Slavery is bad! or: Why do the Quakers and Slaves talk funny?

Reading Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Blockbuster (it was one of the bestselling novels of the century) Uncle Tom’s Cabin so far has been enlightening. Though not for the reasons that Stowe’s initial readers in The National Era or her subsequent pre-emancipation readers who read it in novel form rather than serialized. While Stowe worked to get across the horrors of slavery, and how even the most (seemingly) moral of men are made evil through the institution of slavery, this is nothing new to me. Growing up in post-emancipation, post-civil rights movement, raised by “Boomers” Stowe’s message is something I have heard since I was a little kid. Slavery is bad. I get it!

Its original readers were shocked at the apathy held by those who made their livelihood from the slave trade, when Haley says, “all I want is a livin’, you know”, the nonchalance with which he justifies his involvement in this morally questionable trade is incredible, to say the least (49). They were surprised (as was I) that Mr. Shelby would be willing to sell Uncle Tom, who as he asks Shelby, “have I ever broke word to you, or gone contrary to you, ‘specially since I was a Christian?”. (48) While these moments are surprising and work within the novel, others are preachy and instead of using the situation to create the impact needed, resort to awkward proselytizing in the anti-slavery cause. The laments of Mrs. Shelby are particularly unsubtle, when learning of her husband’s deal with Haley, she cries out, “this is god’s curse on slavery-a bitter, bitter, most accursed thing”, and she continues “I was a fool to think that I could make anything good out of such a deadly evil” (29).

What I find interesting about these depictions and attitudes is that, while seeming (to me at least) like common sense, these ideas were not wide-spread at the time. They were existent amongst the Abolitionist community, but not necessarily the nation at large. Other than this area, the slavery aspect is not what particularly interests me.

The depiction of many of the people in the book, so far strikes me as interesting. Especially, since, even if the character is supposed to be a positive character, something about how they are portrayed does not seem all that positive.

The Quakers, who are Stowe and the Abolitionists’ ideological allies, are portrayed as devout, helpful, hard workers, whose help of Eliza and George, is definitely a sign that they are good moral people. Their manner of speech however, seems to place them in a nostalgic past where the language of the King James Bible was spoken commonly by all people. This makes them seem out of touch and weird, though they are “good people”.

Many of the slaves’ manners of speech seem to speak to their lack of intelligence. Even the positively shown Uncle Tom, whose conformity and unwillingness to rock the boat, is one of his better qualities (in Stowe’s mind) speaks in a manner that can charitably be described as intelligent. Sam and Andy, the slaves whose slyness (if not traditional intelligence) allows for Eliza to escape into Ohio, speak like caricatures, not real people.

The only Slave characters so far to sound like the “normal” whites, are Eliza (who was raised in the house of the Shelby’s like one of their own) and her husband George (whose intelligence is praised by Stowe at his introduction). What do they have that Uncle Tom, Sam, and Andy have in common? They are of mixed heritage, both have fair enough skin that they can pass for white, though they are not. Is this intentional on Stowe’s part or just a coincidence?

The depiction of those with whom the reader is supposed to identify, are somewhat unflattering, which is odd, for a novel calling for tolerance and the end of slavery. Were I reading at the time, based on the characters and not the situations I might find myself saying, “slavery is…bad?”