The primitive Republican. (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-1852, 1852-10-21
More sequels to Uncle Toms Cabin.

"Uncle Toms Cabin" seems fatod to be
an ever-springing fountain Of discord. The
lady authoress who applied herself with so
much perverted talent to write, for hire, a
revolving picture Of the domestic lives and
morals Of the Southern people, inAaming
against them the minds of ona-haif the ma
tion, aud libelling thom in Eoru1a, has not
escaped herself share of the distractions
she had no womaRly scruple against contriv-
ing aud fomenting. For soma passages in
her book which misreprosonted an individual
and had the indiscre;ion to name him, she
has been called to account; and in the course
of the affair along correspondence has sprung
up in which the reverend clergy Of oppos-
ing opinions have boon brought into conflict,
and bitter war among the ccclesasiics has
been waged, aud is not yet over. Column
upon column has been written in papers sec
ular and theological, and more are coming,
all about a single passage in her book where
In she had been so rash as to name the party
she misquoted. In this instance, when re-
quircd to produce the evidence of her char
gcs against the person named, she took time
and instituted inquiries, and finally arrived
at the assurance that she had done an indi-
vidual wrong, which she was willing in her
own way, with palliating and self-exculpa-
ting circumstances, to make known. Now
for this mistake-we give it subdued cpl
thot-she quotes the authority of newspaper
reports. She had read paragraph in which
some strong pro-slavery sentiments eoarsely
EXPRESSED were attributed to the Rev. Joel
Pakcr, of Philadelphia and on the faith of
these she put INN into her novel, just as she
has put the whole south into it, for calumni-
GUS misrepresentation, on the faith OF the
inventions Of enemies who were never here
aided and cmbellished by inventions of her
own. Now it might occur to her that if in
so simple q case as a matter of fact occur
ring in her own neighborhood, where the
evidence was within her reach, she should
have made mistake which she is compelled
to retract, how much more she ought to
doubt the vile reports Of a distant people
with whom she is totally unacquainted,
which, however, she has embodied in a mar
rative that is essentially string of shocking
calumuics If the Rev. Joel Parker has
shown to her conviction if not to her salts
faction, that she injured him. there are whole
communities who could just as conclusively
show that they 600 have been grossly abused,
if the caumnies would but take more def
nate shape than that Of adroit and seductive
fiction. The rctaaction, in respect to the
misrepresentation Of Parker, to have its due
influence on the mind Of the authoress,
ought to induce her to cancel her whole book,
and repent bitterly that it was ever written.
But this can hardly be expected while the
libel at large pays so well aud the particu-
lar libel was withdrawn under hint that
court Of justice might make 1t cost some
thing
We have already mentioned the facts of
this dispute between DIR. Parker and Mrs.
Stowe Her brother, the Rev. DR.. Beecher,
and her husband, the Rev. Calvin Stowe,
helped carry on the controversy with the
Rev. Mr.. Parker, and it had ended with the
publication of a correspondence between
Mrs. Stowe and DR.. Parker, which apparent
ly closed the matter amicably. But unfor-
tunately, Dr. Parker affirmed that he never
signed On authorized the letters bearing his
name.
In reply to this publication, made in the
New York Observer, the Rev. DR.. Beecher
has made very long rejoinder, filling near
ly ten columns in the New York Evening
Post. The substance is, that Mrs. Stowe
had, after inquiry aud taking testimony, con-
WINGED herself that she had made an error
in regard to DR.. Parker in her book, and was
willing to say SO, but wished to accompany
it with a sort Of justifcatory argument, re-
latng to the general opinions Of DIR. p; that
the latter, declined accepting it in that FORM
and then some letters were drawn up by DIR.
Bcecher, in Dr. Parker presence, to be mu-
tually signed; and here comes another great
perplexity. There is an issue OF veracity
between them. DR.. Parker declares he did
not sign or consent to the letters, but said
the substance might do and he would con-
suit his lawyer. DR.. Beecher declares as
soomnly that the letters were assented to,
and considered final Two or three columns
arc devoted to this branch of the quarrel,
and we are informed that there is arejoinder
to this, equally long and quite as pungent,
ready to appear in the Observer.
We have no further interest in the mat
ter. after having noticed the fact that she Is
,..o~' SOD - i.,5'a-slcss ard confessions Of
,p.. .u ,ue oaas-o, sue brought against her
own naighbor and brother in the church, and
yet goes on circulating book of loathsome
calumnies upon others, without a sign of
conscientious scruple or relenting, a very
conclusive sign Of the morals Of her author
ship. ~ 0. Ptc0yune