Month: March 2024

Loading Likes...

In the works we have read thus far into the semester, few characters have been as polarizing and misunderstood as Uncle Tom. Contrary to the popular misconception of Uncle Tom as a passive and subservient figure, Stowe’s portrayal depicts him as a man of unwavering moral integrity and inner strength. Yes, he exhibits humility and obedience, but these traits are not indicative of weakness; rather, they are rooted in a profound sense of faith and conviction. Uncle Tom’s resilience in the face of unimaginable suffering and cruelty underscores his agency and resistance. Rather than resigning himself to his fate, he maintains his dignity and compassion, refusing to compromise his principles despite the dehumanizing institution of slavery. His relationships with other characters further complicate the simplistic narrative around his character. His interactions with Eva St. Clare, for instance, showcase his capacity for love and empathy, transcending racial boundaries. Even in his encounters with the Simon Legree, particularly when he pressures Tom to whip fellow slave, Lucy, Tom refuses to conform to Legree’s influence, stating that he cannot commit such cruelty. I think this scene is really integral to analyzing Tom’s character because despite facing relentless brutality and dehumanization under Legree’s reign, Tom remains steadfast in his faith and principles. His refusal to compromise his morals for the sake of self-preservation showcases his unwavering integrity and strength of character—an exceptionally artistic choice by Stowe which I believe is one of the most admirable aspects of the novel.

-Siena Rose

Loading Likes...

Upon the discovery of Tom’s death, George decides to liberate the slaves residing on his plantation evoking a series of cries from those he has enslaved about what they are now to do. In reaction, George gives the following speech:

“My good friends,” said George, as soon as he could get a silence, “there’ll be no need for you to leave me. The place wants as many hands to work it as it did before. We need the same about the house that we did before. But, you are now free men and women. I shall pay you wages for your work, such as we shall agree on. The advantage is, that in case of my getting in debt, or dying,–things that might happen,–you cannot now be taken up and sold. I expect to carry on the estate, and to teach you what, perhaps it will take you some time to learn,–how to use the rights I give you as free men and women. I expect you to be good and willing to learn; and I trust in God that I shall be faithful, and willing to teach. And now, my friends, look up and thank God for the blessing of freedom” (Stowe 447). 

While Uncle Tom’s Cabin significantly forwarded the abolitionist movement, it still fails to fully condemn slavery by modern standards. Justifications are offered for slaveholders who practiced slavery in a christian way. George, one of these aforementioned slaveholders, seems to be praised for the book for not only freeing his slaves, but also for offering to continue guiding them into freedom. It was common through the book for certain slave owners to attempt to take on a parental or guiding role to those they enslaved, but the unequal power dynamic, immorality of slavery, and the constant condescension to black people caused it to seem more like they viewed them as pets. All George is offering in this scene is what would in modern standards be considered less than the bare minimum or as the bar is on the floor, and as a result he receives praise. He claims their freedom comes from God giving him the authority of a god in his choice to free them. 

Also, I have a hard time believing that George intends to pay these slaves he’s freeing an actual, living wage, and that they weon;t just get caught in a cycle of sharecropping as was common practice after the abolition of slavery. Even though he no longer “owns” them he still has an immoral authority over them. George is in a sense the white savior of the novel. And, while I understand that this was written in a different time period, I believe it’s still important to acknowledge that his actions weren’t heroic by any means. The novel helped progress abolition forward, but it by no means, likely due to the need to please a white audience, can fully express the grossness of all slave owners, even those you can argue are “good, christian people.”

Loading Likes...

After our discussions last class, I found myself continuing to think about the way Harriet Beecher Stowe writes, and why exactly this novel took off, and became one of the most widely read novels of the 19th century (regardless of how controversial it has since become). It became increasingly obvious to me that Stowe used a tactic, probably in a strategic way, that could definitely be rejected today: she made one of the most key characters, young slave Eliza, a very light-skinned black woman who could “pass” easily as white. In scenes like the scene when Eliza is about to have her little son taken away from her, and runs away across the river, Stowe’s writing begs for the sympathy of any reader, but especially white readers. Without a doubt, every white woman with a child was imagining themselves in her shoes, and what they might have done if they were coming for HER little boy. Is it possible that, subconsciously, at least, Eliza’s light skin was in large part what made it so easy for white women to identify with her? Another tactic, of course, which seems to be particularly obvious in the end of the story with Tom’s death, is the way Stowe and the story is siding with/mirroring Christianity and Christian morality. Without a doubt, she writes Uncle Tom is a noble, Christlike character who is patiently enduring the torture imposed on him by Legree. The way he is tortured onto death just as Jesus was, had to have been by design, as was the references to Tom holding prayer services in his cabin each night. Finally, the way she portrays the Shelbys seems to have also played a role in how the novel was received and the success/popularity it gained during its time. As written, the Shelbys are forced by absolute economic necessity to sell these slaves, but they themselves (especially Mrs. Shelby) are portrayed all in all as fundamentally good people. Here, Stowe is letting white readers have someone positive to identify with, while still acknowledging that the institution of slavery itself is evil. This certainly was in a massive part of why the novel was popular in comparison to other more harsh narratives within the abolitionist literature of the time; white readers could complacently/peacefully identify with the virtuous Shelbys who were “masters,” even while also claiming to despise the institution of slavery itself. 

Loading Likes...

Both Pearl in Hawthorne’s Scarlett Letter and Eva in Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin play similar roles in their stories. They drive the character development of those around them, vex their parents, and generally bringing chaos and humor. They are wild and unpredictable, but generally good, caring people. It is their innocence and insistence on the things they want that lead their parents, specifically Hester and St Clare, to do good things for those around them. Both girls are their parents’ only child and their beauty is frequently remarked upon. Pearl and Eva also share a reputation for extraordinary kindness and not being afraid to connect people. It is Pearl that reaches out to her father and insists that he rejoin her family, and it is Eva that meets Tom and brings him to her father. 

One big difference between these characters is their relationships with their mothers. Pearl and Hester are used to only having each other, so they have a strong bond, even though Pearl’s behavior often confuses or annoys her mother. Hester spends time book pondering the nature of her daughter debating whether she is good or evil, human or not. It is noted that Pearl seems to embody the spirit of a younger Hester, containing all the fire and passion that brough Pearl into existence.  Hester’s life seems to revolve around Pearl, and it is clear that Hester loves her daughter more than anything else. She gave up her way of life to have Pearl, and aptly named her due to the price that was paid for her.

So far, Marie does not seem so enraptured with her child. She finds Eva’s ways exhausting, and pushes her away. She doesn’t indulge Eva’s requests like St Clare does, nor does she make any attempt at understanding her daughter. Even she acknowledges that she and the young girl have very little in common.  She seems to consider herself above raising her child, and is more focused on her own “sufferings” than the kind little girl in front of her. 

Despite living centuries apart, many parallels can be seen between the characters of Eva and Pearl and the part they play in the progression of their respective stories. 

Loading Likes...

It is clear that Uncle Tom’s Cabin relies heavily on its characters, and as I read on, I was overwhelmed with the new characters being introduced. However, I think that the many characters serve to reflect Stowe’s ambition with this novel, which tries to reflect many opinions from people of many different racial and religious backgrounds. Every new character is a foil of another character and/or introduces a new argument or narrative into the discourse on slavery and religion’s role in it. 

An explicit example of this is with Topsy and Eva. According to our narrator, the children are “representatives of the two extremes of society” (254). Eva is a child born into high society with a father who spoils her and does everything to shield her from the cruelties of the world. Topsy is a child who has been taken away from her birthparents and has only been treated as wicked (and has experienced many violent whippings, beatings, etc. by her previous owners). Furthermore, while Eva is often described as an angel and a perfect Christian child, Topsy is initially characterized by her “wild diablerie” (256) and devilish or wicked acts.

Much of this storyline focuses on why Topsy is this way; Miss Ophelia is always asking, “‘What does make you so bad, Topsy?”’ (289). Topsy acts in such a way because she truly believes that she cannot be loved or thought of as good because she is black. In particular, it was hard for me to read this quote: “‘If I could be skinned, and come white, I’d try then [to be good]”’ (290). Eva is able to unveil the answer because she both physically and emotionally connects to Topsy – touching her shoulder and expressing her true or heavenly love. It is here that marks Topsy’s shift in behavior to be more aligned with Eva. 

This relationship seems to represent a victory of good over evil where the Christ-like act contributes to this breakthrough. The explicit takeaway from St. Clare is that “if we want to give sight to the blind, we must be willing to do as Christ did, – call them to us, and put our hands on them”’ (290-91). Stowe is arguing that readers must learn to accept every one as equals and to treat them as equals because Christianity presents this as a moral law or fact of life. Eva tells Topsy that “‘Jesus loves all alike”’ and “‘He will help you to be good”’ (290), which further adds to Stowe’s interpretation of the Bible. The introduction of Topsy continues the novel’s perspective that religion is a necessary part in dismantling slavery’s hold in society. 

Loading Likes...

In George’s introductory chapter, “The Husband and Father,” religion (specifically Christianity) is presented as something which has been forcibly removed from his identity by his experiences with slavery. Christianity seems to be the belief system of the peaceful and obedient; Eliza declares that she “always thought [she] must obey [her] master and mistress, or [she] couldn’t be a Christian” (22), which George agrees with to a certain point given her positive experience with the Shelbys. He, however, openly states that he is not a Christian like her, as his “heart’s full of bitterness” and “[he] can’t trust in God” (23) because a true loving God would not have allowed him to undergo the brutality of his enslaved life. Eliza remains the moral heart of that conversation as she begs him not to toss God aside so quickly, but while it is not Stowe’s intention to actually discard Christianity as a religion of failure and complacency, this interaction serves to drive the point home about how utterly disenfranchised George has become. He is deprived of his own agency and humanity to the point that he has not only lost his hope for the future, but the actual matter of his faith.

It is later on, on their way to Canada, that George revisits the idea of Christianity. It is his intention to “try to act worthy of a free man [and] try to feel like a Christian” by putting away “every hard and bitter feeling” so he can read his Bible and “learn to be a good man” (193). His plans for himself and the eventual African nation he sets his mind to both involve religion, now that he’s able to access his humanity again. Instead of Christianity being tied to Eliza’s subservience, it becomes caught up in George’s honor and drive and desire to live a better life than the one he’s been trapped in. 

While Uncle Tom and Eliza both represent the idealized submission of Christianity, willing to martyr themselves and be obedient to whichever powers they consider greater than themselves, George is more of a holy warrior. Not a crusader with plans to overthrow and eviscerate the system and its perpetuators, but a man who is willing to fight for his freedom when acceptance simply will not get the job done. Stowe is generally anti-violence in her writing, and while George still aligns with that by never stooping to outright aggression, he still stands out as someone who does, rather than is done to. 

Loading Likes...

In reading the second third of the novel, I have found it increasingly hard to read the sections at the St Clair house. This is mostly because the devices used to construct Tom as a hero and likable character rely so much on making him a character that indulges white standards and ideals and simultaneously establishes the black race as a separate “species.” For example, his relationship with Eva is so strong because of what Stowe describes as the “soft, impressionable nature of his kindly race” that gives him a “yearning toward the simple and childlike” (152). Not only is this so obviously ignorant and offensive, it almost lends itself to justifying slavery because of the way it establishes Tom’s “kindly race” as one that is meant to be with children and occupy relationships like that of his with Eva that free white people do not. Similarly, the contrast to how Adolph, the head enslaved person in the St Clair household, is portrayed and to how Tom is shows just how much Stowe wanted to communicate that black people need to be submissive and agreeable to white standards to be worthy of sympathy and care. Adolph is described as “thoughtless and self-indulgent,” becasue he has “fallen into an absolute confusion…with regard to himself and his master’ (210), whereas every mention of Tom is accompanied by a complement to his personality and trustworthiness because of his obedience and overachieving in his serving of his masters. He goes above and beyond for St Clair, trying to get him to stop drinking, to be religious, and to generally make everyone in the household happier – the only thing that is missing is Tom’s consideration of any need or feeling he may have himself. Stowe is explicitly sending a message that this type of black person is the type of black person that the public should care about, (one that is essentially not a full human, and is rather an indulgence of white standards), and that other forms of how they may appear as full human beings are intolerable.

Loading Likes...

I was quite surprised, in chapter 17, when George and the other escaping slaves are so sympathetic to Tom, the slave catcher who had been trying to capture them just a few minutes before. Tom and his friends are initially portrayed as terrifying, tyrannical figures. One of Tom’s friends, Marks, even tries to shoot George, and “the ball had passed close to his hair, [and] had nearly grazed the cheek of his wife” (205). The reader is encouraged to feel afraid of the slave catchers, and to see them as the embodiment of evil. 

But then this abruptly shifts after Tom has been injured and left by his friends, when the fugitive slaves immediately become sympathetic. Jim’s mother says “he’s got a mammy, now… I can’t help kinder pityin’ on him” (208). They rescue the injured Tom and carry him to someone’s house, where he is taken care of. I was really shocked by the sudden change in their attitude, especially as it only happened in the span of a few pages. I also felt this was not very realistic, and glosses over the hatred and anger that real fugitive slaves would have felt towards slave catchers. 

I think that Stowe is trying to balance a hatred of slavery with a peaceful, Christian attitude at the same time. When George explains how he will shoot anyone who tries to take his family back into slavery, the Quaker Simeon says that “the leaders of our people taught a more excellent way; for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (196). Similarly, when Phineas says to “let them look out, that’s all”, Simeon replies that “it’s quite plain thee wasn’t born a Friend” (196). This demonstrates that while Stowe thinks slavery is wrong, she thinks it is equally wrong to respond to slavery with hatred or violence, and that is why she shows the scene where Tom is taken in and cared for. However, I felt like her attitude comes from her perspective as a privileged white woman. If she was the one escaping from slavery, with violent slave catchers chasing after her, I doubt she would be so supportive of pacifism. 

Loading Likes...

The conversation regarding religion between Haley and Tom in the chapter “Eliza’s Escape” was particularly interesting to me. Haley explains to Tom his intentions of eventually leaving his occupation as a slave trader because he is a religious man. Tom finds Haley’s faith insincere and self-serving. While Tom is a ruthless person, there is something to be said about his awareness of his own brutality that is more respectable (if you may say) than Haley’s self-proclaimed piety. Haley prioritizes his desire for money over any religious belief he has and consoles his conscience through the option to return to religion after working as a slave trader. I feel as though Stowe utilizes the blunt character of Tom in this scene to highlight how religion is often manipulated to both defend slavery and, in this instance, offer one protection from the consequences of their immoral behavior. Tom argues:  

“T’ant that you care one bit more, or have a bit more feelin’ – it’s clean, sheer, dog, meanness, wanting to cheat the devil and save your own skin; don’t I see through it? And your ‘getting religion,’ as you call it, arter all, is too p’issin mean for any crittur; – run up a bill with the devil all your life, and then sneak out when pay time comes! Boh!” (Stowe, 127).  

While a character who is morally against slavery could indicate frustration regarding the manipulation of religion, I believe it was important that Tom, a notoriously evil slave owner, is making the argument. Tom, through emphasizing the similarity of his own immoral character to Haleys,’ a proclaimed religious man, reinforces the untruthful nature of Haley’s piety. 

Loading Likes... I found the scene in which Eliza tells Tom that Mr. Shelby has sold him and Harry particularly moving, especially the apostrophe to the reader, as the narrator says:

“Sobs, heavy, hoarse and loud, shook the chair, and great tears fell through his fingers on the floor; just such tears, sir, as you dropped into the coffin where lay your first-born son; such tears, woman, as you shed when you heard the cries of your dying babe. For, sir, he was a man,—and you are but another man. And, woman, though dressed in silk and jewels, you are but a woman, and, in life’s great straits and mighty griefs, ye feel but one sorrow!” (Stowe 44)

The insertion of “sir” and “woman” serves as a stark address to the reader in an effort to appeal to their sympathy regarding the gut-wrenching sorrow felt by Tom upon discovering that his entire world has become uprooted as he has been sold to the trader. I found this approach to pathos interesting as Stowe has already developed the appeal to saving one’s child through Eliza’s actions in more subtle ways; both Mrs. Shelby and Eliza acknowledge the horror of the notion of Harry being stripped from his mother’s arms. However, Stowe refrains from drawing the reader in until she presents the pain felt by Uncle Tom upon discovering his fate. I wonder if this signifies Stowe’s recognition that a white reader might already understand the sorrows of losing a child, but could not fathom the inhumanity of discovering that one’s own flesh has been sold to another human. Stowe’s reference to the “silk and jewels” of a wealthier reader also subverts the idea of differences based on wealth in addition to race, revealing that central to humanity is a shared understanding of pain.

Loading Likes...

I was surprised how quickly I became attached to so many of the characters in this story. Even just after a few chapters, I was already so invested in each of their lives and where they were going to go in the story. I think part of this has to do with how Stowe’s writing allows for the relationships between the characters to be so clear and raw.

One relationship that I kept coming back to was that between Mrs. Shelby and Eliza. It is clear that Mrs. Shelby cares so deeply for Eliza and her child, that she sees them as part of her own family. She never would think to separate the mother from her child. Part of this has to do with the fact that Mrs. Shelby truly understands the motherly bond that Eliza has with her son. She knows that that is such a special love and will do anything in her power to keep them together. Mrs. Shelby works with them to help them escape together because she cares and understands the relationship, where Mr. Shelby does not.

The love Eliza has for her son is not mistaken by Mrs. Shelby or the other women in the story. This really became apparent when Eliza and Harry are journeying to cross the river. Stowe explains that “stronger than all was maternal love” (54). This love gives Eliza the strength to keep going and get her and Harry to safety. This is the love that Mrs. Shelby sees and appreciates in Eliza.

Loading Likes...

 

Harriet Beecher Stowe uses an appeal to class as much as basic humanity in her case for the abolition of slavery in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. While she includes many details of the horrific treatment of slaves, she also carefully (and frequently less subtly) highlights the socioeconomic status of her villains, positing them as vulgar parvenus. Beecher Stowe employs this strategy on the first page, when she describes the trader Haley:

He was much overdressed, in a gaudy vest of many colors, a blue neckerchief, bedropped gayly with yellow spots, and arranged with a flaunting tie, quite in keeping with the general air of the man. His hands, large and coarse, were plentifully bedecked with rings; and he wore a heavy gold watch-chain, with a bundle of seals of portentous size, and a great variety of colors attached to it,–which, in the ardor of conversation, he was in the habit of flourishing and jingling with evident satisfaction. His conversation was in free and easy defiance of Murray’s Grammar, and was garnished at convenient intervals with various profane expressions, which not even the desire to be graphic in our account shall induce us to transcribe. 

From this description, the reader can gather that Haley does not come from an aristocratic background and has made his fortune himself, by being a cold-hearted slave trader as we later learn. Beecher Stowe uses the word “coarse” frequently throughout the novel, and always to describe slave-owners. Another example of this is on page 112, when Beecher Stowe is describing a man who opposes all of the people in the tavern protesting the flier about George. She describes him as a “coarse-looking fellow” and says that he has a “coarse, unconscious obtuseness.” By describing those backing slavery as “coarse” and ignorant, Beecher Stowe makes an appeal to the white, northern elitist reader based on grounds other than the blatant wrongness of slavery.

Loading Likes...

Once Paumanok,

When the lilac-scent was in the air and Fifth-month grass was growing…

from Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking (pg. 1369)

The footnote details ‘Paumanok’ as Long Island. The name was given to the place by Native Americans who originally inhabited it, translated to “The Island That Pays Tribute”, according to Wikipedia.

Walt Whitman was born in May.

At this point I realized he’s writing about his younger self. Out of all of his poems we’ve read so far, I think this one may be the one with the most fantastical elements, which is quite fitting for a Walt Whitman origin story.

It’s interesting, the way he reminisces on his memories and tells a story out of it, like a grown adult’s mind peering through the eyes of a child. I think as he was writing this, he still remembered how it felt to be a kid, and so mingled aspects of childlike innocence, particularly the imagination of the bird’s aria, with darker thoughts (death) that come with maturity and the process of thinking as a poet.

I find it also chilling how Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking transitions quite well into Vigil Strange I Kept on The Field one Night, going from from a child’s first encounter with death to a man in the Civil War witnessing soldiers’ deaths. The two poems share a theme of keeping guard on one’s surroundings, with young Whitman observing the sea and the bird, and the Civil War Whitman keeping watch in the night.

Loading Likes...

I think reading From Pent-Up Aching Rivers before Crossing Brooklyn Ferry did me a disservice in my attempt to assess the latter. Sexuality has such a prominent presence in From Pent-Up Aching Rivers that I keep involuntarily associating rivers in all of Whitman’s poems to erotic ‘resistless yearning’ (pg. 1357). Perhaps that is not so far off to his relationship with river or just nature as a whole, because sexuality is one of the fundamental aspects of nature.

As some have said in class on Tuesday, although there is the egotistical pervasiveness and at times–I’m not sure how to put it–presumptuousness in the way he tries to absorb other people’s experiences as his own (e.g., the ‘hounded slave’), one could still feel some sort of intimacy with his aspiration to connect to everything, trying leave nothing out of his perception.

I too had receiv’d identity by my body,

That I was I knew was of my body, and what I should be I knew I should be of my body.

from Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, Section 5 (pg. 1366)

Loading Likes...

When talking about Song of Myself in class the other day, I kept recalling how sensual and erotic much of his language was. Section 5 stands out with its descriptions of an apparent old lover. Whitman recalls “how you settled your head athwart my hips and gently turn’d over upon me, / And parted the shirt from my bosom-bone, and plunge your tongue to my bare-striped chest” (87-89). Although we discussed in class how this would have been at least somewhat uncommon at the time, and was another thing that set him apart from other poets at the time, I kept thinking of far earlier poets who went beyond what Whitman describes and more fully embrace the erotic. The Earl of Rochester, John Donne, and Katherine Philips all leap to mind.

Although Whitman uses this erotic or sensual language to further distinguish himself from the typical conventions of poetry, it is at the same time calling back to earlier poets. I find this a really interesting example of originality, because where he does break with his lack of form or rhythm, he still remains connected to the larger history of poetry. I just thought this was an interesting connection.