He who undertakes to stir up strife between two individual neighbours, by de-
traction, is justly regarded, by all men and all moral codes, as a criminal.” Then
he quotes the Ninth Commandment, and adds: “But to bear false witness against
whole States, and millions of people, &c., would seem to be a crime as much
deeper in turpitude as the mischief is greater and the provocation less.” In the
first place, I will put the Southern Press upon proof that Mrs. Harriet Beecher
Stowe has told one falsehood. If she has told truth, she has, indeed, a powerful
engine of “assault on slavery,” such as these Northern fanatics have made for
the “last twenty years.” The number against whom she offends, in the editor's
opinion, seems to increase the turpitude of her crime. This is good reasoning!
I hope the editor will be brought to feel that wholesale wickedness is worse than
single-handed, and is infinitely harder to reach, particularly if of long stand-
ing. It gathers boldness and strength when it is sanctioned by the authority
of time, and aided by numbers that are interested in supporting it. Such is
slavery; and Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe deserves the gratitude of “States
and millions of people” for her talented work, in showing it up in its true light.
She has advocated truth, justice, and humanity, and they will back her efforts.
Her work will be read by “States and millions of people;” and when the Southern
Press attempts to malign her, by bringing forward her own avowal, “that the
subject of slavery had been so painful to her, that she had abstained from convers-
ing on it for several years,” and that, in his opinion, “it accounts for the intensity
of the venom of her book,” his really envenomed shafts will fall harmless at her
feet; for readers will judge for themselves, and be very apt to conclude that more
venom comes from the Southern Press than from her. She advocates what is
right, and has a straight road, which “few get lost on;” he advocates what is
wrong, and has, consequently, to tack, concede, deny, slander, and all sorts of
things.
With all due deference to whatever of just principles the Southern Press may
have advanced in favour of the slave, I am a poor judge of human nature, if I
mistake in saying that Mrs. Stowe has done much to draw from him those conces-
sions; and the putting forth of this “most invulnerable moral panoply,” that has
just come into his head as a bulwark of safety for slavery, owes its impetus to her
and other like efforts. I hope the Southern Press will not imitate the spoiled
child, who refused to eat his pie for spite.
The “White Slave” I have not seen. I guess its character; for I made a pas-
sage to New York, some fourteen or fifteen years since, in a packet-ship, with a
young woman whose face was enveloped in a profusion of light-brown curls, and
who sat at the table with the passengers all the way as a white woman. When
at the quarantine, Staten Island, the captain received a letter, sent by express
mail, from a person in New Orleans, claiming her as his slave, and threatening
the captain with the penalty of the existing law if she was not immediately re-
turned. The streaming eyes of the poor unfortunate girl told the truth, when
the captain reluctantly broke it to her. She unhesitatingly confessed that she had
run away, and that a friend had paid her passage. Proper measures were taken,
and she was conveyed to a packet-ship that was at Sandy Hook, bound for New
Orleans.
“Uncle Tom's Cabin,” I think, is a just delineation of slavery. The incidents
are coloured, but the position that the slave is made to hold is just. I did not
read every page of it, my object being to ascertain what position the slave occu-
pied. I could state a case of whipping to death that would equal Uncle Tom's;
still, such cases are not very frequent.
The stirring up of strife between neighbours, that the Southern Press complains
of, deserves notice. Who are neighbours? The most explicit answer to this
question will be found in the reply Christ made to the lawyer, when he asked it
of him. Another question will arise, Whether, in Christ's judgment, Mrs. Stowe
would be considered a neighbour or an incendiary? As the Almighty Ruler of
the earth of one blood, and man in His own image, the black man, irrespective of
his colour, would seem to be a neighbour who has fallen among his enemies, that
have deprived him of the fruits of his labour, his liberty, his right to his wife and
children, his right to obtain the knowledge to read, or to anything that earth
holds dear, except such portions of food and raiment as will fit him for his de-
spoiler's purposes. Let not the apologists for slavery bring up the isolated cases
of leniency, giving instruction, and affectionate attachment, that are found among
some masters, as specimens of slavery! It is unfair! They form exceptions, and
much do I respect them; but they are not the rules of slavery. The strife that
is being stirred up is not to take away anything that belongs to another--neither
their silver nor gold, their fine linen or purple, their houses or land, their horses
or cattle, or anything that is their property; but to rescue a neighbour from their
unmanly cupidity.
No introduction is necessary to explain the following corre-
spondence, and no commendation will be required to secure for it
a respectful attention from thinking readers:--
Washington City, D. C., Dec. 6, 1852.
Dear Sir,--I understand that you are a North Carolinian, and have always
resided in the South; you must, consequently, be acquainted with the workings
the institution of slavery. You have doubtless also read that world-renowned
book, “Uncle Tom's Cabin,” by Mrs. Stowe. The apologists for slavery deny
that this book is a truthful picture of slavery. They say that its representations
are exaggerated, its scenes and incidents unfounded, and, in a word, that the whole
book is a caricature. They also deny that families are separated--that children
are sold from parents, wives from their husbands, &c. Under these circum-
stances, I am induced to ask your opinion of Mrs. Stowe's book, and whether or
not, in your opinion, her statements are entitled to credit.
I have the honour to be, yours truly,
A. M. Gangewer.
D. R. Goodloe, Esq.
Washington, Dec. 8, 1852.
Dear Sir,--Your letter of the 6th inst., asking my opinion of “Uncle Tom's
Cabin,” has been received; and there being no reason why I should withhold
unless it be the fear of public opinion (your object being, as I understand, the
publication of my reply), I proceed to give it in some detail.
A book of fiction, to be worth reading, must necessarily be filled with rare
and striking incidents, and the leading characters must be remarkable, some
for great virtues--others, perhaps, for great vices or follies. A narrative of
the ordinary events in the lives of common-place people would be insufferably
dull and insipid, and a book made up of such materials would be, to the
elegant and graphic pictures of
life and manners which we have in the writings
of Sir Walter Scott and Dickens, what a surveyor's plot of a ten-acre field is to a
painted landscape, in which the eye is charmed by a thousand varieties of hill and
dale, of green shrubbery and transparent water, of light and shade, at a glance.
In order to determine whether a novel is a fair picture of society, it is not neces-
sary to ask if its chief personages are to be met with every day; but whether they
are characteristic of the times and country--whether they embody the prevalent
sentiments, virtues, vices, follies, and peculiarities--and whether the events, tragic
or otherwise, are such as may and do occasionally occur.
Judging “Uncle Tom's Cabin” by these principles, I have no hesitation in say-
ing that it is a faithful portraiture of Southern life and institutions. There is
nothing in the book inconsistent with the laws and usages of the slave-holding
States; the virtues, vices, and peculiar hues of character and manners are all
Southern, and must be recognised at once by everyone who reads the book. I
may never have seen such depravity in one man as that exhibited in the character
of Legree, though I have ten thousand times witnessed the various shades of
in different individuals. On the other hand, I have never seen so many perfec-
tions concentrated in one human being as Mrs. Stowe has conferred upon the
daughter of a slave-holder. Evangeline is an image of beauty and goodness which
can never be effaced from the mind, whatever may be its prejudices; yet her
whole character is fragrant of the South: her generous sympathy, her beauty and
delicacy, her sensibility, are all Southern. They are “to the manner born,” and
embodying as they do the Southern ideal of beauty and loveliness, cannot be ostra-
cised from Southern hearts, even by the power of the Vigilance Committees.
The character of St. Clare cannot fail to inspire love and admiration. He is
the beau idéal of a Southern gentleman--honourable, generous, and humane--of
accomplished manners, liberal education, and easy fortune. In his treatment of
his slaves, he errs on the side of lenity, rather than rigour; and is always their
kind protector, from a natural impulse of goodness, without much reflection upon
what may befal them when death or misfortune shall deprive them of his
friendship.
Mr. Shelby, the original owner of Uncle Tom, and who sells him to a trader
rom the pressure of a sort of pecuniary necessity, is by no means a bad character
his wife and son are whatever honour and humanity could wish; and, in a word,
the only white persons who make any considerable figure in the book to a disad-
vantage are the villain Legree, who is a Vermonter by birth, and the oily-tongued
slave-trader Haley, who has the accent of a Northerner. It is, therefore, evident
that Mrs. Stowe's object in writing “Uncle Tom's Cabin” has not been to dis-
parage Southern character. A careful analysis of the book would authorise the
opposite inference--that she had studied to shield the Southern people from
opprobrium, and even to convey an elevated idea of Southern society, at the
moment of exposing the evils of the system of slavery. She directs her batteries
against the institution, not against individuals; and generously makes a renegade
Vermonter stand for her most hideous picture of a brutal tyrant.
Invidious as the duty may be, I cannot withhold my testimony to the fact that
families of slaves are often separated. I know not how any man can have the
hardihood to deny it. The thing is notorious, and is often the subject of painful
remark in the Southern States. I have often heard the practice of separating
husband and wife, parent and child, defended, apologised for, palliated in a thou-
sand ways, but have never heard it denied. How could it be denied, in fact, when
probably the very circumstance which elicited the conversation was a case of
cruel separation then transpiring? No, sir! the denial of this fact by mercenary
scribblers may deceive persons at a distance, but it can impose upon no one at the
South.
In all the slaveholding States the relation of matrimony between slaves, or
between a slave and free person, is merely voluntary. There is no law sanction-
ing it, or recognising it in any shape, directly or indirectly. In a word, it is
illicit, and binds no one--neither the slaves themselves nor their masters. In
separating husband and wife, or parent and child, the trader or owner violates no
law of the State--neither statute nor common law. He buys or sells at auction
or privately, that which the majesty of the law has declared to be property. The
victims may writhe in agony, and the tender-hearted spectator may look on with
gloomy sorrow and indignation, but it is to no purpose. The promptings of mercy
and justice in the heart are only in rebellion against the law of the land.
The law itself not unfrequently performs the most cruel separations of families,
almost without the intervention of individual agency. This happens in the case
of persons who die insolvent, or who become so during life-time. The estate,
real and personal, must be disposed of at auction to the highest bidder; and the
executor, administrator, sheriff, trustee, or other person whose duty it is to dispose
of the property, although he may possess the most humane intentions in the
world, cannot prevent the final severance of the most endearing ties of kindred.
The illustration given by Mrs. Stowe, in the sale of Uncle Tom by Mr. Shelby, is
a very common case. Pecuniary embarrassment is a most fruitful source of mis-
fortune to the slave as well as the master; and instances of family ties broken
from this cause are of daily occurrence.
It often happens that great abuses exist in violation of law, and in spite of the
efforts of the authorities to suppress them; such is the case with drunkenness
gambling, and other vices. But here is a law common to all the slaveholding
States, which upholds and gives countenance to the wrongdoer, while its blackest
terrors are reserved for those who would interpose to protect the innocent
Statesmen of elevated and honourable characters, from a vague notion of state
necessity, have defended this law in the abstract, while they would, without hesi-
tation, condemn every instance of its application as unjust.
In one respect I am glad to see it publicly denied that the families of slaves
are separated; for while it argues a disreputable want of candour, it at the same
time evinces a commendable sense of shame, and induces the hope that the public
opinion at the South will not much longer tolerate this most odious, though not
essential part, of the system of slavery.
In this connection I will call to your recollection a remark of the editor of the
Southern Press, in one of the last numbers of that paper, which acknowledges the
existence of the abuse in question, and recommends its correction. He says:--
“The South has a great moral conflict to wage; and it is for her to put on the
most invulnerable moral panoply. Hence it is her duty, as well as interest, to
mitigate or remove whatever of evil that results incidentally from the institution.
The separation of husb
and and wife, parent and child, is one of these evils, which
we know is generally avoided and repudiated there--although cases sometimes
occur which we observe are seized by these Northern fanatics as characteristic
illustrations of the system. Now, we can see no great evil or inconvenience, but
much good, in the prohibition by law of such occurrences. Let the husband and
wife be sold together, and the parents and minor children. Such a law would
affect but slightly the general value or availability of slave property, and would
prevent in some cases the violence done to the feelings of such connections by
sales either compulsory or voluntary. We are satisfied that it would be beneficial
to the master and slave to promote marriage, and the observance of all its duties
and relations.”
Much as I have differed from the editor of the Southern Press in his general
views of public policy, I am disposed to forgive him past errors in consideration
of his public acknowledgment of this “incidental evil,” and his frank recom-
mendation of its removal. A Southern newspaper less devoted than the Southern
Press to the maintenance of slavery would be seriously compromised by such a
suggestion, and its advice would be far less likely to be heeded; I think, there-
fore, that Mr. Fisher deserves the thanks of every good man, North and South,
for thus boldly pointing out the necessity of reform.
The picture which Mrs. Stowe has drawn of slavery as an institution is any-
thing but favourable. She has illustrated the frightful cruelty and oppression
that must result from a law which gives to one class of society almost absolute
and irresponsible power over another. Yet the very machinery she has employed
for this purpose shows that all who are parties to the system are not necessarily
culpable. It is a high virtue in St. Clare to purchase Uncle Tom. He is actu-
ated by no selfish or improper motive. Moved by a desire to gratify his daughter,
and prompted by his own humane feelings, he purchases a slave, in order to
rescue him from a hard fate on the plantations. If he had not been a slave-
holder before, it was now his duty to become one; this, I think, is the moral to be
drawn from the story of St. Clare, and the South have a right to claim the
authority of Mrs. Stowe in defence of slave-holding to this extent.