plain truth is that modern political correctness imposes its own twisted biases and falsehoods on historic revisionism.
All I can say is that for me, I find the half-truths and yarns that today pass for actual history are sad. Very sad.
Is it not interesting that there are those who are resistant to the fact that there were white slaves and that indentured servitude was, for all intents and purposes, slavery during the term of indenture.
Whenever the subject of white slaves comes up, the majority of blacks angrily deny it.
Why is that so?
They should make a movie about the “Plantation Cities” with indentured servitude and slavery .... they could use Chicago, Houston, Baltimore, LA, or any other Progressive Ghetto.
Because of the Christian victory at the battle of Lepanto, thousands of Christian galley slaves on the Turkish ships gained their freedom.
I've been following WBTS (Civil War) threads on FreeRepublic for about 10-12 years now. When I make a claim and I'm corrected I never make that claim again (some might call that learning from my mistakes).
But there are some here who make a claim, see it corrected by someone else, and a week or two later make the same claim again. That's what I find sad.
Yes, there were slaves who looked white and there were black slave owners. African and native American slaves were treated as slaves. Whites were indentured servants, which was worse than a slave but temporary. By the 19th century, there were not many indentured servants. There is no evidence from primary sources that white women endured servants were made to mate with blacks.
BTW, the case you refer to is Anthony Johnson vs Parker, concerning the servant John Casor. Here is a link to the document you referenced:
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655
Sorry, but that does not look like the posting I remember. It was considerably longer, and the details of the case were different. If I have time and can find it, I will post a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.