"Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

[brown]

Interesting article I though I'd share.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/rare-photo-of-slave-546310.html

[OldKingCrow]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

Very interesting article and image indeed. In terms of mid-19th Century flora and fauna, is that a banana tree in the background ?




Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

...is that a banana tree in the background ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

The document accompanying the image appears to have originated in Brunswick County. The eastern portion of Brunswick along the Cape Fear is semitropical. I can walk to two antebellum dwelling sites where a big banana tree grows as a (now wild) ornamental plant. They do not bear fruit.

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

The document is signed by Miles Potter, the son of George Potter. I actually know of this family. My parent's home is adjacent to the land and estate that John the slave was a part of. If this image is actually from the same estate, I can get a deed survey and tax map from the courthouse and show where these boys lived. We have an 1804 deed of our property that shows the boundary line with the Potters.

[brown]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

Now this is what I heard called cognitive surplus on the internet. Mr Beall is both a great researcher and personally connected. I'm looking forward to the results.

[Michael Comer]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

Fascinating photo!

From the article: "This kid was abused and mistreated and people forgot about him," This is pretty speculative based on stereotype. They are pretty ragged looking, but nobody knows how these children were treated. Photographers known to move bodies for better pictures certainly wouldn't be above putting two black children in worse clothes than what they were wearing to make for a better picture. Not saying that's what happened, but just another example of folks jumping to conclusions.

But, that aside, the child on the right looks like he has a deformed foot or something. I can't quite make out what I'm looking at there. Anyone else see something?

[Hank Trent]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

Is he wearing some sort of homemade shoes? I can't tell either. Almost looks like a shoe's toe and the front edge of a shoe sole on the foot that's mostly hidden, but I can't tell.

I'm curious what can be learned from the card it's mounted on. A lot of Brady cards have the script name on the lower left. One could probably tell the period this card was made from the fact that the Brady is in the center, and more importantly, someone who knows Brady's employees' movements could probably narrow down the date and location. I think Timothy O'Sullivan was in North Carolina in the spring of 1865, but not sure if he sold any through Brady then. I think he'd gone off to be with Gardner. If this could be in South Carolina, the logical time would be 1861-1862 when he was there and selling photos of plantations through Brady. I wonder if the card matches the card that those photos were sold on?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

I have followed this over the last couple of days and I'm still not convinced that it is 1861-1865. Partly because none of us have had an opportunity to examine the original photograph and the excitement over black children has led to no one talking about the photograph itself.

I was contacted through another internet means by someone who had three images of Brady's mark. In two images Brady's name is in script on the lower left and the city (either New York or Washington) marked on the right. The third image has the bottom with the message "Entered according to Act of Congress by M.B. Brady & Co. in the year 1865 in the Clerk's Office of the District of Columbia." This particular image does not have either of these options.

Another thing is that someone else looked up George Potter in the 1850 census. However, I looked him up myself as well. The results were still the same. George W. Potter held seven people in bondage in 1850. Their names are unknown (at least to me, beyond John in the aforesaid document). Their ages, gender, and skin complexion as the census taker understood it follows:

53 Male Black
45 Female Black
30 Male Black
24 Male Black
19 Male Black
14 Female Black
14 Male Black

Based upon the price of John AND the fact that G. W. Potter seems to only have teenagers to middle aged slaves, I must reasonably say the children in this photograph would not have been owned by G.W.P. in 1850. John would most likely have been either the 24 or 30 year old black male, as these were what slave holders and traders considered the "prime" years where traders could demand the highest price for a healthy enslaved person.

[ScottCross]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

I really have to agree with Emmanuel here. I am an archivist by profession, and I deal with these issues every day. The time period that Brady, or Sullivan, took this image, does not match the slave sale document of 1854. I think they are two totally unrelated artifacts that wound up in the same place.

What Emmanuel has also clearly documented, is the census records. They contradict the supposition that the child in the photograph is the person in the slave sale document.

I wish people would contact historians before they start shelling out tens of thousands of dollars on things were worth a fraction of it. Oh, well, it wasn't my money!

Still, a great image, and one I have never encountered by Brady's studio. Knowing Brady, there had to have been hundreds, if not thousands made. Odd that this is the only one to see the light of day. I predict more will "Suddenly Surface" now.

[Hank Trent]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

I really have to agree with Emmanuel here. I am an archivist by profession, and I deal with these issues every day. The time period that Brady, or Sullivan, took this image, does not match the slave sale document of 1854. I think they are two totally unrelated artifacts that wound up in the same place.

Doesn't the article say that the photo was in a scrapbook? I'm imagining a whole bunch of photos, and this was just included among them. It's only special because we (as modern people) find it to be unique, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to connect it to the sale document in any way, other than being among the same bunch of stuff. It'd be interesting to know what else was in the scrapbook and where, chronologically, it fit in the pages.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

The time period that Brady, or Sullivan, took this image, does not match the slave sale document of 1854. I think they are two totally unrelated artifacts that wound up in the same place.

What Emmanuel has also clearly documented, is the census records. They contradict the supposition that the child in the photograph is the person in the slave sale document.

You are right. Honestly, I was so overwhelmed by the document I didn't give the provenance of the image any thought.

Another thing is that someone else looked up George Potter in the 1850 census. However, I looked him up myself as well. The results were still the same. George W. Potter held seven people in bondage in 1850. Their names are unknown (at least to me, beyond John in the aforesaid document). Their ages, gender, and skin complexion as the census taker understood it follows:

Emmanuel, are you looking at Brunswick, New Hanover and Bladen County census numbers?


I'm still pursuing the banana plant story.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

That was George W. Potter's slave holding in Brunswick County. I did not find a George W or G W Potter owning slaves in the 1850 census in New Hanover or Bladen. Perhaps he had an overseer at a larger farm/plantation which could account for him not being named specifically.

The first sentence here (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...ve-546310.html) links the photograph with John of the document. Also the Yahoo story did much the same.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

That was George W. Potter's slave holding in Brunswick County. I did not find a George W or G W Potter owning slaves in the 1850 census in New Hanover or Bladen. Perhaps he had an overseer at a larger farm/plantation which could account for him not being named specifically.

The first sentence here (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...ve-546310.html) links the photograph with John of the document. Also the Yahoo story did much the same.

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

I'm stuck on the buyer. The Dutch and Germans are very frustrating here and I believe the buyer to be one of the two. There are all kinds of Geils, Gesils, Gisels, Giests, Geists and Garsts, all related to the Geishens of Hanover and New Hanover...don't get me stared on the Shelkins, Schuturs, Schelles and Shulkins... I'm heading over to the Lutheran Church Monday with Beverly Tetterton to search for this name.

[Hank Trent]

Re: "Rare photo of slave children found in NC attic"

The first sentence here (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...ve-546310.html) links the photograph with John of the document. Also the Yahoo story did much the same.

I missed that. How on earth do they not only know that one of them is John, but which one? Or are they counting both the boys as barefoot (still can't tell what's going on with the other's feet), and just mean that by default, one of them is John and one isn't?

But still, I'm just not following the evidence to identify them that confidently.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com