‘Slave children, freed and brought North by abolitionists to emphasize the plight of slaves. The proceeds from sale of the photographs were to be used to educate freed slaves who had come under the jurisdiction of the Union Army in the New Orleans area. A caption on one of these photographs points out that the children had been turned out of a hotel in Philadelphia because of their “color.”’
These are wonderful. They help to dispel the continued myth of what a slave is “supposed” to look like.
“They help to dispel the continued myth of what a slave is “supposed” to look like.”
huh?
Nearly every group has been enslaved at one point or another in history….why would anyone have a “preconceived notion of what a slave has to look like?” lol
@ andrij
In the United States of that time, slaves were mostly of African descent.
I cannot but help wondering whatever became of the people we see on here who are often in dire circumstances.
It’s the same three children over and over, couldn’t they find any more?
I would like to learn more about this, can anyone suggest additional resources? Plus, how much research has been done on the authentication of the individuals pictured? Thank you
Ah, New Orleans. That explains their color. My notion is that they were children of mostly white ancestry, but of black ancestry as well. That was VERY common in New Orleans, and I think that’s why that group of abolitionists chose those particular children as subjects. Seeing slave children that looked like their own would have definitely ignited a spark in Northerners, causing contribute more passionately to the cause.
The first poster was correct, though. There is a preconceived idea of slaves appeared in antebellum US. It is also worth noting that slavery was generally practiced throughout the world at that time. It was not uncommon for war ships to sell the crews and passengers of captured merchant and war ships into slavery. This went for white, brown, or black, and men, women, and children. Slavery still continues to this day in some parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Scary to hear some people believe that ‘slavery was generally practiced throughout the world at that time’! 1863!
I think of New Orleans Quadroons when I see these children. I wonder if their mothers were such women?
Heres another photo with Rosa and a different little boy. As a collector of antique imagery, I question the authenticity of these pieces and would love to know more about where they are located. If they are truly authentic, I do hope they are in a museum.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vieilles_annonces/6110118591/
There’s probably a bit of propaganda by the Abolitionist side going on there too with regards to using the lightest skinned slave children they had access to. Easier to pull the heartstrings of your potential backers if you show them children who look closer to their own. No doubt a significant portion of slave-born offspring were bi-racial (Mary Chesnut’s civil war diary has a passage decrying the hypocrisy and willful ignorance on the part of the owners and their wives with regards to mixed race slave offspring), I have a hard time believing this children exemplify the norm.
These may have been propaganda photos to elicit money for their cause. But there certainly were people that looked totally European, but had African blood. If you had, I believe, up to a certain amount of African blood, such as 1/64 you were considered to be black and thus a slave in New Orleans.
For more on this topic, see the work of Dr. Mary Niall Mitchell, specifically “Raising Freedom’s Child: Black Children and Visions of the Future After Slavery.”