In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the characters Mrs. Shelby and St. Claire are considered to be good people to their enslaved servants. They do not whip or abuse them. They treat them kindly and always ensure that they have food to eat and a bed to sleep in. This begs the question of whether or not there is such a thing as just and kind enslavement. Shelby and St. Claire represent a type of slavery that may not be as physically or verbally abusive to their servants, but still greatly dehumanizes them in an emotional context. Neither character treats their enslaved workers as equals, but instead, considers them to be a type of beloved pet that they can dote on and control as a master.
Mrs. Shelby demonstrates this dehumanizing relationship with her enslaved servant Eliza. Mrs. Shelby sees Eliza as a young woman whom she must instill Christian notions of family and guide towards spiritual salvation. The very first statement that Stowe writes on Eliza and Mrs. Shelby’s relationship reiterates these sentiments by stating “Eliza had been brought up by her mistress, from girlhood, as a petted and indulged favorite” (Stowe, 17). Stowe’s utilization of the words “petted” and “indulged” relate closer to a well-liked pet than a true mentorship or daughter-like relationship. You do not indulge or show great liking to an equal. Although Mrs. Shelby is kind to Eliza, the social hierarchy of enslavement is still prevalent in the Shelby household. This relationship does not harm the enslaved people physically or verbally but it does give Mrs. Shelby a sense of superiority over the enslaved servants. This, consequently, teaches the enslaved workers that they are biologically inferior to white people as their devoted “pets”.
Likewise, St. Claire has a similar relationship with his enslaved servants as Mrs. Shelby does with hers. St. Claire is known to indulge his enslaved workers to the point of greediness and laziness (according to Marie St. Claire). One would believe that for an enslaver to treat his enslaved people with kindness, he must also treat them as people. In this case, as with Mrs. Shelby’s case, St. Claire regards his enslaved workers as beloved pets to dote on and not as people. After Marie St. Claire criticizes Mr. St. Claire for his indulgences, he responds “What’s the harm of the poor dog’s wanting to be like his master”. St. Claire outwardly compares his enslaved servant, Adolph, to a dog. St. Claire may indulge and act kindly towards his servants, but he certainly does not see them as people. This dehumanization may not be as outwardly barbaric to those who are enslaved, but it still supports a money-making institution that profits from selling humans by ensuring that black people know they are below white people.
I agree with you that even if the slaveowners do not treat their slaves cruelly, they do not see them as people. For example, the slaveowners require the lives of the slaves to revolve around them. Even when Eliza is worried about her son being sold, Mrs. Shelby tells her to “hook my dress” and “put my back hair up in that pretty braid you learnt the other day” (16). And after Tom is sold to St. Clare, he is described as being “parted from all his soul held dear, and though often yearning for what lay beyond, still was he never positively and consciously miserable” (265). Despite being torn from his family, Tom has to get used to living in his new home. In both of these cases, the feelings of the slave are set aside in order to do what is required of them by the slaveowners.
I totally agree with your analysis of their relationship being like a pet to its owner. When discussing in class Stowe’s arguments against slavery, this metaphor also came to mind for me, because I realized that I saw her argument as slavery as more similar to the arguments against animal cruelty than arguments for humanity and equality. She goes to great pains to depict black people as being good but simple beings, and uses this construction of them to argue that it would be morally wrong to harm them because of their difference and, to an extent, inferiority to white people- like that of an abused dog in an animal shelter.
I absolutely agree with your analysis, Maggie. Rather than physical, the subtle dehumanization of enslaved people through allusions to animals and treatment as if they are pets still distances the Shelby’s and St. Clare from recognizing full responsibility as enslavers. In regards to Mrs. Shelby, she seems to justify her treatment of slaves as though they are pets or simple-minded through her Christanity as she says: “O, Mr. Shelby, I have tried—tried most faithfully, as a Christian woman should—to do my duty to these poor, simple, dependent creatures.” (Stowe, Ch. 5). Recognizing the inherent racism in degrading black people to mere “poor, simple, dependent creatures” proves harmful.