Simple Sam wrote:
You are leaving out important facts. First the flag that upsets you was a battle flag. The Confederate flag was not even close.
Second, those early slaves were indentured slaves. The import of complete ownership came later. Also, those early slaves actually fought with the Brits against the Patriots.
Most slave owners did not own cotton plantations and after the invention of the cotton gin, blacks were seldom used. However, they were used on sugar and rice plantations. Blacks were used for one reason, rice and sugar was grown in some areas of Africa and there was evidence that slaves taken from the Gold Coast by Islamic, Portuguese, and Dutch traders were familiar with the methods of cultivation practiced in their native country.
It is a myth that all white settlers owned slaves and farms could not exist without their labor. In fact, the first documented slave owner was a black. Another issue with the newly taught history they conveniently leave out facts, such as less than 5 percent of whites in the south owned black slaves. Did you know, prior to 1654, all Africans in the thirteen colonies were held in indentured servitude and were released after a contracted period with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts for work expired? Probably not.
The first official slave owner in America was an Angolan who adopted the European name of Anthony Johnson. He was sold to slave traders in 1621 by an enemy tribe in his native Africa, and was registered as "Antonio, a Negro" in the official records of the Colony of Virginia. He went to work for a white farmer as an indentured servant. By July 1651 Johnson had five indentured servants of his own. In 1664, he brought a case before Virginia courts in which he contested a suit launched by one of his indentured servants, a Negro who adopted the name of John Casor. Johnson won the suit and retained Casor as his servant for life, who thus became the first official and true slave in America.
You are leaving out important facts. First the fl... (
show quote)
LOL simple sam you are way off base here. The cotton gin was a machine that separated the cotton fibers from the cotton seeds. It did not plant, grow and harvest cotton crops. In fact, while it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor.