Posted on 10/13/2014 5:56:54 AM PDT by armydawg505
An “extremely rare” Civil War-era photograph of the enslaved woman who helped save Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's Virginia home has been obtained by the National Park Service after a volunteer spotted the image on eBay.
The previously unknown photograph depicts Selina Gray, the head housekeeper to Lee and his family, along with two girls thought to be her daughters. The photograph was unveiled Thursday at the Arlington House plantation overlooking the nation's capital that was home to Lee and dozens of slaves before the Civil War.
An inscription on the back of the image reads "Gen Lees Slaves Arlington Va."
Park officials said this is only the second known photograph taken of slaves at Arlington.
"It's extremely rare to have an identified photo of an enslaved person," said National Park Service spokeswoman Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles. "Since slaves were considered property, it's very rare to have a photo where you can identify the people in the photo."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don’t advocate it and I don’t want a return to it, but an unvarnished, unpoliticized honesty in discussing the history is long overdue.
_____________
agreed
As I understand it. Lee freed all Slaves upon inheriting Arlington.
When taking a family portrait photo, I would imagine they would dress well for the occasion.
Somewhat similar to the maids housekeepers, nurses and gardeners in my family’s past. All were kept well and cared for through old age. I remember my grandmother’s nurse, Nernie who was also my father’s and great aunt and uncle’s nurse, at our dining room table each Sunday. Alice, my great grandmother’s housekeeper also took care of g-grandmother to her last day. She was then pensioned off and lived out her last days in her family with visits to ours.
“It’s not quite as awful as it’s generally depicted,”
Not quite? How about a mother and child sold to different slave owners? Not quite eh?
I think you vastly overstate the life of the overwhelming majority of slaves, especially in the old age care area, and you also overlook the fact that the Northern factory worker couldn't be sold and could at least hope for a better life for him and his children.
In the Old Testament those who chose to remain had an awl go through their ear.
As you've mentioned, in some cases slavery can be a good thing. The wise master will protect his investment, care for it, and treat it with dignity.
Emancipation was poorly handled. As a tactical war move deemed essential at the time, it probably happened in the worst way possible, and society is still paying the consequences today.
So it hasn't been authenticated yet.
You're analogy falls apart in so many ways. In the first place I can't believe you're comparing a human being to a pet dog. In the second place my pet dog doesn't have to work sunup to sundown. She doesn't have to worry about being sold. If she wanders off I'm not going to beat her. She doesn't have to obtain her own food.
It really was a horrible comparison on your part.
You’re running to extreme examples that, yes, did occur, but were not the norm. The majority experienced no such thing. Treating them quite literally as cattle was the purview of slave traders and those large plantations that took to providing them to the traders. That was not a widespread phenomenon.
Lee was executor of his father-in-laws estate and was responsible for the slaves. Also I believe that under the laws in place at the time, the property of the wife was also considered the property of the husband.
He did, while Grant kept his, inherited via his wife. The Civil War era is rife with contradictions to the received political narrative such as this.
That is exactly what idiots expect
If you look at the census data up to 1860 you would see that the slave population was increasing and not decreasing. As were the number of slave owners.
Only to the idiots who are unaware of the “house” and “field” distinction that continues to this day among descendants of former slaves themselves.
The household servants were probably always well-dressed.
You are mistaken in that. George Washington Parke Custis died in October 1857. Lee manumitted the last of the slaves in December 1862.
“You’re running to extreme examples that, yes, did occur, but were not the norm. The majority experienced no such thing. Treating them quite literally as cattle was the purview of slave traders and those large plantations that took to providing them to the traders. That was not a widespread phenomenon.”
And if that happened to you, would you feel better because it wasn’t wide spread?
I saw a photo of a park service person holding the photo up with a building at Arlington in the background and you could see that it was clearly the same building as in the photo. It is distinctive. So perhaps they are not Lee's slaves but if not there are only a couple of other possibilities: they are slaves from before Lee took over the property, they were freed slaves shortly after the war (which is almost certainly the same as saying "Lee's slaves") or they are from the slave period and are on Arlington but they weren't Lee's. or it's a modern fake
Personally I think the most likely scenario of a photo of slaves on Lee's estate and marked "Lee's slaves" is that they are indeed Lee's slaves.
This issue has always confused me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.