The Angola perspective is irrelevant to the laws of Jamestown in 1619. What counted for the Africans is how Virginia colonial law saw them, and until 1655 and the Casor decision there was no chattel slavery in Virginia.
“They also weren’t the first blacks to be forcibly brought to this country, or to virginia.”
And your source for that is?
Oh, undoubtedly! They certainly must have been most concerned with the documents of indentured servitude and Virginia law not the fact that they had been spirited away against their will. Although they most likely didn't actually sign any documents, a concept they probably had no understanding of. Nor of European-style contract law, nor the English language or any other European language.
No, it was the law and the documents someone else signed for them and gave to their owners and the laws behind those incomprehensible concepts, entirely foreign to them and unexplained to them, that meant the most. Not being kidnapped and forced to labor under the whip and at the point of a gun.
I'm beginning to understand what you're really trying to defend here. It's your complete lack of a moral compass supplanted by your reliance on pseudo intellectualism. At least it's not the defense of a Democrat who is shooting himself in the foot that you're working for, so you've got that going for you!
It is likely that there were slaves involved in settlements in the 1500's. This is not universally accepted, clearly, and 1619 is commonly used as a starting point.
I am of course still using the term "slave" to indicate "people taken against their will, and bound to work without choice, for a period of time".
Misguided focus on 1619 (smithsonian institute)
I do understand what Northam was trying to say; from a historical perspective, the early settlers do not appear to have focused on race, and while they did not simply fight the dutch to release the slaves they had captured, they did "treat" the slaves as if they were indentured, and did free them after their period ended -- although again, since the angolans had no choice in the matter, this wasn't a normal use of the concept of "indentured servant".
It is OK I think to distinguish what happened in 1619 with the general slave trade that started later; it just makes no sense to me to argue that they weren't slaves, especially when you are trying to defend yourself from charges of being insensitive to racial matters.