America's first slave owner was a black man (article) :wtf:

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

so this was the original c00n??? and he made the blueprint?? is that what i'm supposed to get out of this..

No. The first man to own a slave for life was a Caucasian tobacco farmer named Hugh Gwynn in Virginia in 1640.

The Johnson case didn't happen until about 15 years later and it was actually a 'property' suit. Race wasn't the determining factor, money was.

Also, there were other 'free Blacks' that owned 'slaves', but not for life, prior to Johnson.

'Slaves' is in quotes to denote that they would be freed after a specific amount of time, like a contract worker. Not 'chattel' (personal property) which is what happened later.​

 

[kp404]

its a bullshyt source, and a bullshyt story...no such story is true and only a cac would post this bullshyt

 

[kp404]

I seen it on Facebook, read it with the face and decided to share it with the coli brethren. Fukk I look like looking up the source

Why would a racist cac have over 1000 post on a forum about hip hop, I ain't white either nikka

So that's your rationalization? A white racist troll bytch wouldn't have that many posts on a hip hop site? Isn't that what trolls do? bytch be a man and admit what you are

 

[Bondye Vodou]

Cacs gon cac

 

[ISO]

So that's your rationalization? A white racist troll bytch wouldn't have that many posts on a hip hop site? Isn't that what trolls do? bytch be a man and admit what you are

You must be stupid, this is the first thread I've ever made in higher learning (I'll know to stick to the booth from now on ), it was an honest mistake. Read my posts dumb nikka, I come here to debate hip hop not troll and talk about race

 

[LionofJudah]

You must be stupid, this is the first thread I've ever made in higher learning (I'll know to stick to the booth from now on ), it was an honest mistake. Read my posts dumb nikka, I come here to debate hip hop not troll and talk about race

You on 'CAC Watch'....tread lightly from now on.

 

[godkiller]

No. The first man to own a slave for life was a Caucasian tobacco farmer named Hugh Gwynn in Virginia in 1640.

The Johnson case didn't happen until about 15 years later and it was actually a 'property' suit. Race wasn't the determining factor, money was.

Also, there were other 'free Blacks' that owned 'slaves', but not for life, prior to Johnson.

'Slaves' is in quotes to denote that they would be freed after a specific amount of time, like a contract worker. Not 'chattel' (personal property) which is what happened later.​

Like I said, blacks in and of themselves didn't own slaves. The "free blacks" you're talking about were usually the mixed offspring of slavemasters, and so it goes they sometimes held slaves. Early on, most of the "free blacks" were actually the sons and daughters of slavemasters, who the slavemasters themselves chose to release from bondage. Something like 80% of the freemen in Louisiana or something were mixed, I remember reading. I can't remember the exact place but that shows you something. The children were sometimes given slaves.
You should all remember that slavemasters were usually more intelligent and shrewd than the average cac at the time. Most cacs couldn't even read. /endthread

 

[ltheghost]

More devilish bullshyt from the cacs...

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Like I said, blacks in and of themselves didn't own slaves. The "free blacks" you're talking about were usually the mixed offspring of slavemasters, and so it goes they sometimes held slaves. Early on, most of the "free blacks" were actually the sons and daughters of slavemasters, who the slavemasters themselves chose to release from bondage. The children were then sometime given slaves. /endthread

No. The 'free blacks' were Africans. You're getting 'indentured servitude' confused with 'chattel slavery'. Africans were freed after a few years to start their own farms or go back to Africa. Africans also owned slaves (indentured servants) in America as well as back in Africa. All that 'mixed-offspring' nonsense is just 'Black Nationalist' propaganda to diminish the roles Africans played in creating this nation, but lying about what really occurred is just as bad or worse than hiding the truth.​

 

[godkiller]

No. The 'free blacks' were Africans. You're getting 'indentured servitude' confused with 'chattel slavery'. Africans were freed after a few years to start their own farms or go back to Africa. Africans also owned slaves (indentured servants) in America as well as back in Africa. All that 'mixed-offspring' nonsense is just 'Black Nationalist' propaganda to diminish the roles Africans played in creating this nation, but lying about what really occurred is just as bad or worse than hiding the truth.​

You are purposely misinforming and misleading people; or else you're just dumb. But I'll spell it out for you:

You're getting 'indentured servitude' confused with 'chattel slavery'.

1. During slavery, virtually all blacks in the United States were chattel slaves. This is self-evident and most people don't argue it. Your asserting that blacks were "indentured servants", as opposed to outright slaves, just shows your stupidity and ignorance. Keep it up.

Africans were freed after a few years to start their own farms or go back to Africa.

2. Before slavery was abolished, Africans were seen as expensive chattel slaves with no rights. Since they were so expensive and so productive they were rarely freed. Before the Civil Rights and the change of hearts in the country, where could blacks farm? Nowhere. The only people who had "help" could buy and maintain farmland before the Civil War were slaveowners because of how rich and influential they were throughout the country. In any particular region, slaveowners were the richest people in the state. They could easily buy or lend land. When they had children they oftentimes gave their children gifts. Most people think slaveowners were dumb, but they were usually smarter than the average cac at the time. Slaves were expensive and only the rich could afford them.

Blacks in general were freed (not all but most) before, during and after the Civil War.

"ll that 'mixed-offspring' nonsense is just 'Black Nationalist' propaganda to diminish the roles Africans played in creating this nation, but lying about what really occurred is just as bad or worse than hiding the truth. "

3. Mixed offspring obviously happened during slavery. This fact is indisputable. Black Nationalists have no interest in denying the roles Africans played in creating the nation; in fact they have interest in the very opposite. The only people who have interest in saying blacks held slaves are cacs: In places like Louisana or New Orleans (I don't remember), something like 80+% of freeman were mixed, not black. Many so-called blacks in these area held slaves too. What does that tell you?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You are purposely misinforming and misleading people; or else you're just dumb. But I'll spell it out for you:
1. During slavery, virtually all blacks in the United States were chattel slaves. This is self-evident and most people don't argue it. Your asserting that blacks were "indentured servants", as opposed to outright slaves, just shows your stupidity and ignorance. Keep it up.

Oh boy, here we go. 'Chattel slavery' wasn't instituted until 1661 in Virginia. The first Africans in colonial America were brought to Jamestown by a Dutch ship in 1619. These Africans were indentured servants, which meant that they were to work for a certain period of time in exchange for transportation and room and board. They were assigned land after their service and were considered free Negroes.

The rest of your post is erroneous nonsense and not worth responding to. Typing giant walls-of-text won't save you from being wrong as two left feet. Learn your history.​

 

[godkiller]

Oh boy, here we go. 'Chattel slavery' wasn't instituted until 1661 in Virginia. The first Africans in colonial America were brought to Jamestown by a Dutch ship in 1619. These Africans were indentured servants, which meant that they were to work for a certain period of time in exchange for transportation and room and board. They were assigned land after their service and were considered free Negroes.

The rest of your post is erroneous nonsense and not worth responding to. Typing giant walls-of-text won't save you from being an idiot. Learn your history.​

This entire post of yours is nonsense and contradicts BASIC fact checking. The following is from Wikpedia:

"
The first enslaved Africans in US territory[edit]
San Miguel de Gualdape[edit]
The first enslaved Africans arrived in what is now the United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526. On October 18, 1526, Ayllón died and the colony was almost immediately disrupted by a fight over leadership, during which the slaves revolted and fled the colony to seek refuge among local Native Americans.[14] Many of the colonists died shortly afterwards of an epidemic, and the colony was abandoned, leaving the escaped enslaved Africans behind in what is now South Carolina. In addition to being the first instance of enslaved Africans in the United States, San Miguel de Guadalpe was also the first documented slave rebellion on North American soil.

---

So a basic fact check reveals you don't know what you're talking about. There are several records of black chattel slavery as early as the 1500s Carolina, more than a hundred years before your so-called 1661 date black chattel slavery start date in Virginia. Black chattel slavery was a mainstay of all the big European nations at that time and went whereever they went. America merely continued what was then a Western European practice.

Is Wikipedia a Black Nationalist website? No. This basic fact check alone proves you don't know what you're talking about. You're just disseminating easily falsifiable misformation that rails against facts, dates and common sense. It's like you just make it up.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This entire post of yours is nonsense and contradicts BASIC fact checking. The following is from Wikpedia:

LOL @ Wikipedia........

http://www.history.com/topics/slavery

Slavery in America began when the first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.


Your 'basic fact checking' is bullshyt. You don't know what YOU'RE copy-n'-pasting.​

 

[godkiller]

LOL @ Wikipedia........

http://www.history.com/topics/slavery

Slavery in America began when the first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.

Your 'basic fact checking' is bullshyt. You don't know what YOU'RE copy-n'-pasting.​

Lol @ "history".com. There are no names to that history.com statement and no further source but history.com. That alone makes your statement more unreliable than mine. My Wikipedia statement comes from the following book:

"
The European Struggle to Settle North America: Colonizing Attempts by England, France and Spain, 1521-1608 (Google eBook)

Margaret F. Pickett, Dwayne W. Pickett
McFarland, 2011 - History - 264 pages"

^
Alternatively, when I think about it, why would the early Euros make indentured servants of peoples they didn't even consider to be human? Did Europeans make indentured servants of animals? No. So why would they make indentured servants of blacks? Like I said, your assertions and speculation defy common sense.

 

[PewPew]

I guess this is a little joke, I'm a bigot for posting an article I read on Facebook and copying and pasting it on a forum. I acknowledged my mistake I should have looked at the source I even one starred my own thread and asked for it to be thrown in the bushes get off my dikk

You're trying too hard. Relax.