Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: First Slave Owner in America was Black
Source:
Wikipedia
URL Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
Published: Jun 23, 2015
Author: Wikipedia
Post Date: 2015-06-23 14:28:57 by cranko
Keywords: None
Views: 15310
Comments: 50
I love actual history. Not the stuff the left makes up, but real, actual history.
Anthony Johnson was an Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th century Colony of Virginia, where he became one of the first black property owners and slaveholders. Held as an indentured servant in 1621, he earned his freedom after several years, which was accompanied by a grant of land. He later became a successful tobacco farmer. Notably, he is recognized for attaining great wealth after having been an indentured servant and has been referred to as “'the black patriarch' of the first community of Negro property owners in America".
Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as an indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company.
Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet as an indentured servant to work on his Virginia tobacco farm. Servants typically worked under an indenture contract for four to seven years to pay off their passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. In the early colonial years, most Africans in the Thirteen Colonies were held under such contracts of indentured servitude.
When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servants.
In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor.
Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling.[10] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker.
This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
I think he was the first "legal" slave owner. He had to go to court to bring "legal" slavery to America. So really who cause this black and white issue?
Before this you could only have indentured servitude black or white. In fact I believe Anthony Johnson was an indentured slave before he became a slave owner.
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: Justified (#1) (Edited)
I think he was the first "legal" slave owner. He had to go to court to bring "legal" slavery to America.
Very true. Johnson held 4 white and 1 black indentured servants. He went to court to have the black indentured servant declared an indentured servant for life (a slave).
There are a lot of things in this story the left wants to cover up:
1.) How did Johnson become an indentured servant? He was captured by an enemy black tribe in Africa and sold to Arab slave traders. Blacks selling blacks to Arabs, who then sold them all over North and South America is something the left doesn't want you to know about it because it spoils their narrative of whites in America being the center of evil in the world.
2.) After his term of servitude was over, he became a wealthy property owner and farmer. The left does't want you to know that blacks could and did become wealthy in the colonies 400 years ago.
3.) He held four white indentured servants. The left certainly doesn't want you to know that a black man could and did hold white people as indentured servants.
#4. To: cranko (#0)
Interesting, thanks.
#5. To: cranko, Justified, BobCeleste (#0) (Edited)
Blacks and free slaves has much more rights before the Revolution and a generation after for a while - then the Southern Slave states forced free blacks out of the states in many cases. In fact laws were passed that a free slave needed to move on or they would be re-enslaved again.
So by the start of the Civil War southern blacks were less free with fewer rights than ever before. So your effort to white wash (pun not intended but it works) the south is a fail.
If the USA was such a great nation it would have outlawed slavery before the British did between 1833 and 1843.
#6. To: Pericles (#5)
your effort to white wash
No one is trying to white wash anything, bozo. I'm trying to inject a little historical truth into an emotional "debate" that is generally devoid of facts.
Here are the facts that the American left doesn't want anyone to know:
1.) Blacks were sold into slavery by other black African tribes
2.) Arab Muslims operated the major distribution channels for slavery
3.) Slaves were sold all over the Americas, not just what became the U.S.
4.) Blacks in America owned black slaves and both white and black indentured servants
The American left doesn't want you to know these things because it spoils their ridiculous narrative that white Americans are uniquely racist and evil.
#7. To: Pericles (#5) (Edited)
If the USA was such a great nation it would have outlawed slavery before the British did between 1833 and 1843.
Oh please. A couple of decades is the difference between Britain being "great" and America being evil? Give us a break.
America has a federalist system, not a a central one. It is also much larger than the U.K. So, change doesn't happen all at once -- it happens over time, one state at a time.
Here are the U.S. States that abolished slavery before Great Britain: Vermont (1777), Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire (1783), Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut (1784), Rhode Island (1784), Northwest Territory (1787 - - Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were never slave states), New York (1799), New Jersey (1804), and Maine (1820).
Who still practices Slavery today? Black Africans. This is yet another fact that the American left doesn't want us to know.
Slavery still haunts Africa, where millions remain captive
#8. To: cranko (#7)
Oh please. A couple of decades is the difference between Britain being "great" and America being evil?
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the American population.
#9. To: Pericles (#8) (Edited)
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the American population.
Nope. The American Civil War resulted in 620,000 dead Americans, which was less than 2% of a population of 32 million. NOT 10% to 30%. Less than 2%.
Since we're talking about racism and slavery, the Rwandan Genocide killed 800,000 out of a measly population of 7 million. This didn't happen in the 1860's, it happened in the 1990's.
How many did Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the other 20th century totalitarian dictators murder? Over 100 million.
As I stated earlier, Africa still has a slavery problem today.
Yet, America is held out as being uniquely evil by leftist dimwits. What a load of crap.
#10. To: cranko, Pericles (#7)
(1787 - - Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were never slave states)
Sorry, Land o' Lincoln Illinois mythology is a pet peeve.
Illinois was a slave state, and when it purportedly "eliminated" slavery, it implemented 99-year indentured servitude.
Illinois Constitution of 1818:
ARTICLE VI.SECTION I. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter he introduced into this State, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; nor shall any male person, arrived at the age of twenty one years, nor female person arrived at the age of eighteen years, be held to serve any person as a servant, under any indenture hereafter made, unless such person shall enter into such indenture while in a state of perfect freedom, and on condition of a bona-fide consideration received or to be received for their service. Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto, hereafter made and executed out of this State, or if made in this State, where the term of service exceeds one year, be of the least validity, except those given in cases of apprenticeship.
SEC. 2. No person bound to labor in any other State shall be hired to labor in this State, except within the tract reserved for the salt-works near Shawneetown; nor even at that place for a longer period than one year at anyone time; nor shall it be allowed there after the year 1825. Any violation of this article shall effect the emancipation of such person from his obligatioft to service.
SEC. 3. Each and every person who has been bound to service by contract or indenture in virtue of the laws of Illinois Territory heretofore existing, and in conformity to the provisions of the same, without fraud or collusion, shall be held to a specific performance of their contracts or indentures; and such negroes and mulattoes as have been registered in conformity with the aforesaid laws shall serve out the time appointed by said laws: Provided, however, That the children hereafter born of such person, negroes, or mulattoes, shall become free, the males at the age of twenty-one years, the females at the age of eighteen years. Each and every child born of indentured parents shall be entered with the clerk of the county in which they reside, by their owners, within six months after the birth of said child.
One must read that carefully and not stop at the first sentence. Life indenture is another name for slavery. The later 99-year indenture was pretty much slavery under another name, except for Methuselah.
How can a source on Illinois slave history forget the Matson Case. In a state that suppposedly never had slavery, up pops the 1847 Matson trial where Abraham Lincoln represented slave-owner Matson in his effort to retain his slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matson_Trial
Matson TrialThe Matson Trial (1847), officially in re Bryant, was a freedom suit by former slave Anthony Bryant on behalf of his family in Coles County, Illinois. It is noted for the unusual circumstance where Abraham Lincoln, the future emancipator of slaves, defended a slave-owner against a slave. The case pitted Lincoln and former Illinois Attorney General Usher F. Linder against former US Representative Orlando B. Ficklin. Ficklin's case proved successful, and Bryant's family was emancipated based on free soil doctrine.
Kentucky native Robert Matson purchased land in Coles County, Illinois, in 1836. Matson skirted the state laws that banned slavery by bringing slaves for only a year, returning them to Kentucky, and then replacing them with new slaves. Matson emancipated one of his slaves, Anthony Bryant, who acted as his foreman. Bryant's family joined him in Coles County in 1845. Two years later, there was an altercation between Bryant's wife, Jane, and one of Matson's white housekeepers. After the housekeeper threatened Bryant's family, Matson sent one of Bryant's children back to Kentucky.
Concerned about his family, Bryant and his family sought refuge with two local abolitionists, Hiram Rutherford and Gideon Ashmore. Since the rest of his family was still enslaved, this violated state fugitive slave laws. Matson sought to recover the family and enlisted the help of former Illinois Attorney General Usher F. Linder. Linder had recently joined the Whig Party, where he befriended fellow lawyer Abraham Lincoln. Like Lincoln, Linder opposed slavery. He was able to convince a local justice of the peace to imprison the Bryant family in the fall.
Trial
The ensuing court case, in re Bryant, opened in October 1847. Ashmore and Rutherford requested the legal assistance of Lincoln, but found that Lincoln had already agreed to work with Linder to defend Matson. After learning about the request, Linder gave Lincoln permission to instead defend the abolitionists, but Rutherford refused. The abolitionists, on behalf of Bryant, instead enlisted the help of former US Representative Orlando B. Ficklin against Linder and Lincoln.
During the proceedings, Lincoln argued that Bryant intended to only temporary house the Bryants and thus they were covered by an exception for slaves in transit. He also provided evidence supporting the character of Matson. Ficklin defended the Bryants by arguing that any man in a free state becomes free. The Coles County judges sided with Ficklin, noting that the Bryants' two-year tenure in Illinois exceeded any possible transit exception.
Aftermath
The Bryants later resettled in Liberia. Similar arguments to Lincoln's were used by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. The case remains a controversial event in the development of Lincoln's views on slavery. Lincoln may have taken the case because of recent financial troubles. He may also have defended Matson knowing that he could not win, or perhaps because he did believe that Matson's legal rights were being violated.
http://216.125.204.247/People/Slavery%20In%20Illinois.htm
Slavery In IllinoisJarrot v. Jarrot
by Vincent J. Lopinot
[...]
The first session of the new state legislature in 1819 saw the passage of a set of black laws copied from the slave codes of Virginia and Kentucky. These laws were passed with intention of driving free Negroes either out of Illinois or into the voluntary servitude system. Under these laws the free black man had no civil or political rights. He could not testify in court, hold political office or vote. A Negro could be subject to execution and sale as personal property. A free black person in Illinois could be sold into involuntary slavery if he did not possess the correct certificate of freedom. There was little difference between the alternatives which the black man faced. Both alternatives were servitude; only the title was different.
The Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Phoebe v. Jay (1828) recognized the reality of the "involuntary system." The majority opinion stated that,
Nothing can be conceived farther from the truth, than the idea that there could be a voluntary contract between a negro and his master. The law authorizes the master to bring his slave here, and take him before the clerk and if the negro will not agree to the terms proposed by the master, he is authorized to remove him to his original place of servitude. It would be an insult to common sense to contend that the negro has any free agency. The only choice given him was a choice of evils. On either hand servitude was to be his lot.
The case of Phoebe v. Jay recognized that the effect of "voluntary servitude" was the same as slavery. In both cases the negro was held in servitude. Through the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery, the system of "voluntary servitude" provided for in the Illinois constitution of 1818 and the Black laws of the next year, was virtually just that; slavery.
[...]
It was reported in the New York Times,
But from the year 1807 to, perhaps, the present hour, a considerable class of persons in the State of Illinois have been held in involuntary servitude, in nearly all respects the same as Slavery proper, in, at least, seeming contravention of the ordinance of 1787. The contrivances introduced to elude the ordinance are ingenious, and in the hands of dishonest or blundering politicians and complaisant judges, have been eminently successful.”Slavery in Illinois”, New York Times, 17 Mar 1854.
Illinois has admitted it,
http://ilga.gov/legislation/95/SJR/09500SJ0044.htm
SJ0044 LRB095 11803 KXB 34806 r1 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
2 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois, at the time of its 3 acceptance into the Union in 1818 and for a longtime 4 thereafter, practiced de facto slavery masqueraded as 5 "indentured servitude"; the census of 1840 enumerated slaves in 6 Illinois in violation of the Ordinance of 1787, which outlawed 7 slavery in the Northwest Territories; and
8 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois passed the infamous and 9 unjust Black Laws (1819), otherwise known as the Black Codes, 10 which were a denial of human rights designed to cover up 11 slavery and the slave trade within the borders of the State; 12 and
13 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois supported the Black Codes 14 for more than forty-six years until they were finally repealed; 15 and
16 WHEREAS, In the State of Illinois the majority of Illinois 17 citizens favored closing the State to African-American 18 residents and withholding the right of citizenship from those 19 African-American residents already living in the State; and
20 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois passed dehumanizing laws 21 stating that slaves were not persons, but property, and as
SJ0044 - 2 - LRB095 11803 KXB 34806 r1 property the ownership of enslaved Africans was to be fully 2 protected by Illinois law; and
3 WHEREAS, For many years, Black people, free or otherwise, 4 had no legal status as citizens in the State of Illinois; and
5 WHEREAS, The East St. Louis massacre on July 2, 1917 was 6 the scene of violent attacks on the Black populace; a bitter 7 and destructive riot ran on for nearly a week; 312 buildings 8 were destroyed; some reports claimed 39 African-Americans were 9 killed, while another source reported 200 to 300 deaths, 10 including women and children; and
11 WHEREAS, On August 14 and 15, 1908, a riot broke out in the 12 State Capital of Springfield; Scott Burton was lynched during 13 the riot and Joe James was lynched after the riot; there were 14 lootings, buildings and property were destroyed, and Walter 15 Donegan was hung in a tree, his throat slit open, and his body 16 mutilated; and
17 WHEREAS, Chicago faced a riot in the week of July 27 18 through August 2, 1919; one of the country's most violent and 19 racially motivated attacks on Blacks occurred; 38 people were 20 killed, 537 were injured, and 1,000 people found themselves 21 homeless; and
SJ0044 - 3 - LRB095 11803 KXB 34806 r1 WHEREAS, The Chicago Commission on Race Relations rendered 2 a full report studying the Black Community (The Negro in 3 Chicago) and ignored studies of the white offenders and their 4 communities; and
5 WHEREAS, The racial altercations throughout the State of 6 Illinois during the turbulent decade of the 1960's resulted in 7 the Kerner Commission Report, or The Report of the National 8 Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders; and
9 WHEREAS, There is a need for special investigations into 10 the unknown number of African-Americans killed during race 11 riots in the State of Illinois; therefore, be it
12 RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL 13 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 14 CONCURRING HEREIN, that a special commission, to be known as 15 the Illinois Riot and Reparations Commission, be formed to 16 study historical events in the State of Illinois, particularly 17 those events that resulted in the loss of African-American 18 lives and property; and that if the study presented by the 19 Commission warrants a second commission be formed to look into 20 the payment of reparations to the survivors and their 21 descendants; and be it further
22 RESOLVED, That the Commission be made up of four members of
SJ0044 - 4 - LRB095 11803 KXB 34806 r1 the Illinois Senate, two to be chosen by the President of the 2 Senate, and two to be chosen by the Senate Minority Leader; 3 four members of the Illinois House of Representatives, two to 4 be chosen by the Speaker of the House, and two to be chosen by 5 the House Minority Leader; the Executive Director of the 6 Illinois Human Rights Commission, or his or her designee, and 7 the Director of the Illinois State Historical Society, or his 8 or her designee; all of whom shall serve without compensation 9 but shall be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary 10 expenses; and be it further
11 RESOLVED, That the Commission shall meet at the call of the 12 President of the Senate and shall make a report of its findings 13 to the General Assembly no later than January 7, 2009, and upon 14 making its report shall be dissolved; and be it further
15 RESOLVED, That suitable copies of this resolution be 16 delivered to the Executive Director of the Illinois Human 17 Rights Commission and the Director of the Illinois State 18 Historical Society.
Below is a site which provides links to documents of 99-year indentured servitude. This is what Illinois considered the elimination of slavery, and some modern myth makers say there was never slavery in the state of Illinois.
http://www.eiu.edu/past_tracker/esrace.php
African AmericanIndenture of Judith, Pope County, 1818 / Typed Transcription
This indenture was written in 1818, the year Illinois became a state. The indenture system was used to get around the abolition of slavery in Illinois. It resulted in slave conditions, as evidenced by this indenture of a woman named Judith. The 17-year-old was bound to 99 years of service through this indenture.
Citation: Turnbaugh, Dr. Roy C. Jr. and Robert E. Bailey. Windows to the Past: A Selection of Illinois County Records from 1818 to 1880. Springfield: Illinois State Archives, 1985. Used by permission of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
#11. To: cranko (#9) (Edited)
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the MALE American population. Your feeble attempts to make America look great comparing it to Rowan aside. Britain freed her slaves and not one death.............
#12. To: Justified (#1)
In fact I believe Anthony Johnson was an indentured slave before he became a slave owner.
He was.
IIRC,he was a wealthy owner of a horse farm in Pa or Md when he died.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#13. To: Pericles (#5)
If the USA was such a great nation it would have outlawed slavery before the British did between 1833 and 1843.
Still playing the victim card 300 years later,are you?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#14. To: Pericles (#8)
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the American population.
The War of Northern Aggression was NOT fought over slavery,and none other than Abraham Lincoln,the man that declared the war,is on record as saying it wasn't.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#15. To: nolu chan (#10)
Illinois was a slave state, and when it purportedly "eliminated" slavery, it implemented 99-year indentured servitude.
But the good news was that they became free after working for 99 years!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#16. To: Pericles (#11)
Britain freed her slaves and not one death.............
We know your mind is feeble,but you are seriously claiming there was not ONE death?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#17. To: sneakypete (#14) (Edited)
Shut up, Pete. You are Greek. These people are beneath your half blood to take up their racial cause.
#18. To: Pericles (#17)
Shut up, Pete.
ESAD,
You are Greek.
No,my father was Greek. *I* am an American.
These people are beneath your half blood to take up their racial cause.
I don't play "racial cause" games,and Greeks are not my brothers. Or even half-brothers.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#19. To: cranko, Pericles (#9)
Nope. The American Civil War resulted in 620,000 dead Americans, which was less than 2% of a population of 32 million. NOT 10% to 30%. Less than 2%.
At the time of the civil war I believe that was the percentage of slave owners in America. 2-3%
The poor white farms wanted slavery so they could compete with slave labor from the big slave farms! Yes slavery was the reason we had the civil war!/s
States rights was just a ruse to get the poor dumb white people to die in mass for the big slave farms.
#20. To: Pericles (#11) (Edited)
And the Civil War over slavery which killed like 10-30% of the MALE American population. Your feeble attempts...
Less than 2% of the population. If everyone who died was male, it would have been approximately 4% of the population.
It's simple arithmetic (except for dimwitted leftists):
620,000 dead / 32,000,000 population = 0.019375. That's 1.9375% of the population dead.
It's 3rd grade math, bozo.
Perhaps this is why Greece is in so much trouble -- they can't add, subtract, multiply or divide!
#21. To: cranko (#20)
10% of military-age Northern men, 30% of military-age Southern men.http://pjmedia.com/spengler/
#22. To: nolu chan (#10)
Illinois was a slave state, and when it purportedly "eliminated" slavery, it implemented 99-year indentured servitude.
Okay, so instead of just posting it here, go update Wikipedia. They would love you because you have references to cite.
#23. To: Justified (#19)
The poor white farms wanted slavery so they could compete with slave labor from the big slave farms! Yes slavery was the reason we had the civil war!/sStates rights was just a ruse to get the poor dumb white people to die in mass for the big slave farms.
The South fought for the dream of a slave empire stretching southwards, and the 90% of Southern soldiers who owed no slaves hoped to get them–like Wallenstein’s mercenaries or Napoleon’s foot-soldiers with field marshall’s batons in their rucksacks. Like Wallenstein’s and Napoleon’s armies, the Confederates fought with desperate courage, but for rapine rather than right. Crushing them was the noblest thing the United States ever did.
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/
#24. To: sneakypete (#18)
American is not an ethnicity and the confederates were traitors.
#25. To: Pericles (#21) (Edited)
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/
If you are going to quote lunatics from the Lyndon LaRouche cult, then you are much, much sicker in the head than I originally thought.
In all honesty, I've had a hard time pegging who you really are. At times you sound like a disgruntled American black. Other times you sound like a lazy anti-American Greek. Now we know who you are -- a crazy Lyndon LaRouche cultist.
God help you.
#26. To: Pericles (#23)
the Confederates fought with desperate courage, but for rapine rather than right. Crushing them was the noblest thing the United States ever did.
The only reason the north won is that it could sacrifice the Irish who just want to become Americans. North was all about controlling the country and the south was just suppose to shut up and agree. The north was damn lucky there were hundreds of thousand of Irish human waste to be spent on keeping the north in power. If they could have only seen what their death made!
The south could have given up slavery and the north would still have fought to keep the power structure the way it was. The north really did not give a rats ass about slavery and hated when the slaves head north to be with them.
#27. To: cranko (#25) (Edited)
All Americans look the same to me and Goldman worked for Ronald St. Reagan administration.
#28. To: Pericles (#27) (Edited)
Goldman worked for Ronald St. Reagan administration.
Utter nonsense. There is a self-serving reference on Wikipedia that he "consulted" for the Reagan administration. The reference points to a list of articles that have nothing to do with him.
I don't know if this is possible, but can you engage your brain just for 30 seconds?
Who do Presidents appoint to their administrations? Long term donors and activists. Goldman was part of the LaRouche cult until at least 1982. So, the Reagan administration was going to appoint him to what???
ROTFLMAO...
You are much sicker in the head than I originally thought. Much sicker.
#29. To: Pericles (#24)
American is not an ethnicity
So what? Neither is Greek.
and the confederates were traitors.
"Learn" that in Black History class,did ya?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#30. To: cranko, Pericles (#25)
In all honesty, I've had a hard time pegging who you really are.
Confused,fearful,jealous,and the owner of a PC AA education.
I'd almost be willing to bet one of his parents was black and the other Greek,and he claims to be a Greek because he doesn't want to self-identify or be identified as as a black because he secretly identifies blacks as inferior.
It ain't PC to say so,but that's why so many blacks convert to Islam. They want to self-identify and be identified as Arabs instead of slaves that came from Africa. Better to be the slavemaster than the slave.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#31. To: cranko (#28)
that he "consulted" for the Reagan administration.
Yea, he worked for Reagan. I did not claim he was a cabinet member. And Reagan was an ex new dealer in his youth also.
#32. To: cranko, sneakypete (#30) (Edited)
I'd almost be willing to bet one of his parents was black and the other Greek,and he claims to be a Greek because he doesn't want to self- identify or be identified as as a black because he secretly identifies blacks as inferior.It ain't PC to say so,but that's why so many blacks convert to Islam. They want to self-identify and be identified as Arabs instead of slaves that came from Africa. Better to be the slavemaster than the slave.
Or I am a black Russian - Which is why I have a history of posting pro Serbian anti NATO posts - I think the stupid part of Pete is his "American" heritage. He is half Greek so we can't be too harsh. LOL
Pete, you justify everything I say about Americans.
#33. To: Pericles (#32)
Or I am a black Russian
In one respect,yes,you are. Russians are closely identified with communism,and you are at heart a communist.
The main thing you are is a man with a (well deserved) inferiority complex,a 3rd rate PC education, and a hatred for America.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#34. To: Pericles (#31)
Yea, he worked for Reagan
Do you also believe that LaRouche was innocent of credit card fraud and instead was a political prisoner?
#35. To: Pericles (#31)
David Goldman is not telling the full truth about his years in the LaRouche movement
Goldman writes that he "spent some years--from 1976 to 1986--in a gnostic cult under the leadership of a man named Lyndon LaRouche."When did he really join?
The picture and caption/article here show Goldman at a Labor Committee (LaRouche cadre org) demonstration at Columbia University in 1969--seven years prior to when he now says he joined up.
When did he really leave?
Goldman writes that "[LaRouche] cashiered me as economics editor for his publications in 1982." He claims that he then moved to Europe,[FN 1] pursued "musical research under the auspices of [LaRouche's] Schiller Institute," and worked for former National Security Council aide Norman Bailey's consulting business before finally severing his emotional ties with the LaRouche group in 1986.
However, the masthead of LaRouche's EIR shows Goldman continuing in his job as economics intelligence director (essentially an editorial post) during 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (see mastheads from each of these years here), while ex-members say he was a member of the org's National Committee throughout this period until the day he left.
Goldman's name was removed from the EIR masthead sometime in the first half of 1988--two years after the "Confessions" narrative says he severed his ties to the LaRouche movement, and six years after the narrative says he was removed from his editorial post.
Essentially what Goldman has done is take the period of at least 19 years he spent as an active LaRouche follower and condense it down to six years--and then tack on four more years in which he supposedly was pursuing his own interests while continuing to have an ambiguous relationship with the LaRouche org involving harmless musical pursuits.
So, when did he work for the Reagan Administration??? LOL!!!!!
#36. To: sneakypete, Pericles (#16)
We know your mind is feeble,but you are seriously claiming there was not ONE death?
You have to read carefully, Pete. The ended slavery in England. The British slaves were not in England, but almost entirely in British colonies.
#37. To: cranko (#35)
So, when did he work for the Reagan Administration??? LOL!!!!!
How does that disprove his claim that 10-30% of the fighting age males lost their lives?
#38. To: Pericles (#37)
How does that disprove his claim that 10-30% of the fighting age males lost their lives?
You have made three contradictory claims on this thread:
First, you said that upwards of 30% of the American population lost their lives in the Civil War. I showed you that it was less than 2%.
Second, you said that upwards of 30% of American males lost their lives in the civil war. No, it was 4%.
Third, you said that upwards of 30% of "fighting age" American males lost their lives in the Civil War. The figure accepted by historians is that 1 in 13 (7.7%) of military age men lost their lives in the Civil War.
What claim would you like to make now? That the British secretly control the world and that the Queen of England is a drug dealer? That is what you LaRouchers believe isn't it?
#39. To: cranko (#38)
I did not make three contradictory claims - I remembered it was 10-30% casualties but I did not clarify what % of the population was being talked about - 10% for Union and - 30% for Confederate casualties of fight age males. So I found you a source. You attack the source but not the %.
All because I said that the USA was INFERIOR because of how it freed its slaves - through a bloody war that depopulated the South. Even Czar freed the Serfs there was no war and those Russians love a drunken fight.
#40. To: Justified, cranko, Pericles (#19)
At the time of the civil war I believe that was the percentage of slave owners in America. 2-3%
It sort of depends on what numbers, or subset of numbers are used. Below as some of the Census numbers.
http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860
1860 census
393,975 TOTAL slaveholders (8 in KS & NE territories)
UNION
| Slaveholders | Number |
|---|---|
| Delaware | 587 |
| Kansas (T) | 2 |
| Kentucky | 38,645 |
| Maryland | 13,783 |
| Missouri | 24,320 |
| Nebraska (T) | 6 |
| TOTAL | 77,343 |
77,343 = 2.4% of total population of these states.
CONFEDERACY
| Slaveholders | Number |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 33,730 |
| Arkansas | 11,481 |
| Georgia | 41,084 |
| Florida | 5,152 |
| Louisiana | 22,033 |
| Mississippi | 30,943 |
| North Carolina | 34,658 |
| South Carolina | 26,701 |
| Tennessee | 36,844 |
| Texas | 21,878 |
| Virginia | 52,128 |
| TOTAL | 316,632 |
316,632 = 3.5% of total population of these states.
The Confederacy had 4.1 times as many slaveholders as the Union states.
TOTAL POPULATION OF SLAVE STATES/Territories
UNION
| State | Population |
|---|---|
| Delaware | 112,216 |
| Kansas (T) | 107,206 |
| Kentucky | 1,155,684 |
| Maryland | 687,049 |
| Missouri | 1,182,012 |
| Nebraska (T) | 28,841 |
| TOTAL | 3,273,008 |
CONFEDERACY
| State | Population |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 964,201 |
| Arkansas | 435,450 |
| Florida | 140,424 |
| Georgia | 1,057,286 |
| Louisiana | 708,002 |
| Mississippi | 791,305 |
| North Carolina | 992,622 |
| South Carolina | 703,708 |
| Tennessee | 1,109,801 |
| Texas | 604,215 |
| Virginia | 1,596,318 |
| TOTAL | 9,103,332 |
#41. To: nolu chan (#36)
You have to read carefully, Pete. The ended slavery in England. The British slaves were not in England, but almost entirely in British colonies.
Ahhhh! Thanks for clearing up the mystery.
Pericles is completely shameless,isn't he?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 50) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]