SLAVERY TRUTHS: America’s first slave owner was a black man

[CactusCarlos]

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

The rest: http://cofcc.org/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

[Maxiest]

There were many many black slave owners.

Heck, in Charleston SC there were free black people who owned slaves

[thundley4]

Talk about an inconvenient truth.

[Johnny Yuma]

That'll make a few libtards heads explode !!

[Maxiest]

Well it was the Africans (black ones) who sold their own people to begin with.

[Dori]

Well it was the Africans (black ones) who sold their own people to begin with.

And Muslims in Africa too.  They still do to this day, but we just don't hear about it.

The majority of the slaves from Africa were sent to South America. The United States only had about 4%.  Another thing we never hear about.

[debk]

It isn't mentioned in the article, but I think Johnson also became a slave trader... in that he brought the Africans over and sold them in the slave markets.

I went to a lecture years ago, regarding the early history of Knoxville. This was back in 84 or 85. The lecturer had written a book, and he talked about Johnson.

Prior to the Civil War, majority of blacks in Knoxville and surrounding area, were free. When things got tense just prior to Civil War, many left the area and went north. Many more left at the onset of the War, as they feared for their freedom and safety. Because of this, Knoxville's black population is about 6%, quite low for a "southern city" of it's size.

[Dori]

Prior to the Civil War, majority of blacks in Knoxville and surrounding area, were free. When things got tense just prior to Civil War, many left the area and went north. Many more left at the onset of the War, as they feared for their freedom and safety. Because of this, Knoxville's black population is about 6%, quite low for a "southern city" of it's size.

Interesting that you mentioned that.  My paternal GGGG-something  Grandfather was from the eastern part of Tennessee.  He was an early  itinerate Methodist preacher.  They were anti-slavery activists and traveled over hundreds of miles to preach about it. Infact, I don't remember finding any ancestors that were slave holders and so far, they all came here as far back as the 1600's. 

[debk]

The first KKK was started in Pulaski TN, which is in south central TN. From Nashville, west and even as far east Chattanooga, Tennessee is much more "southern" than the Knoxville area and to the NE. This area is more "mountain folk" or hillbillies. A lot of the early settlers were Scots-Irish who married Cherokees.

[J P Sousa]

I always try to do more reading on subjects such as this when my curiosity is aroused.

So I came across this interesting artcle or letter; "It Will Be a Shame If Teachers
Follow This Dishonest "Guide" " (  Africans in America  about slavery)

http://www.udel.edu/soe/whitson/346F06/files/Stern_AfricansInAmerica.htm

from;

 Sheldon M. Stern, a specialist in 20th-century American history, is the historian at the John F. Kennedy Library, in Boston. Since 1993 he has directed the Library's American History Project for High School Students, helping teachers develop lessons in which students work with primary sources and learn to evaluate historical evidence.  

an excerpt;

 Why does the Teacher's Guide differ so radically from the television series and the companion book?

I learned the answer during a telephone discussion with a staff member at WGBH, who told me that the academic historians and other experts who had contributed to the television series and the companion book had not had any direct connection with the group that produced the Teacher's Guide. This group, called the Teacher's Guide Advisory Board, consisted of five persons whom my source described as "multiple-perspective educational activists." The "activists" assembled their so-called lessons -- and the Teacher's Guide was locked up and printed -- before the television series was finished [note 7].

The members of the Advisory Board are listed in the Teacher's Guide. The list indicates that all five are affiliated with schools in Massachusetts, but it doesn't tell what jobs they hold. Are they teachers? If so, how do they explain, to their own students, why the Teacher's Guide is repeatedly in conflict with the television programs and the companion book?

more at link
  

So my take, "educational activists" or in other words, "education propagandists", are about political brain washing of students.
.

[CG6468]

And maybe janitors and maintence men.

[Ptarmigan]

Old news to me.