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

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Lol @ "history".com. There are no names to that history.com statement and no further source but history.com.

Here ya' go......

A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/upload/African Americans on Jamestown Island.pdf

Chapter 6: Virginia's First Africans
​

In August, 1619 an event occurred that irrevocably changed the course of Virginia history. It was then that a Dutch frigate, fresh from a plundering expedition in the West Indies, sailed into Hampton Roads bearing 20-some odd Africans. In January, 1620 John Rolfe informed Virginia Company treasurer Sir Edwyn Sandys that: About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the burden of 160-tonnes arrived at Point Comfort, the Commandors name Capt Jope, his pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke an Englishman. They mett wth the Trier (the ship treasurer) in the West Indyes, and determyned to hold consort shipp hetherward, but in their passage lost one the other. He brought not anything but 20 and odd negroes, wch the Governor (Sir George Yeardley) and Cape Merchant (Abraham Piersey) brought for victualle (whereof he was in greate need as he pretended) at the best and easyest rate they could. [Kingsbury 1906 - 1935: III.243]

Page 27.​

 

[godkiller]

Here ya' go......

A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/upload/African Americans on Jamestown Island.pdf

Chapter 6: Virginia's First Africans
​

​

Page 27.​

You are really dumb. This source merely provides a source for the Dutch having brought Africans to Virginia. It doesn't prove your assertion they were the first to bring slaves to America and doesn't disprove my source, which says that African chattel slavery existed in America since the early 1500s. Do you have any source that disproves mine?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You are really dumb. That doesn't disprove what I said about slaves being in America since 1500.

It disproves what you stated about 'Blacks not owning slaves' and that nonsense about 'mixed-Blacks' since those were Africans who were freed and then went on to become land-owners and then went on to purchase slaves. I guess you forgot what you were arguing and got lost trying to disprove something that was only an issue to you. That's what happens when you use ad hominems, propaganda and don't know history yet try to argue against someone who does.​

 

[godkiller]

It disproves what you stated about 'Blacks not owning slaves' and that nonsense about 'mixed-Blacks' since those were Africans who were freed and then went on to become land-owners and then went on to purchase slaves. I guess you forgot what you were arguing and got lost trying to disprove something that was only an issue to you. That's what happens when you use ad hominems, propaganda and don't know history yet try to argue against someone who does.​

Your source only states that some free blacks purchased blacks and then set them free in Jamestown. It doesn't state that blacks held other blacks as slaves, which is what this dispute is about. You'll notice that 1) I never said some blacks weren't set free only that this rarely happened per general, 2) most free blacks were mixed and 3) it was these people that did the enslaving. Your source doesn't contradict any of what I said. It says something else entirely. You are an idiot breh.

Your source also provides no proof that blacks weren't held in chattel slavery since the 1500s. Everyone knows they were. This is what the Civil War and everything else was about: chattel slavery. It's common sense.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Your source only states that some free blacks purchased blacks and then set them free in Jamestown.

Which is EXACTLY what 'indentured servitude' was and proved my point while simultaneously voiding your argument.

Have a Nice Day.​

 

[godkiller]

Which is EXACTLY what 'indentured servitude' was and proved my point while simultaneously voiding your argument.

Have a Nice Day.​

Your source says that some free blacks bought their OWN RELATIVES and APPRENTIECED THEM to whites so the relatives could learn skills. You source doesn't even address the fact 1) that blacks were virtually all chattel slaves since the 1500s , 2) that mixed people were generally the ones released and 3) that these people were the "black" slaveowners. These things are general rules. I'm done arguing with you, breh. You still can't disprove my assertion that black chattel slavery began in the 1500s in Carolina.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Your source says that some free blacks bought their OWN RELATIVES and APPRENTIECED THEM to whites so the relatives could learn skills.

Which is 'indentured servitude'.

Have a nice day.
​

 

[godkiller]

Which is 'indentured servitude'.

Have a nice day.
​

Apprentieceship is not indentured servitude breh. And your source doesn't address most of my points besides.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Apprentieceship is not indetured servitude breh.

'Buying' someone to perform work is 'indentured servitude'. The rest of your post is erroneous.

Have a nice day.​

 

[godkiller]

'Buying' someone to perform work is 'indentured servitude'. The rest of your post is erroneous.

Have a nice day.​

That's not what they did. They bought a relative because the relative was a slave and costed money. The person then apprentieced to a white person, who at the time would know a useful skill. That's not servitude.

As for the fact you haven't proven anything, that is self-evident. Still waiting on you to disprove my 1500 chattel slavery source. Still waiting on you to provide the source which disproves anything I've said thus far.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That's not what they did.

Yes it is.​

 

[observe]

@greenhousegases ...you don't wanna fukk with @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited on history..he's the only real history scholar on this site..

I look up to him

 

[Crakface]

Another scapegoat for cacs that dont know history.

 

[MostReal]

How was he the first slave owner when he was a slave himself?

Cacology breh...this is the crap I be talking bout

 

[MostReal]

Were we just supposed to casually read past this part without thinking about it?

and like this wasn't going either

http://www.billgaskins.com/negro-mtn.html

written in 1638 & updated in 1665

The Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion was collectively written by the Maryland Colony Council in 1638, and states the following, “Neither the existing black population, their descendents, nor any other blacks shall be permitted to enjoy the fruits of White society.” The doctrine was written to insure that Blacks would remain a “subordinate, non-competitive, non-compensated workforce.”

ask Anthony Johnson what happened to his belongings after he died...they were seized by the US Government.