SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.
Discuss.
- A Hectic Day at Church, and Then a Hellish Visitor
- Charleston relatives 'forgive' shooting suspect in court
- Latest on church shooting: Black, white pastors get together
- Terrorism v hate crime: How US courts decide: After the murder of nine black Americans at a church in Charleston, South Carolina by a white man, advocates and commentators are calling for suspect Dylann Roof to be described as a terrorist.
- Why we shouldn't call Dylann Roof a terrorist
- We Asked a Lawyer if Dylann Roof Could Face Terrorism Charges
- As Media Labels Roof 'Troubled Loner,' Justice Department Moves Forward With Domestic Terrorism Charges
- Was the South Carolina shooting a hate crime or a terrorist attack?
- Terrorism in Charleston demands the government act like black lives matter
- Criminal Justice Professor Discusses Charleston Shooting Suspect Dylann Roof
- Dylann Roof's friend: 'He never said anything racist': Christon Scriven, 21, told the BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan that Mr Roof "wanted to shoot that school up - UCA university of Charleston - it's 3 miles up the street from that church."
- Mitt Romney Calls on South Carolina to Remove Confederate Flag at Capitol
- Dylann Storm Roof Photos Found on Website [manifesto archive]
- Here's What Appears to Be Dylann Roof's Racist Manifesto
- Photos Of Dylann Roof, Racist Manifesto Surface On Website
- BBC: The collection of photographs found on a website also show 21-year-old Dylann Roof burning the US flag and visiting a former slave plantation.
- Possible manifesto of Dylann Roof draws from hate group's text, expert says
- Police: Charleston church shooting suspect Dylann Roof is on suicide watch
- Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof Was Loner Caught in 'Internet Evil': Family
- The Mainstream Media Is Showing Its Bias In Charleston Massacre. And It's Ugly.
- Rick Perry: Charleston massacre was an 'accident' caused by drugs — not guns
- Suboxone: What is the drug linked to Charleston shooting suspect?
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You will inherit millions of dollars.
(Score: 1) by eof on Monday June 22 2015, @07:25PM
The offered article still does not answer my questions: Did Johnson argue that Casor was his slave? On what would the claim be based? Where is that documentation? Under what authority would such enslavement be recognized? Did Johnson ask for Casor's punishment to be lifelong indenture? To quote from the court findings as given in the article:
“Whereas complaint was this day made to the court by the humble petition of Anthony Johnson, Negro, against Mr. Robert Parker that he detains one John Casor, a Negro, the plaintiff’s servant under pretense that the said John Casor is a freeman..."
I read that at there is a dispute about whether or not Casor is a freeman as opposed to still having obligations as an indentured servant. That would make it an analog of the Punch case.
I continue to assert that this ruling does not lay the origin of slavery in the US to Johnson. Independent of that issue, it does not explain the lengths that were gone through to cast those with African ancestry as less than human (something I'm pretty confident Johnson didn't argue in court.) The way I read them, the contemporaneous sources already suggest that efforts to differentiate blacks were already evident: Why else the insistence on describing Johnson and Casor as Negro?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:23AM
Sorry, man, but the answers to those questions are in the article. The author "translated" what he read into modern legalese. Yes, Johnson informed the court that because his slave was a black African, that the terms of indentured servitude did not apply. Ye Negro is mine for life! And, the court agreed with him!
You may be right that efforts to differentiate blacks was evident - but the fact remains that up intil Johnson argued his case, blacks were accorded the same rights as other indentured servants, that is, upon completing their terms of indenture, they were awarded property and/or money and the means to support themselves for some period of time, and granted their freedom.
Casor was the first genuine slave in America, and Johnson was the first slave owner. This was the case that led to slavery in perpetuity. This case condemned the black man to suffer the next couple hundred years of indignities and suffering.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 1) by eof on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:10PM
There is nothing in the article that answers the questions I have raised, translation into modern language or not. Where is the fact that Casor is African mentioned, as you suggest it is? The "translation" also only gives the conclusion of the court and no arguments provided by Johnson.
As for your claims regarding blacks being treated equally, take a look at this page (and article) which provides some of the context of the times in addition to touching on the Johnson case: https://books.google.com/books?id=BEd85InqqAIC&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]
Further quick searches yield other interesting bits of context: http://www.virtualjamestown.org/practise.html [virtualjamestown.org]
For the last link, search for "Deed from Henry Brooks Junior to Nicholas Brooks Senior"
I am confident discussion with a scholar in this field would yield a much greater understanding than is provided by a few commentaries.
I maintain that reference to the Johnson case as the root of slavery in the colonies is inaccurate. The episode provides a snapshot of the changing environment in the colonies regarding race and station, but using it to argue it laid the foundation for enslavement and mistreatment of a group of people strikes me as looking for a convenient way to ignore the bigger picture.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:50PM
Good citations there. I'll toss back a paragraph from your own citation - oh crap, you can't copy/paste from those pages. Re-read "Complicity on the part of the King" heading, and the four paragraphs. Note the dates. "The status of the Negro steadily deteriorated . . . this transition is difficult to trace . . . "official pretense" that lifetime servitude did not exist . . ."
I was totally unaware that the king of England had a vested interest in the slave trade. So, maybe government was moving that way anyway - but they needed case law to make it happen.
At the very least, Johnson gave the slavers a solid plank on which to build their platform. And, at the very least, his suit and his claims offered legitimacy to the idea that black people should be treated differently than white people.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:57PM
I've been searching off and on for a couple days for the transcript of the court case - it it even existed. This is the best hit yet:
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655 [encyclopediavirginia.org]
Transcription from Original
The deposition of Captain Samuel Goldsmith taken (in open court) 8th of March Sayth, That beinge at the howse of Anthony Johnson Negro (about the beginninge of November last to receive a hogshead of tobacco) a Negro called John Casar came to this Deponent, and told him that hee came into Virginia for seaven or Eight yeares (per Indenture) And that hee had demanded his freedome of his master Anthony Johnson; And further said that Johnson had kept him his servant seaven yeares longer than hee ought, And desired that this deponent would see that hee might have noe wronge, whereupon your Deponent demanded of Anthony Johnson his Indenture, hee answered, hee never sawe any; The said Negro (John Casor) replyed, hee came for a certayne tyme and had an Indenture Anthony Johnson said hee never did see any But that hee had him for his life; Further this deponent saith That mr. Robert Parker and George Parker they knew that the said Negro had an Indenture (in on Mr. Carye hundred on the other side of the Baye) And the said Anthony Johnson did not tell the negro goe free The said John Casor would recover most of his Cowes of him; Then Anthony Johnson (as this deponent did suppose) was in a feare. Upon this his Sonne in lawe, his wife and his 2 sonnes perswaded the said Anthony Johnson to sett the said John Casor free. more saith not
Samuel Goldsmith
This daye Anthony Johnson Negro made his complaint to the Court against mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro (under pretence that the said Negro is a free man.) The Court seriously consideringe and maturely weighinge the premisses, doe fynde that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master as appeareth by the deposition of Captain Samuel Goldsmith and many probably circumstances. It is therefore the Judgment of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of his said master Anthony Johnson, And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charge in the suit. also Execution.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 1) by eof on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:42PM
The view that those of African and non-European descent were lesser predates the Johnson case. Any reading of colonial history based in fact will demonstrate this (for instance, the ABA article). One web resource by a group of historians focuses on the history of the Johnson family based on historical records: http://nabbhistory.salisbury.edu/settlers/profiles/johnson1.html [salisbury.edu]
They do not say much about the suit involving Casor, but they do provide context for his time (See Chapter 1).
Johnson's may be the first civil case around the concept of slavery, but I do not believe he is the first slave holder, nor do I believe anyone took a cue from him as to how non-Europeans should be treated. (Even in the Casor case there is no evidence his claim was based on Casor being African or black.) No doubt Johnson took a cue from others regarding property rights.
Consider this quote from the ABA article in a previous message:
"English slavery was borrowed from Spanish and Portuguese slavery, with none of the legal safeguards that existed in those societies regarding the care and treatment, manumission, marriage, and familial duties of the master...[T]hat slavery became entrenched in America evidences the evil wrought by governmental passivity to the economic depredations of one social group on another."
Johnson was but one man, and exceptional in many ways, but the history of US slavery cannot be laid at his feet.