The Curious Case of Anthony Johnson...

[ChezC3]

As it turns out, one of the first, if not the first legally recognized slave owner in the country was a free black man.

Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When Johnson was released from servitude he was legally recognized as a "free Negro" and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres and four white and one black indentured servant. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant Johnson had apparently bought in the early 1640s approached Captain Goldsmith claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally. A neighbor, Robert Parker intervened and Johnson was persuaded to set Casor free. Parker took Casor away to work as a free man on his own plantation. Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Casor but Johnson appealed and in 1655, the court reversed it's ruling.[9] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker.[10] 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

and why is it that I'm suppose to feel guilty?

 

[Anagram]

As it turns out, one of the first, if not the first legally recognized slave owner in the country was a free black man.

Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





and why is it that I'm suppose to feel guilty?

You aren't supposed to feel guilty. But if you we're supposed to feel guilty for white people keeping blacks as slaves, one single counter example wouldn't change that.

It's interesting though. I'd never heard of him.

 

[ChezC3]

You aren't supposed to feel guilty. But if you we're supposed to feel guilty for white people keeping blacks as slaves, one single counter example wouldn't change that.

It's interesting though. I'd never heard of him.

As it turns out there are multiple counter examples... But this is secondary to my point and I thank you for having the courage to at least respond.

Now, first, let me say that you have an entire political persuasion which would argue against your first sentence. Second and what's more important, and what is the point that I'm making is that our legal system is build on precedence. If in fact Mr Johnson was the first legally recognized slave owner, than all other laws would be built off of the precedence of his case.

Since it is the opinion of this entire political persuasion to argue that the advantages white Americans enjoy today are a result of the enslavement of blacks and that by their enslavement, blacks in turn are at a disadvantage -- whom exactly do they have to thank for the condition they're in? If we are to use the same line of collective guilt reasoning that is used to promote the fool-hearted notions of white guilt or white privilege?