 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||
 |
|
||||||
Antonio a Slave: A Story of Diminishing Progress from Father to Son
Documents:
Slave Laws in Virginia
[This statute created a legal distinction between white and black men.]
ALL persons except negroes to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 1, p. 226.
December 1662-ACT XII. Negro womens children to serve according to the condition of the mother.
[As of December 1662, the child of an enslaved mother was also a slave for life. The statute was a dramatic departure from the English tradition in which a child received his or her status from his or her father. Members of the General Assembly also hoped that an increased fine would discourage white men and women from having sexual partners who were African or of African descent.]
WHEREAS some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or ffree, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother, And that if any christian shall committ ffornication with a negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the ffines imposed by the former act.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 170.
September 1667-ACT III. An act declaring that baptisme of slaves doth not exempt them from bondage.
[The passage of this statute indicates that Christianity was important to the concept of English identity. Legislators decided that slaves born in Virginia could not become free if they were baptized, but masters were encouraged to Christianize their enslaved laborers.]
WHEREAS some doubts have risen whether children that are slaves by birth, and by the charity and piety of their owners made pertakers of the blessed sacrament of baptisme, should by vertue of their baptisme be made ffree; It is enacted and declared by this grand assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of baptisme doth not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or ffreedome; that diverse masters, ffreed from this doubt, may more carefully endeavour the propagation of christianity by permitting children, though slaves, or those of greater growth if capable to be admitted to that sacrament.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statues at Large, Vol. 2, p. 260.
October 1669-ACT I. An act about the casuall killing of slaves.
[Colonial leaders decided that corporal punishment was the only way in which a master could correct a slave since his or her time of service could not be extended. This law represents the loss of legal protection for a slave's life in Virginia. It also was the first of several laws passed during the last thirty years of the seventeenth century that reduced the personal rights of black men and women.]
WHEREAS the only law in force for the punishment of refractory servants resisting their master, mistris or overseer cannot be inflicted upon negroes, nor the obstinacy of many of them by other then violent meanes supprest, Be it enacted and declared by this grand assembly, if any slave resist his master (or other by his masters order correcting him) and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, that his death shall not be accompted ffelony, but the master (or that other person appointed by the master to punish him) be acquit from molestation, since it cannot be presumed that prepensed malice (which alone makes murther ffelony) should induce any man to destroy his owne estate.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 270.
October 1670-ACT IV. Noe Negroes nor Indians to buy christian servants.
[The number of blacks and Native Americans in Tidewater Virginia was small when this act was passed. The legislators knew that access to labor was necessary to succeed.]
WHEREAS it hath beene questioned whither Indians or negroes manumited, or otherwise free, could be capable of purchasing christian servants, It is enacted that noe negroe or Indian though baptised and enjoyned their owne ffreedome shall be capable of any such purchase of christians, but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne nation.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, pp. 280-281.
September 1672-ACT VIII. An act for the apprehension and suppression of runawayes, negroes and slaves.
[The members of the General Assembly hoped to suppress the rebellious activities of slaves throughout the colony. In addition, they wanted to keep servants and Native Americans from joining the slaves in any unlawful activities. They decided that it was legal to wound or kill an enslaved person who resisted arrest.]
FORASMUCH as it hath beene manifested to this grand assembly that many negroes have lately beene, and now are out in rebellion in sundry parts of this country, and that noe meanes have yet beene found for the apprehension and suppression of them from whome many mischeifes of very dangerous consequence may arise to the country if either other negroes, Indians or servants should happen to fly forth and joyne with them; for the prevention of which, be it enacted by the governour, councell and burgesses of this grand assembly, and by the authority thereof, that if any negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, runaway and shalbe persued by the warrant or hue and crye, it shall and may be lawfull for any person who shall endeavour to take them, upon the resistance of such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, to kill or wound him or them soe resisting; Provided alwayes, and it is the true intent and meaning hereof, that such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, be named and described in the hue and crye which is alsoe to be signed by the master or owner of the said runaway. And if it happen that such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life doe dye of any wound in such their resistance received the master or owner of such shall receive satisfaction from the publique for his negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, soe killed or dyeing of such wounds; and the person who shall kill or wound by virtue of any such hugh and crye any such soe resisting in manner as aforesaid shall not be questioned for the same, he forthwith giveing notice thereof and returning the hue and crye or warrant to the master or owner of him or them soe killed or wounded or to the next justice of peace. And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all such negroes and slaves shalbe valued at ffowre thousand five hundred pounds of tobacco and caske a peece, and Indians at three thousand pounds of tobacco and caske a peice, And further if it shall happen that any negroe, molatto, Indians slave or servant for life, in such their resistance to receive any wound whereof they may not happen to dye, but shall lye any considerable tyme sick and disabled, then alsoe the master or owner of the same soe sick or disabled shall receive from the publique a reasonable satisfaction for such damages as they shall make appeare they have susteyned thereby at the county court, who shall thereupon grant the master or owner a certificate to the next assembly of what damages they shall make appeare; And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runawayes whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace whoe upon the receipt of such servants, slave, or slaves, from the Indians, shall pay unto the said Indians for a recompence twenty armes length of Roanoake or the value thereof in goods as the Indians shall like of, for which the said justice of peace shall receive from the publique two hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco, and the said justice to proceed in conveying the runaway to his master according to the law in such cases already provided; This act to continue in force till the next assembly and noe longer unlesse it be thought fitt to continue.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, pp. 299-300.
June 1680-ACT VII. An act assertaining the time when Negroe Children shall be tythable.
[The colonial leaders decided that enslaved children should be counted as tithes (capable of working) at the age of twelve and that Christian servants should be included on a list of tithes at the age of fourteen.]
WHEREAS it is deemed too hard and severe that children (as well christians as slaves) imported into this colony should be lyable to taxes before they are capable of working, Bee it enacted by the kings most excellent majestie by and with the consent of the generall assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all negroe children imported or to be imported into this colony shall within three months after the publication of this law or after their arrivall be brought to the county court, where there age shalbe adjudged of by the justices holding court, and put upon record, which said negroe, or other slave soe brought to court, adjudged and recorded shall not be accompted tythable untill he attaines the age of twelve yeares, any former law, usuage, or custome to the contrary notwithstanding. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that noe christian servants imported into this colony shalbe tythable before they attaine the age of fourteene yeares any former law, usuage, or custome to the contrary notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, pp. 479-480.
April 1699-ACT VI. An act for the punishment of slaves for the first and second offence of Hog stealing.
WHEREAS the third act of assembly made at James Citty the 16th day of Aprill 1691, entituled an act for the more speedy prosecution of slaves commiting capitall crimes hath been found inconvenient by makeing the first offence of hog stealing felony, which is not so by the former laws of this his majestyes colony and dominion.
Be it therefore enacted by the Governour, Councell and Burgesses of this present Generall Assembly, and the authority thereof, and it is hereby enacted, That for the first offence of hog stealing commited by a negro or slave he shall be carried before a justice of the peace of the county where the fact was commited before whome being convicted of the said offence by one evidence or by his owne confession he shall by order of the said justice receive on his bare back thirty nine lashes well laid on, and for the second offence such negro or slave upon conviction before a court of record shall stand two hours in the pillory and have both his eares nailed thereto and at the expiration of the said two hours have his ears cutt off close by the nailes, any thing in the aforesaid act or in any other law to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3, p. 179.
October 1705-CHAP. IV. An act declaring who shall not bear office in this country.
[The text of this act suggests that a free man of color did hold an office sometime before October of 1705. The statute contains the first definition of a mulatto in Virginia's laws.]
BE it enacted by the governor, council and burgesses, of this present general assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That no person whatsoever, already convicted, or which hereafter shall be convicted in her majestys kingdom of England in this or in any other her majestys dominion, colonies, islands, territorys or plantations, or in any other kingdom, dominion or place, belonging to any foreigh prince or state whatsoever, of treason, murther, fellony, blasphemy, perjury, forgery or any other crime whatsoever, punishable by the laws of England, this country, or other place wherein he was convicted with the loss of life or member, nor any negro, mulatto or Indian, shall, from and after the publication of this act, bear any office, ecclesiasticall, civill or military, or be in any place of public trust or power, within this her majestys colony and dominion of Virginia, and that if any person convicted as aforesaid, or negro, mulatto or Indian shall presume to take upon him, act in, or exercise any office, ecclesiasticall, civill or military, or any place of publick trust or power, within this colony and dominion, notwithstanding he be thereunto in any manner whatsoever comissionated, appointed, chosen or impowered, and have a pardon for his crime, he shall for such his offence, forfeit and pay five hundred pounds current money, and twenty pounds of like money for every month he continues to act in or exercise such office or place after a recovery made of the said five hundred pounds.
And for clearing all manner of doubts which hereafter may happen to arise upon the construction of this act, or any other act, who shall be accounted a mulatto,
Be it enacted and declared, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the child of an Indian and the child, grand child, or great grand child, of a negro shall be deemed, accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3, pp. 250-251, 252.
October 1705-CHAP. XXII. An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves within this dominion, to be real estate.
[The legislators defined enslaved men, women, and children as real property in this act. See also the 1669 statute entitled An act about the casuall killing of slaves for another example of masters treating slaves as property.]
I. FOR the better settling and preservation of estates within this dominion,
II. Be it enacted, by the governor, council and burgesses of this present general assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this act, all negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves, in all courts of judicature, and other places, within this dominion, shall be held, taken, and adjudged, to be reat estate (and not chattels;) and shall descend unto the heirs and widows of persons departing this life, according to the manner and custom of land of inheritance, held in fee simple.
III. Provided always, That nothing in this act contained, shall be taken to extend to any merchant or factor, bringing any slaves into this dominion, or having any consignments thereof, unto them, for sale: But that such slaves whilst they remain unsold, in the possession of such merchant, or factor, or of their executors, administrators, or assigns, shall, to all intents and purposes, be taken, held, and adjudged, to be personal estate, in the same condition they should have been in, if this act had never been made.
IV. Provided also, That all such slaves shall be liable to the paiment of debts, and may be taken by execution, for that end, as other chattels or personal estate may be.
V. Provided also, That no such slaves shall be liable to be escheated, by reason of the decease pf the proprietor of the same, without lawful heirs: But all such slaves shall, in that case, be accounted and go as chattels, and other estate personal.
VI. Provided also, That no person, selling or alienating any such slave shall be obliged to cause such sale or alienation to be recorded, as is required by law to be done, upon the alienation of other real estate: But that the said sale or alienation may be made in the same manner as might have been done before the making of this act.
VII. Provided also, That this act, or any thing therein contained, shall not extend, nor be construed to extend, to give any person, being owner of any slave or slaves, and not seized of other real estate, the right or privilege as a freeholder, meant, mentioned, and intended, by one act of this present session of assembly, intituled, An act for regulating the elections of Burgesses, for settling their privileges, and for ascertaining their allowances.
VIII. Provided also, That it shall and may be lawful, for any person, to sue for, and recover, any slave, or damage, for the detainer, trover, or conversion thereof, by action personal, as might have been done if this act had never been made.
IX. Provided always, That where the nature of the case shall require it, any writ De Partitione facienda, or of dower, may be sued forth and prosecuted, to recover the right and possession of any such slave or slaves.
X. Provided, and be it enacted, That when any person dies intestate, leaving several children, in that case all the slaves of such person, (except the widow's dower, which is the be first set apart) shall be inventoried and appraised; and the value thereof shall be equally divided amongst all the said children; and the several proportions, according to such valuation and appraisement, shall be paid by the heir (to whom the said slaves shall descend, by virtue of this act) unto all and every the other said children. And thereupon, it shall and may be lawful for the said other children, and every of them, and their executors or administrators, as the case shall be, to commence and prosecute an action upon the case, at the common law, against such heir, his heirs, executors and administrators, for the recovery of their said several proportions, respectively.
XI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any widow, seised of any such slave or slaves, as aforesaid, as of the dower of her husband, shall send, or voluntarily permit to be sent out of this colony and dominion, such slave or slaves, or any of their increase, without the lawful consent of him or her in reversion, such widow shall forfeit all and every such slave or slaves, and all other the dower which she holds of the endowment of her husband's estate, unto the person or persons that shall have the reversion thereof; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. And if any widow, seized as aforesaid, shall be married to an husband, who shall send, or voluntary permit to be sent out of this colony and dominion, any such slave or slaves, or any of their increase, without the consent of him or her in reversion; in such case, it shall be lawful for him or her in reversion, to enter into, possess and enjoy all the estate which such husband holdeth, in right of his wife's dower, for and during the life of the said husband.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3, pp. 333-335
Listening to the Historian
Edited by Julie Bray, developed from Documentary History of Slavery in the United States. By a Native of Maryland. From the Libary of Congress collection, African American Perspectives: Pamphlets from the Daniel A.P. Murray Collection, 1818-1907.
In August of 1670, several months after Anthony Johnson's death, a jury in a Virginia court decided that, because "he was a Negro and by consequence an alien," ownership of the 250 acres Johnson once owned should be escheated, or reverted, to England.
Anthony and Mary Johnson had sold 200 acres of this land to two white settlers; the other 50 they gave to their son, Richard, who soon thereafter sold the land to another white settler.
Court Document regarding Anthony Johnson-Library of Congress
By virtue of a writt granted to me from [names listed here, which are illegible] John Stringer Escheator for the countys of Northhampton and Accomack to enquire what lands Anthonio Johnson late of Accomack County either in his life tyme. . . a jury of free. . . in the said Accomack County to enquire. . . doth declare that the said Anthony Johnson lately deceased in his life tyme was seized of fifty acres of land now in the possession of Rich. Johnson in the County of Accomack aforesaid and further that the said Anthony Johnson was a negro and by consequence an alien and for that cause the said land doth escheat to this . . . .
In some ways he was a lucky man. To be sure, finding yourself in bondage on a Virginia tobacco plantation was not the result of good luck, but Anthony Johnson would rise above his low status and undoubtedly become the envy of many colonists.
Anthony Johnson first arrived in Virginia in 1621. Referred to as "Antonio a Negro" in early records, Anthony went to work on a tobacco plantation. It's not clear whether he was an indentured servant (a servant contracted to work for a set amount of time) or a slave.
Anthony nearly lost his life in the spring of 1622. Virginia's Powhatan Indians, threatened by the encroachments of tobacco planters, staged a carefully-planned attack that took place on Good Friday. By the middle of the day, over three hundred and fifty colonists were dead. On the plantation where Anthony worked, fifty-two were killed. Only Anthony and four other men survived.
Anthony's luck continued. Several years later, "Mary a Negro" was brought in to work on the plantation -- she was the only woman on the plantation. At the time, Virginia was populated almost exclusively by men. Still, Anthony and Mary became husband and wife, and they had four children.
Anthony and Mary eventually bought their way out of bondage. They acquired their own land. During the 1640s Anthony and Mary lived at their own place, raising livestock. By the 1650s, their estate had grown to 250 acres. For any ex-servant -- black or white -- to own his own land was uncommon, despite the promise made by the Virginia Company to give a tract of land to each servant at the end of service. For an ex-servant to own 250 acres was rarer still.
In 1665 Anthony and his family sold their 250 acres and moved to Maryland, where they leased a 300-arce tract of land. Anthony died five years later, in the spring of 1670; Mary renegotiated the lease for another 99 years. That same year, a court back in Virginia ruled that, because "he was a Negro and by consequence an alien," the land owned by Johnson (in Virginia) rightfully belonged to the Crown.
Anthony Johnson lived a long life when, in America, disease and violent death by cruel overseers and Indian attacks resulted in low life expectancies. Court records reveal that he had the respect of his community -- a respect that would be denied African Americans in the years to come.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1i3025.html
Given that there is a situation of black and white indentured servants, how did they begin to interact or deal with one another? Is there any sense of a commonality that crosses over differences of race or ethnicity?
There are many ways that human beings divide themselves up. Class is one, [and] gender, race, ethnicity. There's a number of ways that people divide themselves up. And in early Virginia, race was a category that people recognized. Black people recognized difference, and sometimes, I would even argue, celebrated difference. But in this highly competitive, depressingly abusive world, poorer whites and poorer blacks -- people who were marginalized in this system of dependent labor -- oftentimes reached out to each other in ways that suggest that, at least in the first 50 or 60 years of Virginia, [1667-1677] ...people of African background and English background were able to work together in ways that, again, in later period of American history, were impossible.
Timothy H. Breen
William Smith Mason Professor of American History
Northwestern University
Document C- Margaret Washington
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1i3027.html
What are some of the issues that begin to start changing the colony towards an enslaved labor force, versus the indentured labor force?
Virginia becomes very heavily engaged in tobacco. Tobacco is a crop that needs a tremendous amount of laborers, far more laborers than the Virginians were able to get from Great Britain. The supply of Africans in this colonial era seemed [inexhaustible]. And the African merchants and traders were willing to provide the Europeans with as many laborers as they needed. So why bother with indentured servants who, after 7, 18, or 21 years [would have to be freed], when you could have Africans serve their lifetime, and serve in perpetuity through their children?
Margaret Washington
Associate Professor of History
Cornell University
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1i3024.html
What would be the difference between an enslaved person during that time -- or a person deemed a slave -- and a person who was a servant?
There's been a great debate among amongst historians for a very long time about the relative status of black men and women and poor white men and women in the period before 1660 in Virginia. It was once assumed that blacks were slaves for life, and whites were servants for 3, 4, 5, 7 years, depending on the contract. That was that. But the more people delved into the records, they found that, in fact, these statuses were not at all clear. Some blacks were slaves for life. Some seem to have been servants. Some seem to have achieved a freedom of some sort, of very various degrees of dependency on former masters and patrons and whatnot. Servants were in these contracts. They seem to have been treated dreadfully, and in some ways maybe even worse than some of the blacks, because as their contracts ran out, [they were] almost -- I don't want to be vulgar -- but treated like cars that you might rent, and you know that you you're going to run out on the contract. In any case, the experience of these whites was terrible.
My point is that in the early years of Virginia, these kinds of statuses were unclear, even to the people that were alive then. There was a range of possibilities. And you would certainly not assume that just simply because a man or woman was an African American, that he or she was a slave.
Now, if we turned forward a century into the 18th century you find a hardening of these kinds of categories. The racial assumptions are there. A man's skin determines his status. But that was not true in the early years.
Peter Wood
Professor of History
Duke University
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1i2994.html
What was the status of the Africans who arrived in 1619?
The famous comment of John Wolf that in the summer of 1619 a Dutch man of war brought 20 Africans to Virginia shouldn't lead us to believe that those Africans were immediately enslaved by the English, if by that we mean assigned to a particular legal category, a category that defined these people as pieces of property. The actual legal and the social status of these first Africans to arrive in Virginia was very, very ambiguous indeed. And in the 1630s and '40s, we find examples of free Africans in Virginia, which has led some historians to argue that these first arrivals were treated very much as English servants would have been treated, that is, freed after a set term of years.
Betty Wood
Professor of History
Oxford University
http://www.dinsdoc.com/russell-1.html
What was slavery like for Anthony Johnson in the 1600’s?
Historically, the English only enslaved non-Christians, and not, in particular, Africans. And the status of slave (Europeans had African slaves prior to the colonization of the Americas) was not one that was life-long. A slave could become free by converting to Christianity. The first Virginia
colonists did not even think of themselves as "white" or use that word to describe themselves. They saw themselves as Christians or Englishmen, or in terms of their social class. They were nobility, gentry, artisans, or servants.
One of the few recorded histories of an African in America that we can glean from early court records is that of "Antonio the negro," as he was named in the 1625 Virginia census. He was brought to the colony in 1621. At this time, English and Colonial law did not define racial slavery; the census calls him not a slave but a "servant." Later, Antonio changed his name to
Anthony Johnson, married an African American servant named Mary, and they had four children. Mary and Anthony also became free, and he soon owned land and cattle and even indentured servants of his own. By 1650, Anthony was still one of only 400 Africans in the colony among nearly 19,000 settlers. In Johnson's own county, at least 20 African men and women were free, and 13 owned their own homes.
Author: Russell, John H.
Title: "Colored Freemen as Slave Owners in Virginia."
Citation: Journal of Negro History Vol. 1 (June 1916) pg. 234-35
http://www.dinsdoc.com/russell-1.html
Why might the colonist change the conditions of slavery?
Traditionally, Englishmen believed they had a right to enslave a non-Christian or a captive taken in a just war. Africans and Indians might fit one or both of these definitions. But what if they learned English and converted to the Protestant church? Should they be released from bondage and given "freedom dues?" What if, on the other hand, status were determined not by (changeable) religious faith but by (unchangeable) skin color?
Also, the indentured servants, especially once freed, began to pose a threat to the property-owning elite. The colonial establishment had placed restrictions on available lands, creating unrest among newly freed indentured servants. In 1676, working class men burned down Jamestown, making indentured servitude look even less attractive to Virginia leaders. Also, servants moved on, forcing a need for costly replacements; slaves, especially ones you could identify by skin color, could not move on and become free competitors.
In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to legally recognize slavery. Other states, such as Virginia, followed. In 1662, Virginia decided all children born in the colony to a slave mother would be enslaved. Slavery was not only a life-long condition; now it could be passed, like skin color, from generation to generation.
In 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation, where he died five years later. But back in Virginia that same year, a jury decided the land Johnson left behind could be seized by the government because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien." In 1705 Virginia declared that "All servants imported and brought in this County... who were not Christians in their Native Country... shall be slaves. A Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves ... shall be held to be real estate."
English suppliers responded to the increasing demand for slaves. In 1672, England officially got into the slave trade as the King of England chartered the Royal African Company, encouraging it to expand the British slave trade. In 1698, the English Parliament ruled that any British subject could trade in slaves. Over the first 50 years of the 18th century, the number of Africans brought to British colonies on British ships rose from 5,000 to 45,000 a year. England had passed Portugal and Spain as the number one trafficker of slaves in the world.
"All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such
slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened." Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705
Author: Russell, John H.
Title: "Colored Freemen as Slave Owners in Virginia."
Citation: Journal of Negro History Vol.1 (June 1916) pg. 234-35
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1i3056.html
Anthony Johnson is among the earlier shipments of Africans to the Americas. Describe him, and what he is encountering?
[Anthony Johnson] comes to Virginia. He finds a society that is just developing. He's getting in on the ground floor, as it were. I don't know if he was able to immediately envision that there would be opportunities for him here that weren't available elsewhere. I don't know that anyone could have foretold that. Johnson's story becomes, though, something of an exception in that he demonstrates first, that slavery is not lifetime tenure, it's indefinite tenure. The key is not that you're going to be slave from the day you born until the day you die. Because after all, slavery is a status, it's not inherent in any individual. It's relationship with others and a relationship recognized by the society. And the key to it is that it's indefinite. You are a slave until someone who has authority over you declares you no longer to be a slave in the eyes of the practicing society and in the eyes of the law.
So Johnson works his way to the opportunity to become his own person, as it were -- to leave behind him that status of slave. And then he goes on to do what he sees his neighbors doing; he seeks to get his own piece of ground, his own piece of land to cultivate some foodstuffs, to cultivate some foodstuffs that he can sell to others, not only to consume but to enter into the economy, to barter, to argue with his neighbors about the encroachment on his lands and encroachment on his rights. To argue about his contract rights. What he demonstrates is an early fluidity that exists. And what that reflects is that there is vast opportunity and a relatively small population to take advantage of that opportunity. So that people aren't confining everybody immediately to a niche. The areas are rather broad and they allow movement in and out.
Thomas J. Davis
Professor of History
Arizona State University