RE: Why do the ritors ask for Justice?
September 22, 2016 at 4:42 pm
(This post was last modified: September 22, 2016 at 4:44 pm by Pat Mustard.)
(September 22, 2016 at 4:01 pm)abaris Wrote:(September 22, 2016 at 3:56 pm)RobertE Wrote:
This is idiotic on too many levels to count. Slavery was an institute in America before the USA even existed. And it certainly wasn't a black man owning the first slaves there. It was all kinds of people, ranging from the Spanish, the british, maybe the Dutch, but I'm not sure if they even had slaves.
It's also idiotic because it's the one off example. The one that stands out in the army of white slave owners - stands out in the way that if someone wants to make a point of tu quoque can resort to that example being made available by who knows who.
Plus its a damned lie, spread by racists and Confederacy defenders (yes, I know they're just a particular subset of racists, and I'm committing a tautology). The first documented slave was John Punch, who was brought to Virginia as an indentured servant and was sentenced to permanent slavery in 1640 when he ran away with two other (European) indentured servants*. In 1641 Massachusetts implemented the first slavery law in the colonies, largely written by then Governor John Winthrop who was a slave owner himself by this time. Other colonies in the meantime passed similar laws establishing slavery as legal.
Johnson didn't acquire his 250 acres by buying out the contracts of five indentured servants (4 white, one black) until 1651, and the civil case which proclaimed Casor his slave didn't happen until 1655 or 1656.
If you want to read the details on most of what I've got, you can start here. It's amazing how quickly a google search will debunk the lies and propoganda of racists and their ilk.
*Incidentally this showed that from the genesis racism was built into the American slave system; while Punch, a black man, was enslaved for his "crime" his two companions, both Europeans, were given four extra years servitude.
Oh, I forgot to mention, why do they use the picture (probably photograph) of a 19th century man to represent a 17th century man? Surely they're not idiot enough to think that fashion didn't change radically over a period of two hundred years.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home