Black slave owners

Answer 1

There were plenty of black slave owners but somehow this seems to never get a mention! WHY?

The above answer is not accurate. To try to make it seem that there were "PLENTY" of Black slave owners is intellectually dishonest. In college I majored in African American History Studies.

Indentured Servitude and "Slavery" are not the same thing and it is simply inaccurate and incorrect to try to use the terms interchangeably as if they were synonymous; they were not.

Originally indentured servants both Blacks and Whites were both "recognized" as human beings with rights and worked as laborers under contract for specific period of time afterwhich they were released from under obligation.

The first official slave owner was Hugh Gwyn (a white man) who owned John Punch (a black man) in 1640 thus making Hugh Gwyn the first slave owner in America. Anthony(Antonio)Johnson (a black man) owned John Casor (a black man) in 1654. Antonio Johnson was a minor anomaly in history that in no way reflects the actual overall Black experience.

In contrast, some free northern blacks were successful in "buying" their family's freedom. It would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to try to make a case, as some have tried, to use this "exception" in history to make an overarching generalization to say that blacks owned blacks. It is not in any way representative of the common predominant Black experience.

Race based slavery quickly followed. This effected Blacks not whites because only Blacks became no longer "recognized" as human beings with rights but as "Sub-Human Animals" with no rights; So there were no white "Slaves".

Though some Native Americans experienced slavery it was relatively few in comparison to Negroes thus making it overwhelmingly and "uniquely" a Black experience.

To say otherwise is like saying the Holocaust was not overwhelmingly and uniquely a Jewish experience just because a comparatively small number of non-Jews were also in some concentration camps. Just as the Jews were the main object and focus of the holocaust, "Negros" were the main object, focus and subjects of "Slavery".

Let's all just be honest for a change.

I find SBurke contemptible. This individual says "let's all just be honest for a change" right after referring to Anthony Johnson as a "minor anomaly" in history. The INDISPUTABLE FACT is that Anthony Johnson was the FIRST DOCUMENTED SLAVE OWNER in the American colonies after winning legal ownership of John Casor. By the 1830's there were more than 3,500 black slaveowners owning more the 12,500 slaves in total.

Even noted African American hitory and professor Henry Louis Gates Jr acknowledges this when he wrote that "the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states."

Further, this contemptible individual utterly ignores the Barbary Slave Trade which flourished form the 16th until the 19th century where BLACK Muslim pirates from Northern Africa would raid villages as far north as Iceland for white captives to sell into slavery.

Yes SBurke1, let's ALL be honest, just for a change.

I find Nynetguy ignorant.

What's worse, he is arrogant in his ignorance. It's the typical knee-jerk response that some white people give in their desperate need to pretend like there is some moral equivalence in whites owning Blacks and Blacks owning Blacks all while ignoring the details of the facts, all of the facts and not just those that seem to support your chosen position on the subject.

Nynetguy, You and those like you bend over backwards, going out of your way to give the mainstream white establishment the greatest benefit of the doubt while to the Black community you give only the doubt and none of the benefit. Those who think like you are very self-serving and self-sparing in your need to pander to the feelings and sensibilities of many whites. That is exactly why you desperately need to believe that the first slave owner in America, was not a white man.

It is nothing more than an attempt to "white-wash" Black history.

I hate to dismantle your delusional rantings with facts, but here it is point by point.

The INDISPUTABLE FACT is that Chief Justice Hugh Gwynn, a white man, was the FIRST BY POINT OF FACT slave owner in America after gaining legal ownership "for life" of John Punch in 1640.

In contrast, Anthony Johnson came to own John Casor in 1654. So who was first? Hope your math is better than your so-called facts.

But the real question is, why did you even try to bring that up? Because you need to minimize the fact that American slavery was about whites owning blacks, not blacks owning blacks. It's like trying to make the arguement that the subject of spousal abuse is about women abusing men. Though there are cases of women who abused men, nobody denies that, but we all know that historically it is women who have been abused by men, not the other way around. To spend your energy saying they were equivalent is intellectually dishonest.

Here are some more indisputable facts for you. You earlier said that by 1830's there were more than 3,500 Black slave owners owning more than 12,500 slaves in total, a point noted even by African American history professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

That sounds about right, but once again, what you are so conveniently and self-servingly leaving out is the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of these accounts was a case of "Free Blacks" buying their own family members and friends to freedom.

The mainstream white establishment of the day concocted the insane rule that said if a freed Black didn't leave the state within 6 months, they would automatically revert back to slave. That's a fact too that you for some reason so conveniently chose to leave out. Hmm, I wonder why? It was like living in the twilight zone. So, the fact is that the vast overwhelming majority of accounts of Blacks owning Blacks was used as a clever strategy that 1,000's of "Free Blacks" used to keep their families together. In addition, their were also some abolitionist whites of conscience who formed benevolent associations, organizations that used part of their funds to help "Free Blacks" to buy family members, friends and others. Another clever strategy to free as many Blacks as possible. On paper, these Blacks owned Blacks. But you and those like you are deliberately hiding the facts of what they were actually trying to do and that is, they were trying to create "Safe Havens" of Freedom for peoples to live their lives in relative peace and security.

In contrast to this, your cherished notion of Blacks in America enslaving and oppressing Blacks like Anthony Johnson did with John Casor, was one of the few anomalys not representative of the

of the general Black experience in America.

So stop this tired, self-serving need to pardon or minimize the barbarity of the mainstream white establishment in those days. There is no moral equivalent of atrocities in your lame attempt to make white Slave Owners and Black slave owners, the same. You now know they were not.

As for your feeble attempt to find some equivalency in the Barbary slave trade, first of all it was not in America and secondly it was not race based slavery and they were viewed as human beings with rights to certain treatment. Slavery of African Americans was the worst form of Slavery in human history. I know you need to deny that as well but it was a Black Holocaust, every bit as horrid as the Jewish Holocaust. The very fact that Blacks in America were not even believed to be actually humans was what allowed the atrocities to rise to the level of crimes against humanity. The barbary slave trade in North Africa didn't even come close.

So yes Nynetguy, first get your facts straight and then when you do, be sure to include all the facts and not just the cherry picked pieces that seem to serve your biased agenda.

Stop trying to "White-Wash" Black History.

Answer 2

While rare, there were some instances of black individuals who owned slaves in the United States, particularly during the antebellum period. Some were freed slaves who purchased family members or others to protect them from being re-enslaved. It is important to acknowledge these complexities within the history of slavery in the U.S.