SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
THE ROAD TO SLAVERY IN NORTH AMERICA:
THE IMPORTANCE OF A CENTRAL ISSUE AND HOW RACISM BECAME STEP
BY STEP A PREDOMINANT ONE IN VIRGINIA
Şerban Dan BLIDARIU, PhD Candidate, University of the West Timişoara
Abstract: The paper aims to prove how slavery systems are each defined by one central issue
which, over time, gives meaning to the system and splits society between two extremes, master
and slave, based on a dichotomy. The text will present how for the British colony of Virginia
that central notion was race but also how these ideas can differ. By looking at three different
societies: Ancient Rome, the Spanish colonial empire and the British Empire, three separate
central issues are brought forth: citizenship; religion; racism. By concentrating on how slavery
appeared in the British colonies and focusing on Virginia, the gradual importance of the racial
issue and the way it gained preeminence over ideas of citizenship and religion will become
clearer. We will show how, in the course of a few decades, the status of newly arrived
immigrants ended up being decided on grounds of race alone.
Keywords: citizenship; dichotomy; racism; religion; slavery.
Slavery predated the American Revolution in the British colonies for more than a
century and a half and persisted for almost a century still after the United States of America
gained their independence. Racism, on the other hand, continued to exist after emancipation and
outlived slavery by far. However, the two appeared almost in unison within the colonies and coexisted a long time in a way that made them almost inseparable, leaving behind a legacy that
left its mark on history. The manner of their appearance will be the focus of this paper and we
have chosen the colony of Virginia in order to more explicitly exemplify how racism gradually
gained preeminence over ideas of citizenship and religion and how, through this, it became the
predominant issue of British colonial slavery. We have chosen Virginia due to its importance in
early colonial politics and after, especially during the American Revolution, even though our
interest now lies in the first decades of its existence. By doing so we will analyze the connection
between the three notions: citizenship, racism, religion and present our view of the origin of
slavery in the British colony of Virginia.
The origin of one slavery system can he historically traced but the origin of the idea of
slavery seems beyond physical evidence. David Brion Davis, though, leaving aside pure
scientific proof, finds the reason, ironically, in humanity’s search for perfection: “Since man has
a remarkable capacity to imagine abstract states of perfection he very early imagined a perfect
form of subordination” (Davis, 1999, p. 39). Even though this can hardly serve as an irrefutable
argument, it remains, nonetheless, something to think about: how humanity’s quest for
excellence can be a double-edged sword.
The origin of one specific system, though, can be more easily determined by following
its connection to the idea that came to define it. Slavery as an institution cannot live outside of a
system and each system needs to be based on a central idea. However, there was no single idea
that defined slavery everywhere for each system could have had its own. Thus, the discussion
can be broadened to include the subject of a multitude of legacies when it comes to slavery,
each unique system leaving behind its own heritage in the course of history and its own
mechanism and ways to function. All of these are open to comparison, which we will briefly do
239
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
with the three systems we have selected: the one used in Ancient Rome, the one employed by
the Spanish empire and the one that appeared in the British colony of Virginia.
Today the notion of slavery seems to be more often connected to racism but historically
this was not always so. In the colony of Virginia, for example, racism came to overrule
citizenship and even religion, but a slavery system could have been defined by either of the two
notions and throughout history this was so. The Ancient Roman slavery system was in the end
defined by citizenship and the Spanish colonial system was defined by religion. What was
similar to all slavery systems, though, was that there had to be a dichotomy in order to split
society between two extremes starting from one governing idea, be it racism, citizenship,
religion, or another one. In order for this to happen a group needed to have ascendency over
another (Mill, 2002, p. 8-9). This split between an ‘us’ and the ‘rest’ implies the existence of an
‘other’. Obviously, the ascended class or group defined themselves, the ‘us’, as superior and the
‘other’, the ‘rest’, as inferior. The way in which the first group defined and set themselves apart
was not in any way universal. It was variable. The basics of the relationship between master and
slave were somewhat constant, only the central idea changed. The gap within society was
supposed to reflect the distance between two extreme notions within the central idea. More
plainly, racism split society between white and black in the British colonies, while the religious
issue in the Spanish empire distinguished between Christians and non-Christians and, in the
case of newly-found populations, between Christianizable and un-Christianizable. Also,
according to the citizenship issue, people were split between citizens and non-citizens. This
relationship had to be both a legal one and a moral one in a way, implying some form of ethical
bias. Outside of a legal relationship slavery could not have been justified within a society.
These justifications also had moral implications which had to be solved somehow or else the
system would start to lose ground in the eyes of the people and be questioned. It was only after
the slave started to be seen as a moral entity that slavery as an institution began to have better
conditions and, step by step or through turbulence, disappear (Tannenbaum, 1968, p. 5-9).
In Ancient Rome the dichotomy was between citizenship and non-citizenship, with
citizenship clearly defined by law and the slave being legally non-existent, not recognized as a
person. A slave belonged to his master in all ways whatsoever. In the older days of Ancient
Rome, the archaic period, a slave was in a way also a family member if we take into account
that the pater familias had an extreme form of authority over his wife and children, making
them also his property (Alfoldy, 1988, p. 10-11). The most important rights belonging to a
Roman citizen was that he could practice free trade, marry, elect and be elected, while a slave
could not do any of these things on his own. However, if his/her master allowed it, a slave could
marry, get educated and even practice free trade. Even though a person’s legal status was what
truly mattered, slaves were not considered to be naturally inferior and the slaves of rich masters
had many responsibilities, the most educated of them being the teacher’s of their master’s
children (Buckland, 2010, p. 6). However, slavery was viewed as normal and the slave was by
all means legally inferior, which led to strange situations from a modern perspective. The
traditionally-minded Elder Cato, an important historical figure, ate alongside his slaves but still
counted them as tools in his written works like De Agri Cultura. As proof that the institution of
slavery was seen as a normal in Ancient Rome was the fact that we have no evidence of
abolitionist from those times, not even from those who remained in slavery or were
manumitted. Even the famed revolt of Spartacus was a rebellion against the particular
240
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
enslavement of those in question and not directed toward the idea of slavery, according to Geza
Alfoldy. However, because slaves were not seen as being naturally inferior, there was no
significant legal difference between a freed slave, or libertus, and a man who was born free. A
libertus could not be elected and hold public office, but there were no such restriction for
his/her children, if born free. An extreme and unique example was Pertinax, the son of a former
slave who, for a short period of time, became emperor of Rome (Alfoldy, 1988, p. 11, 31, 70,
252). Another important example is the poet Horace, again a son of a libertus and whose father
did everything he could to offer his son the best education. Also, there were no obstacles for
manumission for a very capable slave like Tiro, the right-hand man and close friend of Cicero,
one of the greatest orators of the ancient world. In one of his works, De Legibus (On Laws),
Cicero wrote that in spite of legal status or other differences, what makes both slaves and free
persons human was the fact that they were rational. Out of respect for Tiro’s capabilities, Cicero
freed him and Tiro decided to remain in the orator’s service as a free man and, after Cicero
died, it was Tiro who published his speeches (Zock, 1998, 237-238, 138-139).
The slavery system of colonial Spain had religion as the central issue and was defined
by it. Being a Christian was what truly mattered and due to the power of the Church in Spain in
the 16th century and the importance of religious standards, the slavery system had to take into
account the ability of the slave to become a Christian even if up to that point he/she had not
even been baptized yet. There was the opinion the lack of harshness would make the members
of other, just discovered civilizations, more open to the idea of baptism (Hanke 1974: 145).
Slaves had a status within the law. When a person or group was enslaved he/they had, in theory,
some form of protection. This can be seen as the reason why the Spanish colonial system
treated Africans in a different manner that the British colonial institution. The law could have
acted against prejudice. As Frank Tannenbaum said, Spanish law recognized the African as a
slave from the moment he entered the system even though the regular Spaniard might not have
known or recognized him as a man. Legally, the slaves had some rights and were permitted a
limited social life. Married slaves could not be sold separately if they had been baptized or
married by a priest. Also, it was not unheard of for a slave to purchase his own freedom
(Tannenbaum, 1968, p. 62-69). Being baptized or being considered baptizable was the true way
into Spanish society and under the protection of the law. A closer look leads us to the debate
that took place at Valladolid in 1550 between Bartolome de las Casas, who some believed
started Latin American political thought, and Juan Gines de Sepulveda (Vacano, 2007, p. 249).
Both of them were chosen as representatives of two powerful views within the line of thought at
that period and both were important persons in their time. Las Casas wrote a lot on issues like
slavery and the cruelty of the Spanish empire toward the Indians. Among his most important
works are A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies and, more important for its
connection with the Valladolid debate, In Defense of the Indians. This debate was what
eventually made the Spanish slavery system milder toward both Indians and Africans. The
debate had at its core the historical context at that time and the methods of conquest employed
by the Spanish empire. The two had to appear before the Royal Council, which was supposed to
decide if the methods of conquest were either moral or immoral. Even more so, the council was
going to make a statement about the Indian nation (or race, as some in that age has seen it) that
had the possibility of influencing the future on an entire population. The religious issue was at
the center because what was under discussion was the ability of the Indians to receive
241
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
Christianity and if the Spanish empire, and the Church, for that matter, had any right to impose
Christianity through military action. Las Casas was the one who defended the Indians claiming
that all nations were capable of Christianity and all that was needed was a teacher and not
military enforcement. His arguments, which he presented before the Royal Council, were later
on published under the name In Defense of the Indians and he quoted in his speech various
historical personalities, including Saint Ambrose, a former ancient bishop of Mediolanum
(today Milan), who stated that God does not distinguish between class, race, or nation (Hanke,
1974, p. 4-11). On the other side, Juan Gines de Sepulveda claimed that the only way to
Christianize the Indian population and later on colonize the land was through force of arms. To
him, this was the equivalent of the right of conquest and thus he defended the actions of the
Spanish empire up to that point (Hanke and Rausch, 2006, p. 160-163).
British colonial slavery, which we will show in more detail how it was connected to
racism, did not appear as part of a pre-existent plan. Ideas of enslavement started to take shape
after the formation of the colonies and there was no turning back. Racism appeared as a
consequence of the colonial development of European countries sometime between the XVIth
and XVIIth centuries, according to Lawrence B. Goodheart. Members of a colonial empire, not
including only those at the top, viewed themselves and their culture as being superior and thus
many of the cultures they interacted with were deemed inferior (Goodheart 1993: XV). The fact
that colonists did not have slavery on their minds from the start ended up having a big
downside: they could mold their slave system any way they wanted because there were no legal
obstacles and they could introduce their prejudices into the law, especially after they had begun
to import Africans. Also, each colony had the ability to introduce its own particularities and in
order to be as specific as possible we have decided to focus on a single one, Virginia (Degler,
1968, p. 81), which we will soon do.
In most situations, colonists came as indentured servants, meaning someone else paid
for their trip because they could not afford it. In return they had to agree to work for the one
who paid for a number of years, usually between four and seven. This situation was obviously a
compromise, having both advantages and disadvantages for the one who agreed to the period of
indenture. The agreement was written in a contract and signed by both parts. Those who signed
were guaranteed freedom after the period, but by today’s standards they had masters, not
employers, and the proof of this was that the one who paid for the trip could sell the indentured
servants for the remaining period if their services were no longer needed (Jordan, 1968, p. 44).
Indentured servants were also promised goods and land of their own after the period ended but
the promises were not so easy to fulfill after most of the available land had already been given
away, especially the best one. Thus, later colonists were expected to continue to work for their
former masters as free men after their years of servitude was finished, or become tenants.
However, the reason why some colonists left England in the first place was to be financially
independent in the end and the new turn of events no longer suited them, which would
eventually lead to increased discontent and conflict (Olson, 1990, p. 5). Everything previously
mentioned in this paragraph applied to English indentured servants and to some Africans for a
short number of years.
Referring now strictly to the colony of Virginia, the fate of the forced immigrants from
Africa who were brought was not the same. Only a part became indentured servants and gained
freedom afterwards in the same manner as those that came from Europe. The first 20 Africans
242
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
were brought in 1619 by a Dutch ship and for them and others after them some changes in the
indenture system had to be made because there was not so much land that could be awarded.
The stats of the English indentured servants and of African indentured servants was at first the
same, but not for long. An idea was to increase the period of indenture but it could hardly be
applied to British citizens because it would have drastically reduced the number of willing
colonists and only very few would have agreed to become indentured servants from that
moment on. Thus, the solution was to apply it after arrival for all sorts of mistakes like not
doing the job as expected or for crimes like stealing from one’s master. There was, obviously, a
hierarchy. While a lack of performance could lead to more days of servitude, stealing could
increase the period by a number of months. However, there were limits, for English colonists
had legal protection against abuse, but there was no such protection for forced immigrants from
Africa. In their case, there was no limit to how far the period of indenture could be increased
(Berlin, 1993, p. 60-61). Thus, a legal separation between English and African became fact and
the matter of race got involved. Also, because slaves had no predetermined legal status, what
took shape evolved alongside discrimination. We must be careful not to assume that slavery
caused racism or that it appeared before it. Slavery did not start racial discrimination in the
British colonies but mirrored it, being practically two faces of the same coin (Degler, 1968, p.
81).
Actually, by asking why slavery developed late in the English colonies we are setting
ourselves a problem which obscures rather than clarifies the primary question of why slavery in
North America seemed to have a different mask on the Negro than it did in South America.
Asking why slavery in the English colonies produced discrimination against Negroes after 1660
is to make the tacit assumption that prior to the establishment of slavery there was none. If,
instead, the question is put, “What appeared first, slavery or discrimination?”, then no
prejudgment is made. Indeed, it now opens a possibility for answering the question as to why
slavery in the English colonies, unlike that in the Spanish and Portuguese, led to a caste position
for Negroes, whether free or slave (Degler, 1968, 81).
Also, we must point out that not all Africans were enslaved from day one, only some.
One of the reasons was economic. When Africans were bought from ship captains for five years
of service, for example they had a cheaper price with the captain knowing the Africans would
not be servants for life. One of the causes was that in the earlier colonial days many of the
inhabitants died from all sorts of what were then unknown diseases. The percentages were high
in Virginia, approximately 50% of the inhabitants dying in the first five years (Morgan, 2005, p.
297-298). Edmund S. Morgan claims that approximately 1,300-1,400 people lived in Virginia
in 1625, and by 1840 the numbers rose to 7,000. However, at least 15,000 more arrived during
those years and he found no evidence of many of them returning to England. Thus, the
conclusion is that a large number of them died. After 1640, however, the death rate started to
decline, and this is why fresh land was available with so much difficulty. As a solution more
were punished with an extension of their period of indenture and the punishments tended to
increase in severity. Also, the land that was still being given at the end of the period of
indenture was located at the frontier, which was neither very fruitful nor very secure. For those
who entered the colony neither as indentured servants nor as persons capable of owning
property, mainly children, and the age until one was expected to serve was also extended from
twenty one to twenty four. In one way or another, those who had no property to call their own
243
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
were enjoying fewer and fewer liberties. The harsh conditions led to a series of uprisings, the
largest of which was Bacon’s Rebellion. This event is considered to be the largest revolt in the
British colonies that happened before the American Revolution (Morgan 1993: 73-79). After
the revolts the extensions of indenture were applied to Africans in most part and step by step
they became slaves. There is the possibility that this was also made to reduce the chances of
poor British citizens participating in another insurrection because it made them appreciate their
freedom more and also separated poor British colonists from all Africans and thus making class
unity impossible (Morgan, 1993, p. 330-331). This way, notions of superiority, inferiority and
otherness began to appear, which provided white colonists, regardless of their social status, with
a psychological advantage. Racism worked in both directions, instilling in more and more
British colonists a feeling of superiority and in more and more slaves the idea that they were
inferior. By instilling slaves with feelings of inferiority they hoped to reduce the chances of a
slave uprising and to make them more willing to accept their new condition. “It is not possible
to enslave men without making them inferior through and through. And racism is only the
emotional, affective, sometimes intellectual explanation of this inferiorization” (Fanon, 1971, p.
21).
The economic reason we discussed here was only one, though. At least two other issues
either shaped or postponed slavery before being overcome by racism in Virginia: citizenship
and religion.
Before racism took preeminence, the citizenship issue had a larger influence on the lives
of colonists and this can best be seen in the case of Anthony Johnson, the first African who
became landholder in the British colonies and, more surprisingly, the first African slaveholder
according to documents now available about that period and region (McGinnis, 1993, p. 147).
He was one of the first 20 Africans brought in Virginia in 1619, more exactly in Jamestown. He
and the other 19 were exchanged by the Dutch for provisions. He was not sold as a slave, but as
an indentured servant and after the years he was supposed to serve have passed, he received 50
acres of land and, obviously, his freedom (Woods, 2008, p. 910). There is the possibility that he
became an indentured servant and not a slave because he had been baptized before he arrived in
Virginia. Johnson was not an English citizen yet he was a very capable person who increased
his fortune over the years and managed to bring, on his own expense, other indentured servants
into the colony. Thus, after bringing 5 more persons to Virginia, out of which only 1 was black
and 4 were white, he was given 250 acres of land. This happened in the year 1651 (Berlin,
1993, p. 51). What makes Anthony Johnson stand out in history, though, was that he legally
owned a slave by the name of John Casor. Johnson sued Casor, the latter saying that he was
Johnson’s indentured servant. Johnson claimed that he had bought Casor as a slave and must
remain that way. The Virginia Civil Court agreed with Johnson, declaring John Casor a slave
for life. Even though John Casor claimed that he was only an indentured servant, nothing more,
nothing less, the court’s decision practically made him the first indentured servant who became
a slave in the colony of Virginia (Rodriguez, 2007, p. 4). Another important detail was that a
white man was included in the trial, Robert Parker, who was on John Casor’s side yet in the end
this did not help Casor very much. There is the possibility that John Casor convinced Robert
Parker that Anthony Johnson was detaining him, which was against the law. There are other
possibilities as well, for not all details about this case are clear.
244
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
There are several reports as to the origin of this landmark case. One report says John
Casor, the black indentured servant, “swindled” Johnson out of the remainder of his servitude;
another says he “convinced” a white neighbor, Robert Parker, that we was being illegally
detained, and still another says the family convinced Johnson to free Casor (Kinchlow, 2008, p.
4).
What is clear, though, was that there was a trial where one African forced immigrant,
Anthony Johnson, sued another man of African origins, John Casor, and made him according to
the law of the colony of Virginia, his slave, even though one white man, Robert Parker,
defended Casor in Court.
The court’s decision from 1654, which may surprise many today, made Anthony
Johnson the first slaveholder that was legally recognized in the British colonies and John Casor
the first person in Virginia that had been sentenced to slavery without committing a crime. It
was not considered out of the ordinary for masters to sue their indentured servants but they did
so in order to increase the period of servitude in a limited manner, not extend it indefinitely.
Anthony Johnson went all the way, and succeeded (Kinchlow, 2008, p. 4-6). To summarize the
citizenship issue, even though Anthony Johnson was not a de jure British citizen he was
practically a de faco citizen of Virginia. Ironically, we know that Johnson had just as many
rights as a white man through his ownership of John Casor. In the year 1654, when the court’s
decision came, this was still a fact. However, after 1661, a law was passed that created a
difference in the way some African indentured servants were defined. It did not apply to all, but
no white man was included in this category. The word ‘slave’ did not appear in the document
but it can be assumed this was the meaning of the words ‘persons incapable of making
satisfaction by addition of time’. Some Africans could no longer be punished with an extension
of their period of servitude because it was already for life (Rodriguez, 2007, p. 45). Thus, in 42
years (1619-1661), racism became more important than the citizenship issue.
Even though, as previously mentioned, slavery and racism developed together, in the
first stages of development religion played a strong part. A few facts show how important the
religious issue was at first: as strong as to shield Africans from slavery in case they were
baptized before their arrival in Virginia. Since 1619, when the first 20 Africans were brought in
Virginia, some became indentured servants while others were enslaved. Not all Africans came
to Virginia directly from Africa, some came from other British colonies like Jamaica or
Barbados and, while there, a part of them were baptized. A large percentage of the first
generation of colonists left Europe because of religious persecutions. Thus, an important part
among the first colonists was more sensitive to religious issues. In short, many believed that it
was improper to enslave a fellow Christian and this created an important difference between
one African and another, a difference that led to the existence of certain privileges for those that
had formally accepted Christianity. Arguments for this theory were deduced indirectly from
historical cases. Among the first twenty Africans that were brought by the Dutch into
Jamestown were a man and a woman who had a child. The child was later baptized though there
is no evidence that the parents did the same thing it the colony. It was assumed that they were
baptized before. Moreover, in the year 1624, an African named John Philip gave testimony in a
trial and this was allowed because the aforementioned had been baptized in England some time
before the trial (Frederickson, 1993, p. 198-199). In time, though, religious feeling too was
overruled by racism. After Africans began to understand that Christians were viewed as being
245
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
free by right, they began to baptize their children. After 1677 the General Assembly of Virginia
ruled that baptism can no longer change the status of a person. Those who arrived unbaptized
would become slaves and remain slaves even if they became Christians after their arrival in the
colony. However, those baptized before their arrival still became indentured servants. There is
the possibility that this was also done to encourage slave owners to allow their slaves to be
baptized because under the previous law many did not allow that so as not to free them some
years afterwards. Freedom was not something that arrived immediately after baptism even
before 1677. Those who were slaves became indentured servants after accepting Christianity
and were still supposed to serve for a number of years (Parent, 2003, p. 238). Five years later,
though, in 1682, the General Assembly of Virginia ruled that persons of African descent who
from that moment on came into the colony would be enslaved, Christians or not. Still referring
to religion, the Assembly mentioned that Africans had a heathen descent. Thus, the notion of
heathen race was in a way put into law with the strongest part falling on race (Frederickson,
1993, p. 200).
In 1677, the Assembly sought to remedy this situation by proclaiming “the the
conferring of baptism doth not alter the condition of a person as to his bondage or freedom.”
But, the first statutory sanction for Christian slavery applied directly only to slaves who had
been baptized after they had arrived in the colony; the presumption of freedom for those who
were Christians before their importation remained, as shown by a law of 1670 prescribing “that
all servants not being Christian imported into the colony by shipping, shall be slaves for life.”
The loophole of prior conversion was finally closed in 1682 by an enactment making slaves of
all those arriving “whose parentage and native country are not Christian.” From this point on,
heathen descent rather than actual heathenism was the legal status for slavery in Virginia
(Frederickson, 1993, 200).
Otherness then became hereditary and was inescapable.
It took sixty three years (1619-1682) for racism to gain preeminence over the religious
issue, meaning two or three generations of colonists. If we look at things that way, it is possible
that the children and grandchildren of the first immigrants were less receptive to what religion
the Africans had or if they had been previously baptized. Also, new immigrants who had not
suffered religious persecutions were also less likely to take the religious confession of slaves as
serious as the first generation of colonists. In a manner of decades the view that Christianity and
slavery were incompatible faded away.
To conclude, each slavery system had one central issue at its core which defined it and
split society between two extremes. Each basic idea led to a different system with its own
particularities. The Ancient Roman system split society between citizens and non-citizens with
the slave being legally non-existent. Slavery as an institution was seen as normal while the
slave was not considered naturally inferior. The Spanish colonial system had religion at its
center and the main dichotomy was related to the possibility of baptism. In short, the
civilizations they came into contact with were considered either Christianizable or nonChristianizable depending on their assumed ability and willingness to receive baptism. This
view was so strong that in 1550 there was a debate about the justness of the methods used by
the Empire for its expansion and the ways and means through which baptism was imposed on
newly-discovered populations. For the British colonial system the issue was racial, the main
split regarding slavery being between white and black. Slavery did not appear according to any
246
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
plan but due to the circumstances the colonies had to deal with, and for a time issues of
citizenship and religion coexisted with notions of racism within Virginia. Because there were no
laws regarding slavery specifically there were also no obstacles to create laws according to
racial discrimination. Over the course of a few generations, in the colony of Virginia racism
took preeminence over both citizenship and religion. If initially some Africans became either
indentured servants or slaves, in a few decades it was decided that all new forced immigrants
from Africa were to be enslaved and religion was no longer seen as a shield because they were
deemed to be descendants of a heathen race.
Bibliography
Alfoldy, Geza (1988) The Social History of Rome. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Berlin, Ira (1993) “Time, Space and the Evolution of African-American Society” in Goodheart,
Lawrence B.; Brown, Richard P.; Rabe, Stephen G. (eds.) Slavery in American Society.
Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company, p. 34-68.
Buckland, William Warwick (2010) The Roman Law of Slavery. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Davis, David Brion (1999) The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Degler, Carl (1968) “Slavery and the Genesis of American Race Prejudice” in Drimmer, Melvin
(ed.) Black History: A Reappraisal. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., p. 71-96.
Drimmer, Melvin (ed.) (1968) Black History: A Reappraisal. New York: Doubleday and
Company, Inc.
Fanon, Franz (1972) “Racism and Culture” in King, Woodie; Anthony, Earl (eds.) Black Poets
and Prophets. The Theory, Practice and Esthetics of Pan-American Culture. New York: New
American Library, p. 13-25.
Frederickson, George M. (1993) “The Origins of Racial Slavery in Virginia and South Africa”
in Goodheart, Lawrence B.; Brown, Richard P.; Rabe, Stephen G. (eds.) Slavery in American
Society. Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company p. 197-207.
Goodheart, Lawrence B.; Brown, Richard P.; Rabe, Stephen G. (eds.) (1993) Slavery in
American Society. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company.
Goodheart, Lawrence B.; Brown, Richard P.; Rabe, Stephen G. “Introduction” (1993) in
Goodheart, Lawrence B.; Brown, Richard P; Rabe, Stephen G. (eds.) Slavery in American
Society. Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company, p XV-XXII.
Gracia, Jorge J. E. (ed.) (2007) Race and Ethnicity. On Black and Latino Identity. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Hanke, Lewis (1974) All Mankind is One. A Study on The Disputation Between Bartolome de
Las Casas and Juan Gines de Sepulveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of
the American Indians. De Kalb: North Illinois University Press.
Hanke, Lewis; Rausch, Jane M (2006). People and Issues in Latin American History. The
Colonial Experience. Princeton: Morkus Wiener Publishers.
Jordan, Winthrop D (1968) White Over Black. American Attitudes Toward the Negro. 15501812. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
247
SECTION: HISTORY
LDMD I
King, Woodie; Anthony, Earl (eds.) (1972) Black Poets and Prophets. The Theory, Practice and
Esthetics of Pan-African Culture. New York: New American Library.
Kinchlow, Ben (2008) Black Yellowdogs. The Most Dangerous Citizen is Not Armed, but
Uninformed. Gaden City: Morgan James Publishing.
McGinnis, Carol (1993) Virginia Genealogy. Sources and Resources. Baltimore: Genealogic
Publishing, Co., Inc.
Mill, John Stuart (2002) The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill. On Liberty, The Subjection of
Women and Utilitarianism. New York: The Modern Library.
Morgan, Edmund S. (1993) “Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox” in Goodheart,
Lawrence B.; Brown, Richard P.; Rabe, Stephen G. (eds.) Slavery in American Society.
Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company, p. 69-82.
Morgan, Edmund S. (2005) American Slavery, American Freedom. The Ordeal of Colonial
Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.
Olson, Keith; et. al.; (1990) An Outline of American History. D.C.: United States Information
Agency.
Rodriguez, Junius P. (ed.) (2007) Slavery in the United States. A Social, Political and Historical
Encyclopedia, volume 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Tannenbaum, Frank. (1968) “The Negro in the Americas”, in Drimmer, Melvin (ed.) Black
History: A Reappraisal. New York: Doubleday and Company, p. 59-75.
Vacano, Diego A von (2007) ”Race and Political Theory: Lessons from North America” in
Gracia, Jorge J.E. (ed.) Race and Ethnicity. On Black and Latino Identity. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, p. 238-266.
Woods, Thomas E. (2008) Exploring American History: From Colonial Times to 1877.
Terrytown: Marshall Cavendish.
Zock, Paul A. (1998) Ancient Rome. An Introductory History. (s.l.): University of Oklahoma.
248