In 1655, a Black freedman named Anthony Johnson took another Black man, John Casor, to court in colonial Virginia. Johnson claimed Casor was his servant for life. Casor insisted his indenture had expired, and he had gone to work for a white man named Robert Parker. The court sided with Johnson. It ruled that Casor was Johnson’s property for life. Many claim this was the first legal recognition of lifetime slavery in the English colonies. Because Johnson was Black, it’s often cited to argue “Blacks owned slaves too,” or that race-based slavery wasn’t original to colonial law.
Here’s the Thing. We don’t know if these people were “Black” or not. We don’t know who they were. Most of our history is inference done by scholarship that seems to find convenient explanations due to present ideas. Something people forget in these inquries is that White before it was racialized was a religious identifier throughout Europe. Black meant enslaved. It was social status that wasn’t interlinked with a racial origin or skin color. Negroes were seen as “heathens.” It was colloquial with savage. But let’s break this down using pure logic and actual records.
Historians say that Anthony Johnson was the same “Antonio a Negro” from the Muster of the Inhabitants of Virginia (1624/1625) it was a kind of census after the 1622 Powhatan uprising. This document list individuals, when they arrived, and on which ship.
Here’s what it says:
“Antonio a Negro. He arrived in Virginia in 1621 on the James. Servant to Edward Bennett.”
That’s the only known entry we have that directly references supposed Anthony Johnson’s arrival.
At the time, he was called “Antonio a Negro” “suggesting” Portuguese influence and a racial designation, but no African country or ethnicity is listed. So historians INFER that he was Angolan (because he was called Negro) because of Portuguese involvement in the TAST in that region. But they also infer that Antonio a Negro became Anthony Johnson but as you can imagine there is no document showing “Antonio” became “Anthony Johnson.” No surname. No continuity record. No statement from Johnson himself. It’s an educated guess taught as if it was certainty. This alone should raise red flags. Their logic is that since there was an Antonio (a Negro) recorded as a servant he was a Negro (don’t you see how racist this is?). The problem is we can’t even infer these were the same people.
What we do know however is there’s a man in the 1640s–50s named Anthony Johnson, a free man who owned land and had servants. Historians assume they’re the same person because the names sound similar. It could be the anglicized version of Antonio but history actually gave us a huge clue when it comes to Antonio. Edward Bennett.
Bennett was a Puritan merchant who financed the transport of laborers from England. He received his land patent in 1621 and began populating it through contracts with shipowners. The James was one of the ships that transported his indentured laborers and possibly enslaved Africans to Virginia ALTHOUGH there is NO mention of the James ship outside of this document. Here is where it gets a little crazy.
Bennett received a land patent in 1621 from the Virginia Company to establish a plantation along the Nansemond River (later Isle of Wight County, Virginia). His plantation was called “Bennett’s Welcome.” (Brown, Alexander. The Genesis of the United States (1890), Vol. II, p. 889.)(“Edward Bennett, a wealthy London merchant, a member of the Virginia Company and a strict Puritan, obtained a patent of land and sent over settlers in the ship Sea Flower, and others in the ship James, in 1621.”)
“Antonio a Negro” listed as a servant to Edward Bennett who arrived “on the James in 1621.” This is the only surviving document tying a person of supposed “African” descent to the James. Bennett contracted to transport 200 settlers to Virginia as part of the terms of his patent.
(Coldham, Peter Wilson. The Complete Book of Emigrants: 1607–1660 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1987), entry for 1621.)
Alexander Brown in The Genesis of the United States (1890), Vol. II, p. 889 stated
“On November 21, 1621, a patent of land on the south side of the **James River** was granted to Edward Bennett, a London merchant and a Puritan. The patent was for 2,000 acres, on condition that he should transport at his own expense two hundred settlers to the colony.”
hmmmmmmm? The James River? Did Antonio arrive “on the James” via a Ship transporting the contracted labour OR did he arrive on a ship called James?
We KNOW he came VIA a Ship called the James, he didn’t come alone either he came with other laborers contracted by Edward FROM ENGLAND. He could’ve came from Iberia. By all historical accounts and the contemporary, linguistic traditions of that time period he was indeed a Moor (or what we would today call a Black European but that’s all we can infer for now.)
“Antonio a Negro” MIGHT be Anthony Johnson, but we do not know definitively. We do know that “Antonio a Negro” was recorded as a laborer contracted by Bennet that had came by way of England. All we do know is a man named Antonio, listed as ‘a Negro,’ arrived in Virginia by way of England in 1621 as a servant to Edward Bennett. Historians have speculated but cannot prove that he later became Anthony Johnson, a landowner who appears in records decades later.
Now John Casor
John Casor is often cited as the first person legally declared a “slave for life” in English North America but the full story reveals how ambiguous and contested servitude actually was in the mid-1600s. In 1655, John Casor a man referred to as a “Negro” in court records claimed he had served more than the term agreed upon in his indenture. He said he was bound for 7–8 years, but his master, Anthony Johnson (referred to as a Negro as well), refused to release him, claiming Casor was his servant for life.
The court sided with Johnson despite there being no written indenture produced and forced Casor to return to Johnson’s service.
Northampton County Court Record, March 8, 1655
Parties Involved
Anthony Johnson (Black landowner, called “Negro” in record)
John Casor (Black servant/laborer, also called “Negro”)
Robert Parker (white neighbor who took in Casor, believing he was free)
Captain Samuel Goldsmith (testifying witness)
Captain Samuel Goldsmith (c. 1620–bef. 1671) was an Englishman who immigrated to the American colonies and settled in the Province of Maryland, where he died around 1671. According to genealogical records, he married Johanna Hewer around 1649 and had at least two children, Susanna and Blanche.
Goldsmith’s only known involvement in early Virginia legal affairs is as the sole witness in the pivotal 1655 court case involving John Casor and Anthony Johnson, which became one of the earliest documented cases in which a court ruled that a Black man could be held in servitude for life in English colonial America.
According to Goldsmith’s deposition given in open court. He had visited Anthony Johnson’s property to collect a hogshead of tobacco a routine exchange in colonial plantation society.
While there, John Casor approached him directly and asserted that:
He had arrived in Virginia under an indenture of seven or eight years. He had served his term and an additional seven years beyond that. Johnson refused to release him, claiming instead that Casor was his servant for life. Casor pleaded with Goldsmith for help, asking him to make sure he wasn’t wronged.
When Goldsmith asked Johnson to produce the indenture, Johnson claimed he had never seen one. Casor insisted he had a contract and noted that others, including Robert and George Parker, could vouch for its existence. Johnson’s wife, two sons, and son-in-law eventually persuaded him to let Casor go, fearing Casor would sue and win Johnson’s property specifically his cattle.
This deposition is crucial because it shows Casor as an articulate, rights-aware individual who asserted a breach of contract. It also shows the internal fear among landowners of legal consequences, suggesting that indentured agreements were taken seriously at this time.
Despite this, when Johnson later sued Robert Parker for harboring Casor, the court ruled in Johnson’s favor, ordering that Casor return to Johnson’s service for life making Casor the first known person in English America legally declared a slave based on civil court proceedings, not criminal law or race-based codes (which would come later).
Key Claims from the Deposition
- John Casor claimed he was indentured, not enslaved: “…came into Virginia for seaven or Eight yeares (per Indenture)…”
- Casor said he had been kept 7 years longer than agreed. “…had kept him his servant seaven yeares longer than hee ought…”
- Goldsmith asked Johnson for the Indenture; Johnson admitted: “…hee never sawe any… But that hee had him for his life.”
- Goldsmith confirms that others—Robert Parker and George Parker—also believed Casor had an indenture. “…they knew that the said Negro had an Indenture…”
- Johnson released Casor only after being pressured by family and fear of legal consequences. “…was in a feare… his sonne in lawe, his wife and his 2 sonnes perswaded [him]…”
The Court’s Judgment was:
“…Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master…”
“…Judgment… That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of his said master Anthony Johnson…”
This was a civil dispute over labor and contract heard in a local county court with no racial or Christian/Heathen (IYKYK) law cited. It was, essentially, a case of a person being held in lifetime servitude based on assertion, not statute. In colonial Virginia, servitude existed on a spectrum: Indentured Servitude a contracted agreement (usually written) where a person worked for a master for a fixed term (typically 4–7 years). Often used to repay passage to America, punishment for a crime, settle a debt, or learn a trade. At the end of their term, the servant would receive “freedom dues” land, tools, or clothing.
Colonists and some Amerindians alike got in the habit of hiring out their children as indentured servants. This was done either to settle a debt, or as a way for the child to learn a trade.
There was also Servitude Without Indenture. Some individuals especially the poor, orphans, indigenous or “Negroes” were bound without clear contracts. Lacking documentation made it easier to exploit them, as courts often ruled based on hearsay or assumed status. Slavery was by custom, not yet full law. Before Virginia’s 1705 Slave Codes, slavery was not yet fully codified. Lifetime servitude began through case law and precedent, often without formal legal status. Cases like Casor’s helped blur the line between indenture and hereditary slavery, especially for those called “Negro” or not Christian.
NOW THINK THIS IS BEFORE THE TAST MADE IT TO COLONIAL ANGLO AMERICA!
Casor told Captain Samuel Goldsmith that he came to Virginia for seven or eight years (per indenture). Indentured servitude was an English legal institution, formalized through written contracts, and not something captives arrived with. Indentured servants were usually contracted in England before boarding the ship. He was under English law and contract before arriving, meaning he was processed in England.
He explained the terms of his indenture and demanded relief from being wrongfully held. Which implies he Understood English fluently, Knew how English common law worked, and Expected it to apply to him. Casor was familiar with English legal customs, suggesting he lived in or came through England, not from an African port. Captives brought directly to the Americas did not arrive with English names. Most had their names changed upon baptism or purchase. “John Casor” sounds like a freeborn or Christianized name, likely assigned in England or passed down from English naming patterns. His name fits the pattern of English-born or acculturated Moors.
Many Black people in early 1600s Virginia came from Iberia or England, not directly from Africa. Casor fits into this early group of Black Englishmen or Iberian Moors who had been absorbed into the English labor system before coming to America. If Casor had come from Africa, it would likely have been stated, as it was often documented in other early records. Instead, he is just called a “Negro” a term used broadly in England for Moors, Ladinos, and Iberian Black people.
What makes this a curious case is the Powhatan Confederacy Uprising in the exact same area is what caused this.
The 1622 Powhatan Uprising marked a turning point in colonial Virginia. It was an attempt by the Powhatan Confederacy to drive out English settlers. This revolt, orchestrated by the Powhatan leader Opechancanough, was a direct response to escalating English expansion where they were stealing land. They forced tribute and cultural imposition through Christianization.
The Powhatan Confederacy killed approximately 347 English colonists, which represented roughly one-quarter of the entire colonial population at the time. This caused the labor shortages.
On the contrary, it set in motion a decade-long campaign of retaliation.
Edward Waterhouse (1622), Virginia Company Official
In his publication A Declaration of the State of the Colony and Affairs in Virginia (1622), describing the aftermath of the uprising:
This is one of the earliest written endorsements of enslaving Powhatan children, justified as retribution and as a “civilizing” act. Waterhouse was a secretary of the Virginia Company and his statements reflect the early ideology behind Amerindian bondage.
As Virginia transformed from a venture of the Virginia Company to a royal colony under direct English Crown control in 1624, colonists began treating Amerindians people as enemies by default.
They rationalized enslavement, land seizure, and total war as necessary measures for survival. From this environment emerged a legal and social architecture in which Indigenous people, especially those captured during war, could be enslaved indefinitely. The collapse of the Powhatan resistance particularly after the second failed uprising in 1644 and the death of Opechancanough opened the door for colonists to treat captured Amerindian men, women, and children as spoils of war.
These captives were forced into domestic servitude or agricultural labor (Like TOBACO), and some were sold into Caribbean markets. Amerindian slavery had already created legal and cultural precedents for lifelong, hereditary bondage.
It’s in this evolving colonial system that the 1655 case of John Casor takes place was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader transition away from contractual labor toward permanent racialized servitude. The context that made this possible was built in the decades following the Powhatan uprisings.
Those conflicts had conditioned colonial courts and society to view non-English, non-Christian people as inherently servile, their freedom contingent not on law but on power and classification. The legal ambiguity of Casor’s case mirrors the conditions under which many Indigenous people especially defeated Powhatans were enslaved: lacking clear contracts, operating in a society now willing to equate “heathen” or “Negro” status with permanent bondage. By the time Casor made his plea, the colony had already internalized the idea that some people could be enslaved not through criminality or contract breach, but by nature of who they were.
Linda Heywood and John Thornton in Central Africans, Atlantic Creoles, and the Foundation of the Americas write:
I’ll list specific colonial Virginia laws from the 17th century that explicitly mention Indians, including in conjunction with Negroes, and address their legal status, enslavement, and racialization. All are drawn from primary sources, especially William W. Hening’s Statutes at Large, the foundational legal archive of colonial Virginia.
Act of March 1661/62
Recognition of Indian slavery and war captivity
This is an early, explicit legal authorization of the lifetime enslavement of Indians, especially those captured during armed conflict. This was directly relevant to the Powhatan and other tribes subdued in the aftermath of the 1622 and 1644 uprisings.
Act of September 1667
Baptism does not change enslaved status
Both Indians and Negroes were included in this law. This act severed the connection between Christianity and freedom, reinforcing the idea that religious conversion could not protect Indians from enslavement.
Act of October 1670
Classification of those who may be enslaved
This law specifically implies that Indians, whether captured or local, were a separate enslaveable class, though with a different jurisdictional treatment than imported Negroes.
Act of October 1682
Defining slaves as non-Christians
This law formalized racial slavery in Virginia. Indians were legally grouped with Negroes, Moors, and mulattoes all non-Christian foreigners subject to lifetime servitude.
Act of 1691
Interracial marriage and banishment
This law confirms that Indians were legally racialized alongside Negroes, and interracial relations involving Indians were criminalized and punishable by banishment.
1705 Virginia Slave Code (Early 18th century but based on 17th-century laws)
This consolidated earlier legal frameworks that had already normalized the enslavement of Indians. It confirmed that by the early 1700s, Indian slavery had become entrenched and racialized.
These laws show that Indians were explicitly named in colonial Virginia law as a parallel enslaveable group alongside Negroes whose non-Christian status justified enslavement.
If you notice the curious nature of these laws, they listed groups that could be conflated.
A curiosity indeed arises. If so many of these people were enslaved for life and it was a practice, in Continental America and sometimes sold off to the Caribbean and purchased from there, then where are the remnants of their DNA?
Who exactly were these “Negroes” ? This is before The Royal African Company Charter (1672)
All of this shows that slavery was has been racialized retroactively. Kinda Ironic, considering that as the Amerindian population dwindled, the Enslaved population increased.
It seem to have been religious based or maybe servitude based. (Negro, Black, Christian, White, Heathen, etc)
