Uncle Tom's Cabin By Harriet Beecher Stowe: An Analysis

Often considered a catalyst of the Civil War, Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an anti-slavery book whose permanent impact, both positive and negative, on race relations within the United States are irrefutable. Published in 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel was written as a direct response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; second of a pair of federal laws criminalizing the aiding and abetting of escaped slaves within the both slave and free states. Through Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Stowe denounces the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the entire system of slavery by exhibiting that even in its best conditions, the evils of slavery are in fundamental opposition to the moral principles of Christianity. In Chapter IX, “It Which Appears that a Senator is But a Man,” …show more content…
Within the novel Senator Bird is a minor character, however, through him, Stowe dismantles the common notion that slavery should be tolerated for public interest and civic order. I will argue that Uncle Tom’s Cabin was intended for readers like Senator Bird, with the goal of evoking a conflict within those who support slavery, while disregarding how it is in fundamental opposition to the principles of Christianity in favor of civic unity. At the beginning of Chapter IX, Mrs. Bird discovers that her husband, an Ohio Senator Bird, has voted in favor of the Fugitive Slave Law. A Christian woman, she shames him for not empathizing with the grievances of those who lived their lives enslaved. While Senator Bird agrees that her feelings are justified, he also believes that the judgement of slavery should not be determined by our private feelings, but rather, “—there are great public interests involved,—there is a state of public agitation rising, that we must put aside our private feelings”(Stowe 144). While he does not appear to be a radical supporter of slavery or Christianity, Stowe uses Senator Bird to expose the hypocrisy and culpability of those who are complacent to the cruelty of slavery, in the name of the perceived betterment …show more content…
Characters such as Senator and Mrs. Bird, provide one of the many narratives encompassing the diverse opinions towards slavery within the United States. Interestingly, on the macro level, neither of these two characters are ardently pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery; however, through this raw conversation, Stowe mimics the variance in conversation that those on the edge of supporting or fighting against slavery have everyday. From Chapter IX, I began to think about the culpability of slavery, or more greatly the culpability of oppression. I believe that what Stowe is asserting is that even if you do not own a slave, by not actively fighting against the institution itself, you are just as guilty as those who do. Furthermore, for those with power such as politicians or clergymen, their action or inaction defines their culpability even more. While Senator Bird may not have individually owned slaves, he supported a law that strengthened the institution that enable others to. The chapter ends with the arrival Eliza and the couple is faced with the real life implications of the Fugitive Slave Law. While Senator Bird was able to vote for the law, when he sees the face of a woman and child that will be affected, his moral