Levi Fox
Page 1
3/8/2016
Different Audiences, Different Arguments, Both Contrasting and Complimentary Conclusions
Both the attacks of the Republican Party (as presented in The Political Crisis of the
1850’s by Michael F. Holt) and of Harriet Beecher Stowe in her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin are
generally viewed as northern responses to black slavery and the social system and people
responsible for it. However, the views advanced by Stowe and the Republicans are very
different, focusing on different aspects of the issues, though sometimes reaching similar
conclusions. Stowe’s critiques focus much more upon the moral evils of slavery, its affect upon
religion and family. In contrast the Republicans were much more concerned with the political
impact of slavery and what they viewed as the subjugation of northern white liberty to southern
slaveholders. Such differences stem largely from the differing aims and audiences of the two
parties. Stowe’s novel was written for a largely female audience and sought to expose the moral
evils accompanied slavery, ultimately seeking to abolish it. In contrast, the majority of
Republicans sought to arouse the furor of the northern male electorate by emphasizing the
political ramifications of slavery and seeking to prevent its westward extension. These differing
goals were also, at least partly, a reflection of the differing racial attitudes of Stowe and the
Republicans. While some Republicans were full fledges abolitionists who argued in addition for
black equality, many were racists who wanted to keep slavery out of the west in order to keep
blacks out. Stowe tended to view blacks with a kind of respect, stressing their religiosity and
there gentleness. It was these views, audiences, and goals which explain the differences, as well
as the similarities, in the critiques of Stowe and the Republicans.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin is primarily an antislavery work. However, it is not a political tract,
but a novel with overwhelming religious and feminist overtones. It is only by looking at it
through such a lens that the reader can understand Stowe’s critiques of the south, white
Levi Fox
Page 2
3/8/2016
southerners, and black slavery. Stowe believed in the notion of separate spheres for men and
women. Women operated in the domestic sphere, being responsible for religion and family,
while men operated in an external sphere, concerned with economics and politics. Stowe blames
nearly all of the evils of slavery upon economic and political grounds, and by extension, upon
men. She is able to do this so consistently in part because her audience consisted of mostly
women. Throughout the novel Stowe appeals to women’s sensitivities, focusing her attacks not
on the institution of slavery itself, its economic and political ramifications, but on the effects of
slavery on religion and family. Instead of attacking white slaveholders and the south as morally
reprehensible, she instead shows the personal horrors which individual slaves suffer often in
spite of the best intentions of kind masters. Her purpose is to show the evils of slavery, but the
way in which she goes about doing this is dictated by her audience and her medium. As such she
writes about the moral evils of slavery by focusing on specific characters with which the reader
is supposed to sympathize and which are portrayed as victims of a capricious and cruel system.
Thusly, Stowe tries to humanize slavery and to show how even the slaves of kind masters can
suffer the break up of families while those of the most cruel masters can be stripped of their
spirituality and even their humanity.
Stowe portrays certain evils that can result from slavery, while presenting a positive
image of white southerners, in her description of the Shelby family. The Shelbys are very good
to their slaves, keeping them fed, clothed, encouraging them in religion, and refusing to sell apart
families so long as the slaves don’t run away or revolt. The Shelbys’ slaves are portrayed as
contented and secure. However, even the best intentions of the Shelbys’ aren’t enough to
prevent them from having to break up families by selling slaves. Mr. Shelby is forced to sell
Tom and Harry to cover a debt, despite his strong desires not to. To Stowe and to her largely
Levi Fox
Page 3
3/8/2016
female audience, this is an example of how the evils of slavery are a result of the economic
sphere of men. The selling of slaves and the breakup of families is, in this case, a result of Mr.
Shelby’s economic failure. Despite Mrs. Shelby’s statement to Eliza that she “would as soon
have one of [her] own children sold” (Stowe 20), as a woman she is powerless to stop it.
However, Mrs. Shelby, being not surprising portrayed by Stowe as having a higher moral
character than her husband, is pleased to discover that Eliza and Harry have escaped, and tries to
prevent their recapture. Yet given the nature of the slave system, there is nothing that can be
done to prevent the break up of Tom’s family.
Stowe’s main criticism of slavery is that it can result in the spiritual hollowness of both
slave and master. Throughout the book there are examples of blacks who have had their spirits
crushed by the cruel treatment they have received. Perhaps the best illustration of this is on the
plantation of Simon Legree. Legree is in many ways a kind of super-male character. He cares
only for money and hates religion. He runs his plantation like a factory and demands that his
slaves follow his views on religion. The result is seen in the characters of Sambo and Quimbo,
who are cruel and spiritually devoid. Tom’s refusal to follow the directions of Legree results in
his becoming a martyr. The actions that take place on Legree’s plantation take on a religious
quality, as Tom is martyred, Sambo and Quimbo are converted by his martyrdom, and the
character of Cassy is redeemed. These religious sentiments were again directed at Stowe’s
mainly female audience. Thus, Stowe tried to present slavery as what was in her mind, and the
mind of her audience, the cruelest sin of all: the deprivation of religion and family.
Despite Stowe’s strong criticisms of the institution of slavery, she does not extend these
criticisms to the south or to white southerners. For the most part she paints a rather positive
picture of white southerners. She indicates that the majority of white southerners are similar to
Levi Fox
Page 4
3/8/2016
the Shelbys in their treatment of their slaves. This stems from a close relationship between
southerner and slave, a result of southern children growing up around the institution and having a
deep understanding and appreciation of it. Such an understanding is shown in the character of
George Shelby, who is close to Tom as a child, treats his slaves well, and even frees them at the
end of the book. In Stowe’s book, those slaveholders which are cruelest to their slaves are
transplanted Yankees, such as Legree and Alfred St. Claire, who lack an understanding of the
institution and seek only to make money off of it. Thus instead of criticizing white southerners
for their owning of slaves, she argues that most of them treat their slaves very well. However,
she is still able to view the institution itself as morally wrong because it is always possible that
kind hearted owners, such as Mr. Shelby or Augustine St. Claire, will die or be forced by debt to
breakup families and sell slaves to owners who might be more like Legree or George Harris’s
owner.
Stowe is also not critical of the Southern social system. To her slavery is wrong because
of the effect which it can have upon families and religion, not because it subordinates blacks to
whites or creates a hierarchical social system. Stowe demonstrates her views by having George
Shelby’s slaves decide to stay in the south even after he has freed them. In her view blacks are
somewhat like children and need guidance from benevolent whites. She even argues that if the
entire institution of slavery ceased to exist, those blacks who lived in the north would return
south, because they are more suited to live in such an environment. Her picture of the south is
one of a stable community which is tainted and threatened only by the institution of slavery, and
the sins which can accompany it.
A number of Stowe’s viewpoints can be explained by her racial attitudes. She views full
blooded blacks as having a natural affinity for Christianity, just like women, and is thusly very
Levi Fox
Page 5
3/8/2016
sympathetic to their plight. She also views such blacks as docile and non-threatening. In her
book, the only blacks that run away or revolt are the ones with white blood in them. She argues
that such blacks will eventually leave the country entirely, fleeing to Canada or Liberia, as does
George Harris and his family and the end of the book. She portrays those characters which are
kind to blacks, such as the Quakers, very positively. She also attempts to show the racism of the
north through her character of Miss Ophelia. Thusly she is neither outrightly racist nor purely
abolitionist. Her view of full blooded blacks as gentle, pious, and childlike shows that they
cannot take care of themselves but that they won’t pose a threat to anyone if emancipated either.
She paints the picture that blacks, if liberated will either leave the country entirely or peacefully
exist in the south, among whites who understand and can properly care for them.
The critiques of the South, southern slaveholders, and slavery itself offered by the
Republican Party are very different from Stowe. Just as one must look at Stowe’s criticisms with
a knowledge that she is writing a novel which is directed at women, understanding of the
Republican critques must take into account their position as a political party which directed their
views toward a northern white male electorate. Thus, the Republican positions must be
recognized as inherently political, rather than ideological or moral. Moreover, as a purely
sectional party, the Republicans played off certain northern fears, such as the fear that slavery
extension would inhibit free northern laborers from moving west and the fear that a southern
conspiracy was subordinating the liberties of a much larger northern population. In addition, as a
political party, the views of the Republicans were not uniform, with certain groups more
concerned with the evils of slavery itself and with abolition, others worried about the threat
which slavery posed to the American republic, and still others focusing on keeping slavery from
expanding westward.
Levi Fox
Page 6
3/8/2016
The views of the Republican Party towards the south and towards white slaveholders
contrast sharply with the views expressed by Stowe. “The majority of the [Republican] party
disliked white slaveholders more than black slavery or even slavery extensions” (Holt 189).
Republicans viewed these slaveholders as engaging in a conspiracy in order to subvert northern
liberties. Such Republicans promoted fears that the south was attempting “the subjugation of
Northern whites to the despotism of a tiny oligarchy of slaveholders” (Holt 190). The
Republicans played upon northern whites’ fears of being enslaved by the political power of the
South. Republicans attempted to convince Northern voters that “slaveholders meant to enslave
them through their control of the national government” (Holt 191). However, in order for the
Republicans to serve their function as a political party they needed to turn these fears in political
issues which could be decided electorally. This was accomplished by identifying the Slave
Power with the Democratic Party. “Claiming to be the exclusive Northern Party that was
necessary to halt slavery extension and defeat the Slave Power conspiracy” they appealed to the
voters to support them instead of the “Democrats, whom they denounced as pro-Southern” (Holt
185). Republicans presented themselves as an alternative, indeed the only alternative, to
northern domination at the hands of the Slave Power of the South. Thus, Republican rhetoric
attacking white southerners and the political power of the south was inextricably linked with the
political goals of the party, namely election to high office.
The Republicans also attacked what they viewed as Southern aggression and the
aforementioned conspiracy of the slaveholders within the Democratic Party. They based their
attacks on Southern aggression centered primarily around the events in Kansas and the caning in
Congress of Senator Sumner. The eastern Republican press presented the “sack of Lawrence” as
act of war in which “Freedom [was] Bloodily Subdued” (Holt 194). The attack on Sumner was
Levi Fox
Page 7
3/8/2016
used by the Republicans to demonstrate the violent tendencies of the South. He became a
symbol of Southern attempts to bully the north by whatever means necessary. The decision of a
southern dominated Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford was proof to the Republicans of a
conspiracy. The actions of Buchanon at his inaugural address, his whispering with Taney before
announcing that he would support the court’s decision, demonstrated to them the height of such a
conspiracy. The Republicans used such events as fuel for their attacks upon the South and the
Democratic Party which they viewed as being controlled by southern slaveholders.
Republican views concerning black slavery and slavery extension also have a decidedly
political flavor. In July 1854, the Republicans insisted that “Congress prohibit slavery expansion
to check the ‘unequal representation’ of the south” (Holt 153). Many Republicans were
concerned with the added political power which the 3/5ths clause of the constitution gave to the
south. Republicans, such as Lincoln and Seward, argued that Southerners meant to spread
slavery to the north as well as to the west. While some Republicans were abolitionists who hated
slavery and desired to see its destruction, a majority of the party was more concerned with
preventing the extension of slavery westward. Because of this many historians argue that the
Republican Party is best viewed a free soil party. They wanted to keep the west free for white
settlement, and to do that they had to prevent Southerners from bringing their slaves westward.
According to the Republicans this could only be accomplished by wresting control of the
national government from the southern dominated Democratic Party.
The racial attitudes of the Republican Party, and of the electorate from which they sought
support, also had a major effect upon the policies which they advanced. A Republican banner in
1860 proclaimed “NO NEGRO EQUALITY IN THE NORTH” (Holt 188). Along with a desire
by the Republicans to prevent black slaves from being brought westward was a desire to prevent
Levi Fox
Page 8
3/8/2016
all blacks from going west, thus keeping the region entirely free for white settlement. Other
elements of the Republican Party sought to prevent western expansion as the first step toward
total abolition. Thusly, while the racial attitudes of Republicans varied, they were able to unite
by focusing on the same objectives. Regardless of their views on race, all Republicans believed
that slavery could not be allowed to expand westward.
The Republicans and Stowe, therefore, disagreed in a number of ways about slavery,
slaveholders, and the South. More than that, they disagreed on the relative importance of these
issues. Most Republicans focused their attacks almost entirely on white southerners and the
south, and cared about slavery only in as much as the institution added to the power of the south.
This was partly based upon the racist free soil branch of their party which sought to keep the
west entirely free of black settlement. However, the primary explanation for the Republicans’
focus upon the political aspects of slavery, their attacks on southerners and the south, and their
attempts to identify the Democrats as controlled by a slave power conspiracy lies in the fact that
they were a political party who appealed to a northern white male electorate. This electorate was
concerned with political power, keeping the west free for settlement, and preserving the
freedoms which had been secured during the American Revolution. They were thus ready to
accept such Republican criticisms and to vote for the Republicans based upon their fears and
hatreds of the South, which were echoed by the Republicans.
In contrast, Stowe’s attacks were directed toward slavery itself, and what she viewed as
the moral evils that accompanied it. Stowe commented much less upon the South and
Southerners than upon slavery, and even when she did, she painted a rather positive image of the
people and social system of the South. Stowe’ generally positive view of blacks, grouping them
along with women as the groups most in tune to true Christianity, is a partial explanation for her
Levi Fox
Page 9
3/8/2016
critiques. However, much like in the case of the Republicans, the primary reason why Stowe’s
critques focused upon moral opposition to slavery and centered upon its affects on religion and
family was again due to her audience. In Stowe’s case she was writing a novel which would be
read primarily by northern women. A strong supporter of the notion of female superiority in the
domestic sphere, she thusly appealed to women on that level, virtually ignoring the “male” issues
of politics and economics. She attempted to convince women to oppose slavery by appealing to
their specific concerns.
For all their differences, however, there were many similarities between Stowe and the
Republicans, especially with regard to the sentiments which they were attempting to build on and
to spread. While the Republicans attacked the political evils of slavery and Stowe the moral
impact, both were still in opposition to it. In a way they’re attacks were complimentary, with
Stowe promoting an anti-slavery sentiment among northern women while the Republicans
promoted a similar feeling among northern men. While the Republicans were more racist in
their views of blacks, neither they nor Stowe were advocates of black equality. And while
Stowe’s belief that free blacks would either leave the country entirely or return south where the
climate and social system was more suitable for them, the end result of abolition in her mind was
that blacks would not be present in either the north or the west. The Republican free soilers also
sought to confine blacks to the South, keeping the West and as much of the North as possible,
free for whites, though for racist reasons. Thus while their reasoning was different, the end
result was the same, and in both cases appealed to the northern citizenry, both male and female.
The explanation for these similarities again lies in the audiences to which Stowe and the
Republicans directed their commentary. While the audiences were different, the difference was
largely confined to sex, and did not extend to political, religious, and social views. The effect
Levi Fox
Page 10
3/8/2016
was that, in any given family, the Republicans were appealing to the husband while Stowe would
be read by the wife. Thus the family would share certain political views, which could reinforce
each other. Moreover, Stowe’s belief in the theory of separate spheres for male and female,
which comes through in her book, fits nicely into such an arrangement. For these reasons the
views of Stowe and the Republicans concerning slavery were similar and complimentary.
As suggested before the respective audiences of both parties was the predominant
influence on the views the expressed. Stowe’s largely female audience was much more attuned
to the moral ramifications of black slavery, while the Republicans were concerned with the
political affects of slavery. The way in which both went about presenting their views is also
similarly based. Stowe was writing a novel to a female audience, while the Republicans were
campaigning for political office and needed the support of the male electorate. Their views on
race also played a large part in the criticisms that offered. Stowe did not advocate equality but
had a profound respect for the religiosity of blacks. While there was a segment of abolitionists
within the Republican Party, the dominant free soil branch demonstrated racist traits, seeking to
keep all blacks out of the west, and knowing that to do that they must keep southerners from
taking slavery westward. The major contrast between Stowe and the Republicans comes in their
views on the South and white southerners. Stowe tends to view both in a positive light, while the
Republicans focus their attacks and their enmity primarily at them. This is again explained by
their respective audiences, as Stowe may have sought to convert southerners to her position,
while the Republicans relied upon political polarization of the North against the South in order to
secure election. Thus, while the critques of Stowe and the Republicans concerning the institution
of slavery are similar they differ markedly in their views on the South and on white southerners.