When researching the lives of children in early Canada, historians are more interested in stories of children's lives told from the point of view of the child. It is much more informative to have information about childhood conveyed through the expressions, observations, and experiences of the actual children. Sources that historians use for this information include diaries, letters, and testimonies. Although interpretations of childhood in early Canada as seen by adults are a very common source, it seems the preference lies with what the actual children had to offer to this research. I believe there are many advantages and many disadvantages that arise when using this approach.
In using testimonies, such as the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave," a historian would have advantages, as well as disadvantages. The advantages one would have in using such information as this is that they are getting a real life account of what this child went through. He goes into great detail about the treatment he received at the hands of his master, his living conditions and interactions he had with other children. He even describes that his "feet have been so cracked with the frost, that the pen with which I am writing might be laid in the gashes." This is great information when researching the childhood of slaves. A disadvantage one may come across when using such a testimony is that it was written by Frederick Douglass when he was of an older age. His memory may be blurred, and he may remember information differently. Also, if others whom he speaks of in his testimony are still alive and well, such as his master, their stories could conflict, as Frederick would have biased opinion as he is obviously more sympathetic, and favoring of the issue. Another possible research source historians could use in finding out about the lives of slave children would be legal documents, and testimonies of adults, particularly those of the masters and of the masters" household.
