Harriet Beecher Stowe: The Woman Who Wrote Against Slavery

Harriet Beecher Stowe

Harriet Beecher Stowe didn't set out to start a war. But when the Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850, forcing ordinary citizens to return escaped enslaved people to bondage, she could no longer stay silent. She wrote to her editor in March of 1851, "the time has come when even a woman or a child who can speak a word for freedom and humanity is bound to speak." She picked up her pen and changed American history.

"Uncle Tom's Cabin"
by: Harriet Beecher Stowe

Stowe's opposition to slavery wasn't theoretical. Living in Cincinnati, she had visited Kentucky plantations and witnessed slavery firsthand. Her family housed fugitive enslaved people escaping north on the Underground Railroad. She listened intently to the stories of her family's Black domestic servants who had lived under slavery's cruelties. She studied published narratives like Frederick Douglass's autobiography. These experiences gave her the raw material for Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Stowe described her vocation simply as "a painter" whose goal was to portray slavery "in the most lifelike and graphic manner possible." She understood something fundamental about human nature. "There is no arguing with pictures," she wrote, "and everybody is impressed by them, whether they mean to be or not." Her novel exposed slavery's brutal realities: violent whippings, sexual exploitation of enslaved women, and families torn apart. But she also portrayed African American characters as strong, faithful, and fully human—people with the same yearning for freedom that anyone would feel.

Stowe made a deliberate choice not to demonize slaveholders directly. Instead, she showed how slavery corrupted everyone it touched. She wanted to appeal to Southern consciences, to demonstrate that the institution contradicted Christian values and American ideals of liberty. This approach worked. The book became an instant phenomenon, selling 310,000 copies in its first year in the United States alone.

The impact was immediate and massive. Readers on both sides of the slavery debate had profound emotional reactions. William Lloyd Garrison confessed to "the frequent moistening of our eyes" while reading her vivid depictions.

Frederick Douglass offered perhaps the highest praise: "The touching, but too truthful tale of Uncle Tom's Cabin has rekindled the slumbering embers of antislavery zeal into active flames. Its recitals have baptized with holy fire myriads who before cared nothing for the bleeding slave."

Uncle Tom's Cabin didn't cause the Civil War, but it fundamentally shifted the national conversation about slavery. Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act swept through the North. Two years after publication, 50,000 people gathered in Boston to oppose slave catchers trying to capture an escaped man named Anthony Burns. Meanwhile, White Southerners were outraged. They banned the book and wrote elaborate rebuttals defending slavery. The nation's divide deepened with each passing year.

When Stowe reportedly met President Lincoln in 1862, he allegedly asked, "Is this the little woman who made this great war?" While probably apocryphal, the question captured the truth about her influence. Harriet Beecher Stowe proved that one person with a pen could change the course of history. She showed that stories reach places political speeches cannot. And she demonstrated that bearing witness to injustice—and refusing to look away—is sometimes the most powerful act of all.

Sources: Bill of Rights Institute - Harriet Beecher Stowe and Uncle Tom's Cabin

*AI Disclosure: .

STILL EDITING

Video Reaction #1 - John C. Calhoun

John C. Calhoun

During the antebellum period—the decades before the Civil War—slavery shaped nearly every part of life in the American South. John C. Calhoun, one of the most influential politicians of the time, argued that slavery was not just necessary but a “positive good.” He believed the Constitution gave states the right to protect slavery, and his ideas helped deepen the divisions between North and South.

The lives of enslaved people showed the truth behind those arguments. Daily life was filled with long hours of work, starting before sunrise and ending late at night. At the end of the day, most returned to small, overcrowded cabins with dirt floors and little shelter from the weather. Clothing was limited, and many went without shoes or blankets during the winter. Calhoun described slavery as beneficial, but in reality it was a system of hardship and suffering.

Antebellum Period - Slaves in South Carolina

Slave markets were one of the most visible signs of this cruelty. In cities like New Orleans, Richmond, and Charleston, enslaved men, women, and children were bought and sold in public auctions. Buyers inspected their bodies and bid for them as if they were property. Families were often split apart, with parents, children, and spouses sent to different owners. After the United States banned international slave imports in 1808, the domestic slave trade expanded. More than one million people were forced to move from the Upper South to the Deep South in what historians call the Second Middle Passage. By 1860, enslaved people had become the South’s most valuable economic resource, worth more in total than all the land.

Even under these conditions, enslaved people resisted. They created strong communities, held on to cultural traditions, and in some cases risked everything to escape. Guided by stars and rivers, some traveled north at night, despite the danger of slave hunters and dogs. Each attempt was an act of incredible bravery and determination.

While the United States struggled with slavery, Britain was beginning to move in a different direction. In 1772, the Somerset case decided that enslaved people in England could not be forced back into slavery. By 1807, Parliament had ended the slave trade across the empire. These steps showed that change was possible and gave hope to abolition movements elsewhere.

The contrast between Calhoun’s defense of slavery and the real experiences of enslaved people highlights one of the biggest contradictions in American history. The strength, courage, and resilience of enslaved communities stand as a lasting reminder that even in times of deep injustice, people found ways to resist and hold onto their humanity.

Sources:

• American Battlefield Trust. “Slave Markets.” Battlefields.org, American Battlefield Trust, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/slave-markets

• American Historical Association. “Slavery and the Value of Enslaved People.” Historians.org, American Historical Association, https://www.historians.org/

• Library of Congress. Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938, https://www.loc.gov/collections/slave-narratives-from-the-federal-writers-project-1936-to-1938/

• Stern, Jessica. “Slavery’s Brutal Second Middle Passage.” Smithsonian Magazine, Smithsonian Institution, 16 Jan. 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/slavery-second-middle-passage-180964873/

*AI Disclosure: portions of this blog post were assisted by AI.

How State v. Mann Shaped the Southern Economy (1829)

John Mann (1829)

The 1829 North Carolina Supreme Court case State v. Mann is often remembered for its legal and moral effects regarding slavery, but also had a major impact on the Southern economy. The case involved John Mann, who shot an enslaved woman, Lydia, when she tried to escape punishment. The court ruled in Mann’s favor, emphasizing that masters had complete authority over enslaved people. While morally conflicting from a modern-world perspective, this decision played a key role in protecting the economic system of the time.

First, enslaved people were the most valuable property in the South, often making up over half of personal wealth. Slaveholders and renters like Mann needed confidence that the law would protect their authority. If courts had punished masters for disciplining enslaved people, owners would risk losing control of their property. Enslaved people could refuse to obey or run away, which would decrease their value and discourage investment. By ruling for Mann, the court preserved the economic value of enslaved people and reassured owners that their investments were secure.

The Southern economy also relied heavily on cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and rice. These crops required long, physically demanding labor. Slaveholders believed strict discipline was essential to maintaining productivity. Weakening a master’s authority would have encouraged resistance, reduced output, and cut into profits. By siding with Mann, the court protected not only individual plantation efficiency but also the broader economy of the state, ensuring that agricultural production remained stable and predictable.

Another key economic factor was the rental market for enslaved labor. Renting out enslaved people was common and profitable, allowing owners to earn income while renters benefited from additional labor. If temporary masters like Mann were not allowed to discipline, enslaved people could disobey or become less useful, reducing their rental value and discouraging transactions. The ruling supported the rental market, keeping it stable and protecting the financial interests of both owners and renters.

Enslaved people were also frequently used as collateral for loans and mortgages. Banks and merchants needed to trust that this collateral remained under control; otherwise, they risked financial losses. If the court had limited a master’s authority, lenders might have seen enslaved people as unreliable collateral, restricting credit and slowing economic activity. By ruling in Mann’s favor, the court signaled that enslaved people would remain “controlled assets,” ensuring that credit continued to flow and that the wider economy remained robust.

Finally, the ruling had a broader impact on investor confidence. Wealthy Southern planters and merchants worried about anything that threatened slavery’s economic foundation. By affirming a master’s authority, the court signaled that property rights and profit would always come first. This reassurance maintained confidence among investors, both locally and internationally, preserving trade and economic stability across the South.

In short, State v. Mann did more than settle a legal dispute; it reinforced the economic system of the antebellum South. By upholding the authority of masters, the court protected property values, agricultural productivity, the rental market, credit systems, and investor confidence — all of which were essential to the Southern economy at the time. While the moral implications of the case are deeply troubling, its economic consequences were immediate and far-reaching.

The verdict of State v. Mann 1829

*AI disclosure; portions of this blog post were assisted with AI for research and general information.

*This post is for educational purposes only. I do not support or endorse slavery in any way. The content discusses historical events and perspectives strictly as part of an academic assignment.

How the Bible Addresses Slavery

The Holy Bible

Slavery is definitely one of the most difficult and sensitive topics in human history, and the Bible’s mentioning of it has been the subject of  countless debates. Understanding what the Bible says about slavery requires careful consideration of historical context, language, and the different genres within Scripture. While the topic is quite touchy, researching it carefully can show how biblical texts have influenced both social and ethical discussions throughout history. Although it doesn’t explicitly call for slavery to end, it does provide guidance on how people should treat one another, emphasizing fairness, justice, and dignity.

In the Old Testament, slavery was widely practiced, and there were laws to regulate it. For example, Hebrew slaves were said to be released after six years of service. Even though this still allowed slavery, that rule shows that the Bible aimed to limit the length of servitude and provide some protections to slaves. It’s important to know that these laws were different for Jewish slaves and foreigners. Foreigners were able to be kept as permanent slaves, while Jewish slaves were given rights and opportunities for release. These distinctions reflect the social and cultural norms of the ancient world rather than offering a full moral endorsement of slavery.

"Onesimus and Perfection" - Simply Gospel

The New Testament approaches the topic differently, focusing more on ethics, responsibility, and human relationships. While it does not call for the abolition of slavery, it repeatedly emphasizes that all people are equal in the eyes of God and deserve fair treatment. One of the clearest examples of this is found in Paul’s letter to Philemon. In this letter, Paul asks the slave owner Philemon to welcome his runaway slave, Onesimus, not as property but as a beloved brother in Christ. This appeal highlights spiritual equality and respect, showing that moral principles of love and fairness were considered more important than social hierarchies. It suggests that the way we treat others, even within an existing system, should reflect compassion and human dignity.

William Wilberforce

The Bible’s teachings on slavery were later used by both critics and reformers. In history, some slaveholders misused Scripture to justify the practice, pointing to passages that regulated slavery rather than condemned it. At the same time, abolitionists drew on the Bible’s ethical teachings—such as justice, equality, and love for one another—to argue for the end of slavery. Figures like Frederick Douglass and William Wilberforce cited biblical principles to highlight the humanity of enslaved people and the moral obligation to oppose oppression.

Frederick Douglass

Overall, the Bible’s approach to slavery is complex. On one hand, it acknowledges slavery as a part of ancient societies and provides regulations for it. On the other hand, it consistently promotes values that challenge mistreatment and emphasize fairness, respect, and equality. For modern readers, these teachings offer an opportunity to reflect on human rights and the ethical treatment of all people. The Bible may not directly tell us to abolish slavery, but its principles encourage us to prioritize justice, dignity, and compassion in all our interactions.

Understanding slavery in the Bible requires balancing historical context with ethical reflection. By looking closely at the texts and considering their broader messages, we can better appreciate how Scripture addresses both the realities of its time and the timeless call to treat others with fairness and respect.

*AI Disclosure: portions of this blog post were assisted by AI.

Speech Theories - Individual Self-Fulfillment

Throughout all of our lives, each person continuously works to try and figure out who they are. We collectively want to live our lives by being ourselves, not by putting on a mask trying to be somebody else. Staying true to your own thoughts, interests, and ideas are crucial to what makes each individual human themselves. That process is called self-fulfillment; becoming the best version of yourself by exploring, learning, and growing. A huge part of that process, especially in the United States of America, is the freedom of speech. Free speech isn’t just about politics or laws; it’s about being able to express your thoughts and feelings, regardless of how many others agree or disagree with you. Freedom of speech allows you to truly shape your identity. Which is a privilege a lot of us take advantage of here in the United States.

Self-fulfillment could sound slightly complex, but its idea is objectively simple. It’s about creating your own life by not letting others dictate who you are or who you become. To do that, you need to express yourself. That could mean debating ideas, talking about your beliefs, or even making jokes with family and friends. In short, when you speak, you’re showing a piece of who you are. If you’re not allowed to say what you think, then you’re being restrained from becoming yourself. Unfortunately, not every place in the world allows free speech and censors a lot of things on a daily basis.

That’s why free speech is connected to dignity and freedom. If society lets people share their opinions openly, it’s saying that you and your individual voice matters, regardless of factuality. If people are censored from sharing their opinions, it’s basically saying that their voice doesn’t matter. In these situations not just words are lost; so is the entire person being held back from expressing themselves.

When people speak, they test themselves to figure out what they believe by getting challenged by others. Sometimes this results in one changing their minds. Debating topics allows people to grow. Without it, people either hide what they think or copy what everyone else is saying. Which is the complete opposite of growth. By just going along with whatever is trending or the “more popular” opinion puts another layer on top of who someone actually is. That’s not growth; that’s just playing it safe and being afraid of your own freedoms.

A perfect example of how speech can shape a person’s life is Charlie Kirk. Whether you liked him or not, his whole career was built on freedom of expression and speech. He was the co-founder of Turning Point USA, spoke on tons of college campuses, and constantly used his voice to further establish what he stood for and who he was. His words shaped his identity, and they also shaped how both critics and supporters viewed him.

Kirk also spoke heavily about the dangers of “assassination culture,” warning that heated public speech could turn violent. Sadly, his warnings became a reality. In September 2025, while giving a speech at Utah Valley University, he was shot and murdered. His death shocked many across the country, and around the world. To many, including myself, it felt like more than just an attack on one person; it felt like an attack on free speech itself.

Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University
on September 10th, 2025

The reactions to his death showed how perplexing free speech can become. Many people honored him as someone who respectfully stood up for his beliefs, while others taunted him online. The mocking became such an awful issue that politicians started calling for punishment against people who made offensive comments about the shooting. Which then created a new issue: how do you protect free speech while also dealing with hurtful words?

This is where the lesson comes in; free speech is never completely safe. If you use your voice, you’ll most likely face resistance from people that don’t have the same opinions as you. If we only protect speech we agree with, then it’s not really free speech. And if we silence people because they’re offensive, we lose the chance to argue back, to debate, or to grow stronger ideas. The better answer is always more speech, not less.

At the end of the day, free speech is tied to who we are as people. Without it, self-fulfillment becomes almost impossible. Charlie Kirk’s life along with his tragic death shows both the power and the risk of using your right to freedom of speech. But it also shows why protecting free speech matters so much. If we want to become who we’re meant to be, and if we want others to have that same chance, we have to defend the right to speak freely, even when it’s difficult.

Supreme Court Reflection

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

Before diving into my government class, I didn’t fully grasp how influential the Supreme Court really is. Sure, I knew it was important, but I didn’t realize just how selective and powerful it is. Every year, thousands of petitions are submitted, yet only about 100 make it through. That alone shows how carefully the Court chooses what it will hear.

The Court is made up of nine justices who consider some of the most complex legal questions in the country. They reach decisions privately, without public debate or media coverage. Despite this secrecy, their rulings have a massive impact on our laws and society.

What gives the Supreme Court its authority is the U.S. Constitution—a document written over 200 years ago. It’s incredible that this same framework continues to guide decisions today. Over 100 justices have served throughout history, and most stay on the bench for an average of 16 years. It’s said that it takes about 3–5 years just to get used to the role.

Controversy is almost unavoidable. In 1801, when the government moved to Washington, D.C., Chief Justice John Marshall took charge and helped shape the Court’s identity. His decision in Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, giving the Court the power to strike down unconstitutional laws. That was a game-changer.

Dred Scott

Not all decisions have been well received. The Dred Scott case, which granted freedom to a Missouri slave, led to intense backlash and contributed to the Civil War. Later, the 14th Amendment reinforced the idea that no citizen could be denied due process.

Today, the Court’s job is to answer two key questions: Did the lower court apply the law correctly? And is the law itself constitutional? It’s a quiet but powerful force in shaping our democracy.

As I learned from this documentary about The Supreme Court, justices don't just enforce the law, they shape principles that guide the country. There's tons of thought that goes into each decision that reaches their desks. Each case entails debates, precent consideration, and legal reasoning. It's captivating how a single ruling can affect future cases across decades.

*AI Disclosure: portions of this blog post were assisted by AI.