Talk:Uncle Tom's Cabin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plot?

I think that without a small resumé of the plot the article is not informative enough. I didn't read the book and this article doesn't tell me on the place and time of the events or on the relationships between the listed characters. Could anyone add a plot section? Thanks. GhePeU 11:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. Please look it over and let me know if it is sufficient. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 12:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I also added a criticism and stereotypes section to the article. Obviously this was greatly needed.--Alabamaboy 13:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the new sections. GhePeU 15:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Plot section previously claimed that St. Clair had died of consumption-- this is wrong. Edited to correct-- St. Clair dies of a stab wound in the Reunion chapter. 68.158.99.64 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot: Legree

Am I correct that Legree is a northerner who moved to the slaveholding South? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain. Here's [1] an interesting summary of the character. You may be correct, but if this is true it was mentioned in passing in the book and is not a major detail of his character. Can you find something on it?--Alabamaboy 12:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. Here is a quote from PATRIOTIC GORE by Edmund Wilson: "Simon Legree is not a Southerner: he is a Yankee, and his harsh inhumanity as well as his morbid solitude are evidently regarded as charicteristic of his native New England." Stowe was very possibly indicating that such cruelty is not a trait od the south alone.--Saxophobia 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Long-suffering servant

"…dutiful, long-suffering servant faithful to his white master or mistress…": is he really faithful "…to his…master or mistress…"? It seems to me that he's more (1) resigned to Christian suffering and (2) rejecting of rebellion or even resistance (like George Harris's) against even as unjust an order as he finds himself living under. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The inspiration for Uncle Tom

According to this recent news story, there was a real person named Josiah Henson who was the inspiration for the Uncle Tom character [2]. Here is a link to his autobiography [3]. The Josiah Henson article mentions this detail, but shouldn't the Uncle Tom's Cabin article mention it as well? ^BlankVerse 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely should be added. And I guess the AP story can be cited if we can't get anything better, but I'd sure like either something academic or something from Stowe herself to document that he was an inspiration. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a private residence in Montgomery County Maryland which claims to be the actual Uncle Tom's Cabin structure reference in the book. http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/department/news_releases/news_release_pdf/Jun09_heritage_opt.pdf Should this be included?

At the same time, there is a link to an Uncle Tom's Cabin historic site. Should there be a note saying that isn't the actual site?

PendletonTX (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence on British foreign policy?

The article claims "In addition, some have claimed that the book so affected British readers that it kept Britain from joining the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy." I think this should be removed because 'some have claimed' is very vague. Is there anyone in particular who has claimed this? From this article we do not know if the book was widely read or even published in Britain. Although the article claims UTC was the second best selling book of the 19th Century, this was certainly not the case outside of the USA and I think it unlikely it would have had any impact on British public opinion. WhizzBang 10:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would the British join the war anyway? They were very definitely opposed to Slavery, having abolished it in the 1830s. 15:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

They were opposed (in principle) to slavery, but definitely leaned toward the South diplomatically during the war. Remember, the South was the "low tariff" side, and the British were, at the time, the world's leading manufacturing country. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a rather well-known historical fact that the main factor that kept British (and French) from joining the war on the side of the South was Russia expressing it's strong support of the North. Not some book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.182.56.5 (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I always love uncited "well-known historical facts", especially ones that are not well-known and may not be facts. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes: Novel vs. stage plays?

The section on stereotypes is good, but I think it should be tied closer to the Uncle Tom shows that toured the country and remained popular until about 1900. At the very least, the discussion of stereotypes should include the text from the Tom shows section. Our common conception of Topsy, for instance, comes less from the book and more from the minstrelry that quickly infected productions in the 1850s and 1860s. Though Topsy speaks with an unfortunate dialect in the novel, she's much less of a caricature and even something of a conscience. Tom was also negatively affected in stage productions. He certainly lost the Christ-like nature Stowe intended for him and became more like the "Uncle Tom" we think of today: In the novel, Tom gets beaten to death for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of two fugitive slaves. Considering that Stowe did not authorize these productions, I would argue that the worst stereotypes can not be attributed to her. --Idols of Mud 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Why don't you attempt the rewrite you suggest? - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's gratifying to read these comments. Tom in the novel is absolutely not what we think of as an "Uncle Tom"; in fact, he is proof that the ideas of nonviolence and of loving the sinner while hating the sin is not just something that derived from Gandhi's India but is integral to African-American culture. As for Topsy, she is portrayed as near-autistic from abuse; a "pickininny stereotype" she is not. Tom129.93.17.12 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Credited with starting a war

"...and is credited with both helping to start the American Civil War and helping to fuel the abolitionist cause in the United States."

Credited with helping to start the American Civil War? Doesn't this sound odd to anyone else? I don't think this is the correct way to phrase this... it's like saying "This book was instrumental in the death of nearly a million Americans" --Bri 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln seems to have credited her with being a catalyst of the war. Maybe the book was instrumental in the death of millions, so what? Srnec 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is, of course, nonsense. While "slavery" is considered the be the primary canned response as to the reasons of Civil War, it is still nothing more than a relatively recent politically-correct propagandist invention. Any educated person knows prefectly well than the reasons of Civil War were purely economical and "slavery" by itself was not a factor in it at all. Needless to say, Lincoln himself understood that perfectly well. He couldn't have possibly said anything of that nature.

<sarcasm>Ah yes, the Battle Hymn of the Republic ("as He died to make men Holy / Let us die to make them free") came so long after the war. And, of course, Southerners fired on Fort Sumter because they were afraid that a Republican adminstration would alter tarriff law.</sarcasm> Not that slavery was, by any means, the sole cause of the war, and certainly Lincoln was not the radical Republican many in the South imagined him to be — he would surely have preserved the "peculiar institution" if he could have saved the Republic that way — but it is hard to imagine the fractiousness having been the same without the issue of slavery. Lincoln's remark about "the little lady who started the war" may have been an exaggeration, even a gross one, but the very fact that he made it indicates that it is not only a "relatively recent politically-correct propagandist invention". - Jmabel | Talk 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of "well-educated" people think slavery had a bit to do with the American Civil War. Though its certainly far from a case of "Northern White Knights coming South to rescue the poor slaves from the evil Southerners who were responsible for all the nation's wrongs", slavery played a pretty big role. Hard to get around Howell Cobb's refutation of arming blacks for the Confederacy when he said "The day you arm slaves is the beginning of the end of our revolution. . . if slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." By the way, though, I don't think Uncle Tom's Cabin caused millions of people to die. Only 620,000 soldiers died, and while there were certainly other deaths tied to the war, I don't think it was in the millions.John ISEM (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Parts of the plot were clearly lifted from http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/uncletom/summary.html. Compare Eva's death in each.

There are many similarities that also concern me, even though this could have came about from both plot summaries describing the same original story. However, to err on the side of caution I have rewritten the plot section. Good catch. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes

Is it correct to say that she employed stereotypes while simultaneously arguing that the stereotypes are the result of the popularity of her work? Srnec 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement: "The affectionate, dark-skinned female mammy (through several characters, including Mammy, a cook at the St. Clare plantation)." is false. Mammy is a mulatto woman (meaning she's not dark skinned) and she isn't a cook either. She's more like Marie and Eva's caretaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.156.88 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. In reality, Stowe combated the stereotypes of her day. The idea that African Americans were necessarily evil-hearted, impious, lazy and selfish was countered by her work. The goal wasn't to portray ignorant and subservient Tom as a stereotype of African Americans--it was A) to show his forbearance and character, and B) to reveal how anyone--slave or free--struggles when bereft of an education. In my opinion, the entire line about Stowe reinforcing stereotypes should be left out of the introductory section of the article. It detracts from the fact that, in her time period, she was a radical in demolishing stereotypes. --208.66.148.3 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Stowe reinforced stereotypes--its says her book's popularity (and, more importantly, the large number of plays based on the book) created stereotypes. This view is backed by a large number of reliable sources.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the book

I'd like to suggest a link that has the book and the embedded audio. You can follow along with the online text as you listen to the audio here: http://publicliterature.org/books/uncle_toms_cabin/xaa.php

76.100.226.70 (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the book before reading the talk pages. It makes it easier for everyone.Lilygnat (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC) contribs) 5 August 2006.

Technical

The link for Eva, from the plot section of the artciel, is being removed. It only redirected to the top of the page, taking the viewer farther from the information on the character. Feel free to write me. Cdelosr1 10:36 22 Aug (USA CENTRAL)

Moral Values

I believe that Tom did what is right because he accept the fact that he is a dark one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.1.80.65 (talk • contribs) September 13, 2006.

what the heck are you talking about? if you accept something that ends badly it ends badly. if you are to live, you must fight and if you fight but fall. at least you went down trieing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.216.225 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Gangs of New York

I haven't seen Gangs of New York, but are the actors in the scene referred to actually in blackface (exaggerated, stereotyped: big lips googly eyes, all that)? Or are they just white people playing black people? - Jmabel | Talk 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cruikshank

Shouldn't there be some explanation of why the title page illustration shows Cruikshank as the author instead of Stowe? Did she first publish under a psuedonym and was it Cruikshank? Or Smith? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.135.227.163 (talk • contribs) October 26, 2006.

Stowe always received full credit; Cruikshank drew the illustrations for the British edition. Rjensen 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where was it a best selling novel?

The article says it was the most frequently sold book of 19th century after the bible with some puny 300.000. Does that represent USA? If it does, it certainly should be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.167.242.144 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The source cited in the article states "It was to become the second best-selling book in the world [italics mine] during the nineteenth century, second only to the Bible". A bit of Googling suggests good reason to believe that:

• "By the end of the first year, 300,000 copies had been sold in America alone; in England 200,000 copies were sold." - Slave narratives and Uncle Tom's Cabin, Africans in America Resource Bank, PBS. So that "puny" 300,000 is in one year in one country.
• Taking the longer term: "In England alone over a million copies were sold." Harriet Beecher Stowe, Spartacus Schoolnet.
• The Vassar College Libraries seem to think that figure for England is an underestimate: see Ronald D. Patkus and Mary C. Schlosser Aspects of the Publishing History of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, 1851-1900. Also, they mention "According to Bullen’s introduction to the 1879 Houghton Mifflin edition, Uncle Tom’s Cabin had already been translated into over 37 languages. 14 German editions appeared in 1852, and in 1853 17 French editions and 6 Portuguese editions appeared."

So the worldwide claim seems at least highly plausible, not one source idiosyncratically saying something others disagree with. - Jmabel | Talk 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that this was the best-selling novel in the world in the 19th century? Also, I hear that in the 19th century, this novel was the best-selling in the world. Furthermore, this novel sold better than any other in the 19th century. ...It occurs to me to wonder whether the article actually needs to make this statement *four times*. Perhaps one or two of those could be trimmed? I'm reluctant to actually do the trimming, 'cause I think it'll take more careful thought than I can muster right now, but I'm hoping someone else will be willing to do this. But don't forget: this was the best-selling novel of the 19th century! Just in case you weren't sure. --Elysdir 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

Could somebody revert this page to before whoever came in ended up putting "nigger" and "porch monkey" laced throughout the entire article? There's way too many epiteths for me to comb through the article and correct them all myself.

I am afraid that function is currently down, and it would be much appreciated if you could simply continue combing through the article and trying to repair it to the best of your abilities. Thank you.N9philim 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Race-related articles are often vandalized. The way to fix it is usually to go through the article history and restore the last good version. - Jmabel | Talk 21:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SECTION ON FILM ADAPTATIONS IS INADEQUATE AT BEST!!!

The film of Uncle Tom's Cabin that featured Herbert Lom as Legree was of very high quality. I wonder why this article does not mention it in the section on film adaptations. Among other things, the film portrays Tom as Stowe described him rather than as he is usually misunderstood -- I mean, not as a sychophant who "sucks up" to white people but as a Christian who loves the sinner while hating the sin, and allows himself to be sold down the river because otherwise his whole people (those on the plantation) would suffer. And Topsy not as the stereotypical "pixie" but again as Stowe created her, near-autistic from abuse and neglect. It's a very good film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.16.211 (talk • contribs) 20:30, February 2, 2007

Then add it! - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up and semi-protected article

I just finished cleaning up a ton of subtle vandalism, mostly the deleting of information by anonymous editors. Because this article is a frequent target of this type of subtle vandalism (which is hard to detect) I've semi-protected the article. If anyone has any issue with this, please let me know. But this is too important an article to allow this to continue to happen. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

GA

Congrats on bringing this article up to GA status! It's really quite good. I did some work on this article a while back and it was in sad shape, it's nice to see how this has improved. Since I passed this as a GA, I thought I should point out a few things that might be improved. This article certainly has the potential to be a FA and it should be. Here are a few issues:

• I think a few more images could be added.
• There are a few one-sentence paragraphs that should be expanded of merged.
• The sections on "Tom Shows" and "Cinematic Versions" need citations.
• The See Also section is fairly useless as most of the topics are already linked in the article.

Overall, it's a lovely article! Keep up the good work! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll work on these issues in the coming months. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that the bulk of the remarks about "Tom Shows" could be cited from Lott. At the time I added most of that material, we weren't usually using inline citations. Have a look at my edits from late July and early August 2005. - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. It'll probably be a while before I can add the references to that section but when I do I'll do as you suggest. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

hiya ppl

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.77.80 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know more on Uncle Tom's cabin. I am writting a newsletter on this subject.

Thnx Kacey

Going for Featured Article status

I have just completed a major revision to this article. Since this article is already at Good Article level, I'm aiming for Featured Article status. Please critique the article and give your opinion here (I also hope people will help improve the article where they can). Best, --Alabamaboy 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd add is that it would be nice if the images were staggered somehow. It seems odd that they're all on the right. Maybe align one or two left? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix that. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 23:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article made it!--Alabamaboy 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work - literature articles are difficult to bring up to featured status. -- Stbalbach 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I also commend all of the detail and hard work put into this article; very, very good job! I've read the book twice (once for pleasure and once for school) and even I didn't know some of the info listed here.  :) I'm truly impressed. María (habla conmigo) 00:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Unfortunately, the article is also a magnet for vandalism and I'm sure being on the main page is going to increase that vandalism a hundred-fold. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The FA status is deserved--good work! I might highlight St. Clare's function in the novel a bit more, as this character is a proxy for the ambivalent reader. Billbrock 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection should be redrafted or not? Please help form consensus at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Consensus. DrKiernan 09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Evil" and "Ideal"

In a number of places on this article, there are unattributed uses of this term. The term 'evil' cannot be neutral, it's making a judgment. The term 'ideal' is used without attribution as well as well as commentary regarding the "redeeming attributes" of Christianity, which, of course, is also not neutral. I've placed citation tags where I've felt appropriate. I am pretty sure you will find few people who have anything positive to say about slavery but that doesn't mean we can refer to anything as 'evil' and expect it to be neutral. :bloodofox: 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an overreaction. For example, there's no need to tag a statement such as "the book's arguments about the evils of slavery", since the book does, in fact, argue that slavery is evil. (In other words, the citation is the text itself.) Fumblebruschi 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a statement needs a citation from the book itself or a rewording to reflect that it is directly a reference from the book. Basically, the statement needs to fully reflect that. The term "evil" gets thrown around quite a lot on Wikipedia with little abandon. :bloodofox: 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is an overreaction at all, as I agree with Bloodfox. (See my response below under another heading). But that statement along with "Christian love and faith" implies that Christians are the only people with the kind of love and faith necessary to overcome such evils as slavery. Even though the book implies this very thing. But it is commentary and is POV and should be removed, IMO. So, something taken from the book itself to assert the sentiment should replace it, or remove the sentence completely. (It wasn't there in an earlier version.) - Jeeny ^Talk 05:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added in a citation for Eva being portrayed as an "ideal Christian" and also put that phrase in quotes. As I said in the other section on this page, the views of slavery as evil and of Christian love and faith are from Stowe herself and are a major theme of the book. It's easy to provide citations to all this b/c these issues are discussed in almost any commentary about the novel (and I thought I'd provided enough cites, but I've now added more in). Best, --Alabamaboy 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian love and faith...

Today, someone added quotes around the "Christian love and faith" bit in the lead, along with a {{who}} tag. After an extensive search on Google and checking out this page's history, it seems that this is definitely not a quote from a single person. See this edit for the original addition of this line into the article. I'm going to remove the quotes around this bit and change the {{who}} tag to a {{fact}}, which seems more appropriate in this situation. --- RockMFR 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That was me. My reasoning was that it needs attribution if it is to stay. It sounds like a personal interpretation of an editor and either needed a quote source directly from the source material or a complete rewording for neutrality. :bloodofox: 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it from a fact tag to a who tag because I saw that quotes where added (that were not there when I looked last) and I searched the "quote" too, and did not find anything either. I had problems with an earlier version using the word "showing" that implies only Christians are loving and faithful and changed the word to "asserting", for lack of a better word, and to not removed the sentence. The new word "espouses" and the quotes may have been added by the same editor? I don't know, but I also have a problem with that word, as it is just as POV as "showing", to me anyway. Maybe that sentence should be reworded, or a better word (I can't think of one that is NPOV), but one that does not seem to claim only Christians are good and faithful? - Jeeny ^Talk 05:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the word "Christian" and the fact tag. Hopefully this is a compromise for a NPOV, and a need for a citation. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. I agree with you and simply removed the sentence since it was clearly an editor's observation. If something like that is going to fly, we're going to need specific words referenced from the book or it's going to have to be an outside reference to someone commenting on it. :bloodofox: 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "slavery is evil" is universal, in regard to the type accounted in the book, anyway. So, in that, I respectfully disagree with you on removing the word "evil" from the article. I objected to the implication that only Christians can overcome evil. The author is very clear about "showing" the "evil" of slavery, though. <shrug> - Jeeny ^Talk 06:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits but added a reference where it actually reinforces the assertion of the evil of slavery and the author's intention. Here's a link where it references her view to support the use of the word "evil". I can get more if needed. There are many that show the author's intent to show the evils of slavery. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not our place to state any sort of judgement towards slavery. It doesn't matter what we think. It matters how the book depicts it and thus we subsequently must reference it appropriately like anything else. Any sort of non-neutral statements like that are either going to have to be either direct quotes from the book or a referenced commentator and worded appropriately to reflect this. We can't go around calling anything 'evil' here and expect any sort of neutrality to come of it. :bloodofox: 07:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added back in a modified version of this sentence with several solid citations. The first is from the Spark Notes to the book itself, where it states the novel is about the "destructive power of slavery and the ability of Christian love to overcome it..." I've also added in another reference along these lines from the humorous (but accurate) Complete Idiot's Guide to American Literature. The final citation is from a scholarly book, with references to an influential scholarly essay on UTC. I used these references b/c they are extremely to the point on this issue, but I can also provide a similar reference from the introduction to the novel (but I'll have to snag that copy back from the library first). The article isn't trying to say that Christianity is the only way to overcome slavery. Instead, that was Stowe's belief, which is why the statement include the word "asserting" b/c Stowe was the one asserting that. While we may disagree with Christianity being the only way to overcome slavery, the fact is that Stowe believed this about Christianity and made it a major theme of the book. I hope the changes I've made work for everyone. Best,--Alabamaboy 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job! I went to bed troubled about removing "Christian" from the article, as I've read the book many times, and know there is a strong Christian "message" throughout, and "shows" the "evils" of slavery. Though without references it was commentary, and especially implied that Christianity is the only way for one to overcome evil -- even though the book does imply this. Yet, I know one does not have to be Christian to appreciate the book, and also agree with the message of "love and faith". It was a dilemma! I'm glad you added the references. It wouldn't have accurately portrayed the book without the words "Christian" and "evils of slavery" as it is the major theme of the book! :) - Jeeny ^Talk 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the references I've added work for people. Because this was a contentious issue, I added multiple cites from books at different scholarly levels. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Best-Selling Novel of the Nineteenth Century"

I don't think this can be right. According to the official Wikipedia list, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is ranked 44th. There are several other books that have been printed earlier and have sold more and others later in the 19th Century. Now, these might have reached or gone towards this status earlier or since the 1800s, but I doubt that they all sold fewer copies in that particular century and regained ground since. As an example, the "Book of Mormon" was published 22 years earlier and has sold 120 million copies to "Uncle Tom's Cabin"'s 28 million. It is therefore likely that it sold more in the 19th century. Also, in the article on "Ben-Hur" it states that it soon overtook "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as the best-selling American novel at some point between 1880 and 1936 (when it was overtaken by "Gone With the Wind"). 88.109.213.26 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is correct and has a number of reliable citations to back it up. That said, there are a number of 19th century novels which sold well in the 20th century and may have overtaken UTC's total sales (Moby Dick, for one, Ben-Hur for another). But since those novels sold most of their copies in the 20th century, that doesn't change the statement about UTC. Best,--Alabamaboy 12:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is a completely reliable source, it can only be estimated. I was simply appyling logic.88.110.250.80 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Logic is rarely as reliable as people think :-). But with regards to the sources, there are a large number of them which state that the book was the best-selling novel of that century.--Alabamaboy 18:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide effect

the novel had a profound effect on worldwide attitudes toward African Americans and slavery

To me this implies it has a profound effect on attitudes toward African Amercians and slavery throughout the world. I'm not saying this isn't true but more evidence would be ideal. It appears the book was widely translated, the first American novel to be translated into Chinese for example (although when this occured is not quite clear although given the years the translator lived in I guess late 19th century or early 20th century). We can presume then that it was widely read. And it was obviously one of the thing's that had a great effect on the attitudes to towards African Americans and slavery in the world in general but directly and indirectly. But this doesn't really answer the question whether it had a profound effect on the attitudes in all countries. I'm especially thinking of Asia here. Did it have a profound effect on the attitudes in Japan? China? India? Siam? The Ottoman Empire? Saudia Arabia? Egypt? For that matter what about Russia? Or the Nordic countries? Nil Einne 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article now. I've specifically stated that the novel "had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery in the United States." That said, there is some evidence that the novel also impacted views of slavery around the world. In the contemporary and world reaction section, the article states that the 1930 Amharic translation was "created in support of Ethiopian efforts to end the suffering of blacks in that nation." If more referenced facts like this are found, they can be added to this section. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The book, and the plays it inspired, also helped propagate a number of common stereotypes...

From the introduction "The book, and the plays it inspired, also helped propagate a number of common stereotypes". I am dubious over the word propagate. Propagate implies that the stereotypes were already sterotypes before the book, and they spread in use due to the book. This may or may not be true, but if it is true a citation is necessary. I have read the alternative position that the characters from the book later became sterotypes because they were frequently used by other authors later. Unless there is good evidence for one position or the other, the introduction should not take a position. Sad mouse 18:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I originally had the word "create" in the lead but someone rewrote that in the last 24 hours. I've now changed the word back to "create," which is what most of the scholarly articles state and is a word backed by a number of citations in the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

James Baldwin disbambig?

Great read. But the James Baldwin link is to a dab, and it's hard to tell from the list which JB is being referred to. Anchoress 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've made the correction. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

NP. Anchoress 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

'White man's uncle tom's Cabin'

Well googling only showed one reference and it was me but in that reference (a review of the book in question) I put the expression in quotes. I believe it was a fairly well known characterization of the work (The Jungle) around the time of publication and since. Ah yes: changing the query to 'upton sinclair jungle "Uncle Tom's Cabin"' yelds 35,000 hits. Really, people ought to check before deleting someones work at least that much (as a simple googling). Lycurgus 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Googling the phrase "White Man's Uncle Tom's Cabin" yields zero hits. I also searched a number of academic and scholarly books for that phrase and nothing turned up. Unless you can show a reliable reference supporting that this phrase is used by a number of people, it shouldn't be in the article. Best,--Alabamaboy 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

I think the popular image of this book (reflected in the article) is inaccurate. The character of Tom, as written by Stowe, is not at all a passive man who seeks favors from his masters. He's a Christian who "loves the sinner and hates the sin". He looks for the day of redemption but refuses to be hateful or vindictive. He seems to me to constitute proof that nonviolently opposing love to hatred is not something the US civil rights movement just imported from Gandhi and Tolstoy but has roots in African-American culture.

Tom refuses to flog a fellow slave, and in return gets flogged himself. He refuses to reveal the whereabouts of fugitives and in return is beaten to death. He allows himself to be "sold down the river" when his cop-out white master Shelby decides on it, because if he didn't, evil would fall on all the slaves at the Shelby plantation.

Topsy isn't a "pickaninny stereotype". She's near-autistic from abuse and neglect, her back is crisscrossed with scars, and she steals because she thinks she's supposed to--having experienced next to no nurture or love. She's an indictment of white society from the word go.

This article should talk more about the character of George Harris, the back-to-Africa man, whose father is white but who says he utterly rejects the white element in himself and that "rather than wish myself one shade lighter, I would wish myself two shades darker." He is a strong, dignified, and very articulate man and he was always my favorite when I read the book as a kid.

The article should talk more about the sixteen-year-old female black woman (I forget her name) whom Legree buys away from his mother to serve as his sex slave. Southern readers were especially outraged by this portrayal; they claimed such things never happened!

Stowe's father was of course Henry Ward Beecher, the abolitionist preacher and Underground Railroad "conductor". The house she was raised in was abolitionist command central, and every incident and character in the book is based on fact. She later proved this in her supplementary book about the writing of the novel.

Also, the article should mention the film of Uncle Tom's Cabin made (I think) in the 1980's, with Herbert Lom as Legree. It's a pretty good rendering of the story. Tom129.93.17.135 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Publication Date

There is no way that the first book could have been published on March 20th 1852. The final chapter wasn't printed in National Era until April 1, 1852 according to John R. Adam's biography of her life. Even the announcement for the publication wasn't made until March 25, 1852 (5 days after the said publication date on Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.235.23 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 November 2007

The fact that the final chapter wasn't published in National Era until April 1 doesn't preclude the book being published March 20. Although it wasn't printed in National Era until its April 1 issue, Stowe must have written it well before then. Here's a web page with these same dates. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate references

I'm not sure what the guidelines for citations are in Wikipedia articles, but endnotes 8 and 50 are exactly the same. Is this necessary? Same with 43 and 62. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxw13 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"permanently ingraining these stereotypes into the American psyche."

There is no such thing as an "American psyche". A psyche is a quality solely possesable by an individual. Therefore suggesting change to "American culture". --84.137.15.81 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eliza crossing the ice?

Isn't the most famous scene from Uncle Tom's Cabin that of Eliza crossing the ice? Shouldn't this be mentioned in Uncle Tom's Cabin? There are many illustrations of this scene (e.g., Image:Eliza-Crossing-the-Ice-Morgan-1881.jpeg, and the article could use more illustrations. Eubulides (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Loker dying of being shot?

Hmm, I may have to re-read that segment, but I seem to remember Loker being pushed into a gorge by Phineas (the Quaker) was the reason for him being near death, not really the bullet wound. Should the gorge part be mentioned? FusionMix 10:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SOMEBODY WHO HAS AN ACCOUNT AND CAN POST HERE, I have a reference to the real Eliza. Levi Coffin, nicknamed President of the Underground Railroad, mentioned Eliza in his autobiography, which can be found online here: http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/coffin/coffin.html. On pages 147-150 of his Reminiscences, he writes that Eliza, who did indeed cross via the ice because her son was going to be sold, stayed at his house for several days on her journey North: http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/coffin/coffin.html#p139 and scroll down a bit. Since this is semi-protected, I can't post yet, and I'll probably forget soon. If you can edit this, please do. Rachelofthecornfields (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

cincinnati/slavery

claiming stowe was familiar with slavery and could accurately comment on it because ohio borders kentucky is like saying sarah palin has foreign policy experience because alaska is near russia. WillC (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly living in Cincinatti itself doesn't qualify one to understand American slavery in the mid 1800's. If someone said that in itself, it is laughable. However, from what has been said before, Stowe spoke with runaway slaves who came into and through Cincinatti. If a statement was made like that, that's probably what it referred to. While it is certainly debatable whether she could accurately portray slavery to some extent based on that (certainly she had other sources as the article mentions), I don't remember anyone saying that Sarah Palin has spoken with a number of Russians who came to Alaska. More importantly, did Stowe understand slavery better than the writers of the anti-Tom novels, who actually lived in the South, or at least did her writings show more understanding than their writings? Not having read the writings by people who debate the reality of American slavery at great length, I don't know for sure, but personally I would put my money on Stowe.John ISEM (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

19th Century Best Seller?

This article says that this book was the best selling novel in the nineteenth century. I believe this distinction goes to Ben-Hur. I'm going to change it soon. K, thnx. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Yo...

68.224.233.27 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hartford Female Academy

The article says Stowe was a preacher at the Hartford Female Academy. Her sister founded the Hartford Female Seminary, which I suppose is probably the same place.

If anyone knows for sure, please change it and make a link.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just changed this. In the FA version it stated she was a teacher there, an anonymous editor changed it in 2008....needs a reference though - Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Uncle Tom's Cabin|p003c1bp}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Pollard movie adaptation

I accepted a revision by an IP (which I reworded a little) which looked like an improvement to the original wording - however, it still needs a source. Feel free to revert or reword if there are any problems. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 07:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

FA

There are three issues regarding this article. First: "James B. Lowe then took over the character of Tom. The screenplay takes many liberties with the original book, including altering the Eliza-and-George subplot, introducing the Civil War and Emancipation, and combining the characters of Eliza and Emmeline." needs citation. Second: Evolution of Film Adaptations subsection is completely unsourced. Third: Books in References don't have ISBN's. Please, contact the primary edtiors. Otherwise, I'll nominate it for FAR. TGilmour (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these issues. I wasn't able to determine before which issues you were concerned about. Anyway, I added in the reference for that information and also deleted that entire section on Evolution of Film Adaptations. I'm not sure who added in that section--it wasn't me--but since it is not referenced and is borderline POV it can be safely removed until that section's editor or someone else wants to source it.

As for the ISBNs, those are optional for citations (for more information, please go here). If you want to add them in, please feel free to do so. But the lack of ISBNs do not make the citations invalid, and it is not an issue big enough for FAR. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is another big problem – there is a plethora of dead links, please see this TGilmour (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to update the links if you can discover the correct url. However, with citations when the link goes dead standard procedure is to tag them, as you've done, and leave the dead link to show that this is where the information was once retrieved from. Details can be found here.--SouthernNights (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would update them as you are the main contributor to the article. TGilmour (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would but I'm under a tight deadline at the moment. But if you don't want to do it, I'll put it on my to-do list for a few weeks from now.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Would be nice. TGilmour (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Green

In the "Reactions to the novel" section, I was hoping to add a few sentences about the case of Samuel Green (freedman), who was jailed in Maryland for having possession of Uncle Tom's Cabin. This story has been researched thoroughly by MD Archives, National Archives, and other individuals/institutions. Harriet Beecher Stowe even mentioned meeting with Green after his release in 1862 ["Simon the Cyrenian"]

I would be gay to make the additions if permissions are made available. Thanks. Davidarm (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation 65

Citation 65 was used incorrectly and taken out of context.

The line from the source cited reads "The perception lingers that Uncle Tom's Cabin is a blend of children's fable and propaganda." In the wiki article it says: " Despite this undisputed significance, the popular perception of Uncle Tom's Cabin is as "a blend of children's fable and propaganda."[65]"

At no point does the source cited claim that this opinion is popular. The use of that word legitimizes the falsehood of such a perception. Also, without elaborating the way the original source does, such a statement evokes a totally different idea than what was being argued by the source cited.

Please have this error corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.0.255.139 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2012 from Montgomery Parks

Hello, I am the Graphic Designer for the Cultural Resources Preservation Section of Montgomery Parks in Montgomery County, MD, the owners of the Josiah Henson Park site referenced in this article. We have two requests for updates to your content. Thank you for your consideration.

First, please change the bottom of the second paragraph in the SOURCES section from:

The cabin where Henson lived while he was enslaved no longer exists, but a cabin erroneously thought to be the Henson Cabin was purchased by the Montgomery County, Maryland, government in 2006. It is now a part of the National Park Service National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program.Official Montgomery County Parks Josiah Henson site</ref>

... to the following updated text and corrected links for Montgomery Parks and the Josiah Henson Park site below:

The cabin where Henson lived while he was enslaved no longer exists. However, a cabin on the Riley farm where Henson was enslaved was purchased by the Department of Parks in Montgomery County, MD in 2006 and turned into a park. Josiah Henson Park is open to the public on special event weekends, hosts group and school tours and is now a part of the National Park Service National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program. In 2010 a plan was approved for the site and work has begun to create a museum and interpretive center that honors the life of Josiah Henson.

Second, the page linked to for NOTES section #18 no longer exists. Please change it from:

18. ^ Official Montgomery County Parks Josiah Henson site

... to:

18. ^ Official Montgomery Parks Josiah Henson Park site

Oldegrrl1958 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. Please go over the policy on conflict of interest if you wish to continue editing articles related to your employer.

• Your first request was Partly done:. I'm going to meet you in the middle here. The "erroneous" comment is backed up by a reliable source and so I'm not inclined to remove it without consensus. Also your request contains inappropriate inline external links and I believe the third sentence ("Josiah Henson Park is open...") strays too far off the topic of this article. I will incorporate parts of the second sentence and the last sentence of your proposed wording.
• Your second request was Done as requested.

Let me know if you have any questions or if I missed anything. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing Word

I believe that there is a missing word in this sentence: "For instance, she had been to a Southern plantation." and that the sentence should actually be: "For instance, she had never been to a Southern plantation." 173.228.123.117 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Required reading in schools?

Is this book a required reading in schools in US? If so, this article should mention it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In some schools it is, but every school is different. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Other language publications

I recently uploaded File:Uncle Tom's Cabin French.jpeg and File:Uncle Toms Cabin Polish.jpeg, pre-1923 versions of Uncle Tom's Cabin in French and Polish, exhibited in the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati. I don't suppose there's a place for either of these images in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Best selling novel of the 19th century

"Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling novel of the 19th century" Is this just in America? As in the UK and Worldwide I have seen multiple sources state Charles Dickens Tale of Two Cities as the best selling Novel of the 19th century. Can someone check and clarify the statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Motivations for writing

I believe a motivations for writing section would be beneficial to the context of this novel, as well as its affects on mid-1800s society, 108.184.91.21 (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A minor nitpick

Just a minor nitpick I can't change myself, the "12 Years a Slave" link under See Also should really be "Twelve Years a Slave". 122.174.34.104 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Marie St Clare

Marie St Clare is a wonderfully drawn and memorable character. Surely she deserves a mention on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.230.231 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't she a pain though? I must certainly be in a minority, but I found her to be the most despicable character in the story. For all of Simon Legree's brutality, at least he made no pretensions to moral ascendancy. I have just added Marie to the character list.--Geometricks (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why Uncle Tom's Cabin is effective as an anti-slavery writing

Harriet Beecher Stowe was a white female author. These biological and racial facts alone make her novel work as an abolitionist piece. Kerry Sinanan expresses in her essay “The Slave narrative and the Literature of Abolition” that critics that did not believe the stories in slave narratives. It was difficult for slave authors, such as Fredrick Douglass, to put emotion into his writing because then people would not believe it or think it was true. It was easier for Stowe to write about the emotion that went along with slavery because she was separated from it. It is clear what emotions that the scenes in the novel try to elicit from the reader. In Sinanan’s essay the difference between what Stowe was able to do in comparison to the authors of slave narratives is perfectly high lighted in the quote: “This openly deliberate manipulation of the reader is denied to the slave who must appear as the objective recorder of facts, despite his/her personal invested in the narrative. Arguably, this mode of realistic narration in the slave narrative creates a distance between narrator and reader, for the slave’s story is unremittingly outside the white reader’s experience” (Sinanan 73). As stated, there is considerably less distance between the author and the reader in Uncle Tom’s Cabin because Harriet Beecher Stowe identifies with the reader. Neither she nor the reader really experienced slavery, so there is a connection and understanding. She can say whatever she pleases in terms of emotions that go along with slavery and will not be as questioned by the reader, simply because she is white and her work is fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabluffton2 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 April 2015

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015

Please add: Stowe's novel works as anti-slavery piece of literature because she is a white female.“This openly deliberate manipulation of the reader is denied to the slave who must appear as the objective recorder of facts, despite his/her personal invested in the narrative. Arguably, this mode of realistic narration in the slave narrative creates a distance between narrator and reader, for the slave’s story is unremittingly outside the white reader’s experience” (Sinanan 73). As stated, there is considerably less distance between the author and the reader in Uncle Tom’s Cabin because Harriet Beecher Stowe identifies with the reader.<ref group="Cambridge University Press">{{cite journal|last1=Sinanan|first1=Kerry|title=The Slave Narrative and the History of Abolition|journal=Cambridge University Press|date=2007|pages=61-78|accessdate=March 2015}}</ref> Alexabluffton2 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2015

Category:Southern Gothic novels 76.88.98.65 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Don't see any mention of "southern gothic" on this page, need to provide an authoritative source describing this book as such Cannolis (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Minor Correction Needed to Plot -- Eliza's Family Hunted

George did not "push Loker down a cliff," as stated. George shot and injured Loker in the side. However, "though wounded, he [Loker] would not retreat, but, with a yell like that of a mad bull, he was leaping right across the chasm into the party." Loker was pushed into the chasm by Phineas Fletcher, a converted Quaker traveling with George and Eliza, with Phineas saying, "Friend, thee isn't wanted here." Uncle Tom's Cabin, Chapter XVII. This is something of a minor error that someone might want to correct. (I happened to look at the Wikipedia article after having just finished reading the book.) RoseHawk (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Since I am commenting anyway, the description of George Harris really needs to be expanded a little. While not one of the principle characters, he is certainly an important character. George decides to run away to Canada before Eliza does similar. George is running away to escape a cruel master; Eliza, to maintain the integrity of her family (i.e., keep her child from being sold). Also, a very minor typographic in sub-section describing Augustine St. Claire: At one point his last name is incorrectly stated simply as "Claire." RoseHawk (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I intend to look into the novel to make the necessary plot corrections. I hope this will help.Mike Tem (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I made the plot correction you noticed, I hope it was to your liking. Mike Tem (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

another theme- temperance?

perhaps it was just in my reading, but i would argue that due to the st clare character who is stabbed to death in a bar and depicted as inebriated earlier and assisted by tom and adolph also show that she,(Mz Stowe)was likely concerned with the temperance movement as well. Other negative depictions of alcohol show her depicting its use: drunken slave hunters, prue and slaveholders plying their slaves with alcohol (primarily legree giving liquor to emmeline, quimbo and sambo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I aim to look into the novel to see if this theme can be identified and what specific instances in the story can support that. I hope this will help.Mike Tem (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I was able to find proof of the temperance theme, it's much more subtle than the other themes but it is there. I hope my contribution fits well enough.Mike Tem (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (2/18/2016)

Note # 13 has a bad link.

Vollaro, Daniel R. (Winter 2009), Lincoln, Stowe, and the "Little Woman/Great War" Story: The Making, and Breaking, of a Great American Anecdote 30 (1), Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association

is available at http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.2629860.0030.104, not at http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/30.1/vollaro.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibaimendi (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-Resistance and colonization

Accordingly to William Lloyd Garisson, the book "triumphantly exemplifies the nature, tendencies and results of Christian non-resistance" (march 26th 1852, The Liberator; http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/reviews/rere02at.html). This opinion is supported by Tolstoy who quote the work as "a truly religious piece of art" (free translation from French).

Beecher Stowe had declined an invitation of Garrison to be present at an annual meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society. It seems that she was supporting the plans of the Colonization Society (her father was Reverend Lyman Beecher); an important topic at that time.

More importantly, Garisson asked her to clarify whether she considered that non-resistance was only for the black people - http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1853/12/23/uncle-toms-cabin-reconsidered - (Harriett's brother gave his name to "Beecher's Bible", which are rifles). I thing the subject is worth mentioning; she presented escape and Christian non-resistance as valuable for the blacks; as for the whites, to help escape, buy black persons and give legal (emancipation) papers is ok, but for them, non-resistance is not considered, which is remarkable since large parts of the book is built around becoming Christian, and pro-slavery laws are well presented as anti-Christians; in fact the problem of the law - she said - was that it offered no legal advantage to the slave, even when the masters were "good masters", for they might die and they may be sold to other masters. So despite this emergency of life and death, with the Judgment Day ahead, and the existing unjust laws, the book did not address directly the question of Christian non-resistance for the whites: for if a slaveholder had become a Christian non-resistant... he would necessarily have let go free his slaves immediately. In brief, non-resistance is a major subject of the book, and the question of Garisson was essential... http://mselephantgun.com/blog/2013/5/20/6rmh8aoj1e651boordkg4t42cbzji2 AndWater (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Any reliable sources to back up the claim of "Best selling novel of the 19th century"?

It seems like a popular notion now, but where is the actual proof it outsold every other novel of the 19th century? Unless someone can offer a yearly report on book sales during the entire 19th century, it simply reads like a hollow and empty statement. Michael0986 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

See footnotes for that sentence, including Book Preview for chapter by Gail K. Smith. DonFB (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The book preview states it was "probably the best-selling book of the century", and the wiki article states it "was the best-selling novel of the century", as if it's a proven fact. Does anyone else not see a problem here? Is there actual proof it outsold every other novel in the 19th century? Maybe it far outsold every other novel of the 19th century, fine, but where is the proof? It may have been the fifth best selling novel of the century for all we know. Michael0986 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia does not endeavor to "prove" anything. Information in WP articles comes from previously published reliable sources. Those sources enable readers to verify that information in articles comes from reputable sources and is not made up by WP editors. The source in this case does hedge its bet a little by saying "probably", so if you want this article to say it that way, you could edit the article accordingly. DonFB (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

External links

Sometimes things just "creep in" so would someone look at the "External links" to see if some of the links can be integrated into the article or trimmed. 3-5 links might be alright for an upper limit (usually 4 or 5 with consensus) but 10 shows signs of link farming. Otr500 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2019

In the "Creation and popularization of stereotypes" subsection of the article, there should be a sentence (perhaps at the end of the first paragraph) that unambiguously describes how Harriet Beecher Stowe fundamentally misrepresented the female slave experience - especially via her depiction of Eliza. Author Angela Davis has written about this in her 1981 book Women, Race, and Class, saying, "Stowe miserably fails to capture the reality and the truth of Black women’s resistance to slavery" (pg. 29). Fridayedits (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ​ — Newslinger talk 12:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment

In the section "Literary significance and criticism" there is a sentence fragment concerning the character Dinah:

"Scholars have also seen the novel as expressing the values and ideas of the Free Will Movement.[76] In this view, the character of George Harris embodies the principles of free labor, while the complex character of Ophelia represents those Northerners who condoned compromise with slavery. Dinah, who operates on passion. During the course of the novel Ophelia is transformed, just as the Republican Party (three years later) proclaimed that the North must transform itself and stand up for its antislavery principles.[76]"

"Dinah, who operates on passion."

I was not sure what the article meant to say here, so I didn't edit the text. Runtape (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I completed the sentence, using text from an earlier version, presumably lost sometime during editing. DonFB (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

FA in need of review

This is an older Featured Article that hasn't been reviewed since its promotion in 2007. Issues spotted:

• there's a lot of original research going on, with several unsourced paragraphs throughout the article;
• that "professional racist" claim has to be sourced;
• WP:UNDUE weight to the Anti-Tom literature section, that manages to be almost the size of our Anti-Tom literature article;
• Is the unsourced Collections section relevant to the article?
• Unclear how some of the links in See Also relate to the subject;
• The prose in the Films section needs work to avoid the single-sentences listing yet another adaptation.

Article needs considerable work in terms of sourcing. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What is a power press?

The introduction describes eight power presses. I am not sure what they are; perhaps the term refers to steam-powered printing presses? Nonoesimposible (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

One would imagine so. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin: George Harris

(Under major characters)

George Harris- Eliza’s husband. George’s character is an example of how a slave is restricted of freedom. George was granted permission to work at a factory on a lease (Stowe, Ch. II). The factory George worked at involved the cleaning of hemp. He made giant strides for the factory because he invented a machine that would save money and time (Stowe, Ch. II). While he worked at the factory, George enjoyed showing off his intelligence and skills. George became a favorite within the company and his peers thought highly of his hard work. George’s master was notified of George’s successes, then was sent back to work at his master’s farm instead of the factory.

George also has a deep connection with his wife, Eliza. They got married while George was still working at the factory (Stowe, Ch. II). Once George was sent back to the farm, he knew he wanted his relationship with Eliza to continue. He is a devoted husband and a big characteristic of his is loyalty. George’s character is a good example of a hard-working slave who is loyal to his family and who he is working for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneMettert (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)