The Sword and the Distaff

by William Gilmore Simms

This pro-slavery novel was a response to Harriet Beecher Stowe's classic Uncle Tom's Cabin. A key work in the forgotten "Anti-Tom" literature movement, this hard-to-find novel is of interest for Civil War buffs and anyone interested in how the south justified the "peculiar institution."

441 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 16, 2009

About the author

William Gilmore Simms (April 17, 1806 – June 11, 1870) was a poet, novelist and historian from the American South whose novels achieved great prominence during the 19th century, with Edgar Allan Poe pronouncing him the best novelist America had ever produced. In recent decades, though, Simms' novels have fallen out of favor, although he is still known among literary scholars as a major force in antebellum Southern literature. He is also remembered for his strong support of slavery and for his opposition to Uncle Tom's Cabin, in response to which he wrote reviews and a novel.

Reviews

[Charles van Buren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Southern life and adventure at the end of the War of Independence

William Gilmore Simms has been called the South's James Fenimore Cooper. In this novel there are flashes of brilliance which actually exceed Cooper. The sections in which the protagonists fight and deal with the villains are generally very well done. Other sections, particularly the advice and plotting of Corporal Millhouse concerning his idea that Captain Porgy should woo the widow, settle into plodding, overly long accounts of minor happenings. A brief sojourn with Millhouse is tolerable but any longer and he becomes most tiresome. If Simms had applied brevity to these and similar parts of the plot, or left them out entirely, this could well have been a great novel. As it is, it is more of a historical curiosity which explores Southern life at the end of the American War of Independence.

There are passages which are obviously meant to be humor but Simms displays a heavy hand in the writing of these. In this novel he definitely lacks the light and deft touch needed to write good humor. He also writes much of the dialogue in various dialects which make reading somewhat difficult for the uninitiated.

Simms also presents a far different view of slaves and slavery than that of Uncle Tom's Cabin. From my studies and reading I believe that Simms is closer to the truth if for no other reason than the considerable value of the slaves. A value which is made clear by the British and Tory villains of the piece stealing slaves. Of course there are nasty people in the world. The kind who beat horses, dogs and other animals, no matter their value, undoubtedly mistreated slaves as well.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this novel. So many themes are explored, in such an effortless manner, fluidly transitioning, all the while never usurping the work of paramount importance: the tale telling. Indeed, the text has that superior quality of the tale-facilitating-the-ideas rather than the ideas facilitating the narration. The dialogue is extraordinary, especially in scenes with characters of keen wit. Simms is masterful in creating these scenes of intrigue and suspense. There are so many moments in the story that are described with such skill that the evocations created linger for days and are recalled, at an odd moment, long after they were initially read. But the thing, that will probably stay with me the longest, is the character of Bostwick, the squatter---the quintessential conjuration of the archetypal Rapscallion Rogue. Although, it must be said, Bostwick isn’t static and does not fall to a point of flat villain stereotype where his very human essence could not be realistically portrayed. In fact, being able to be” inside his mind” and see the world from his wicked perspective, as well as seeing what’s left of his positive qualities long since left uncultivated, endears him to the reader as a most human character.

It’s easy to see why Edgar Allan Poe pronounced Simms the best novelist in America. Funny, I cannot find a review of “The Sword and the Distaff” anywhere online. This leads me to conclude that it isn’t considered one of his best works. That's good news for me; I’ll be reading more of Simms in the future. Now seems a good time…

[A Rysetsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

В середине XIX века Симмса называли лучшим романистом Америки. А что теперь? На русский его не переводили (за исключением одного небольшого рассказа), на родине в США, как южанина-рабовладельца, подвергли полному забвению. За слова "ниггер" в книге можно и схлопотать. А ведь читается книга легко и непринужденно: почти Пушкин-плантатор. "Хижина дяди Тома" наоборот.

[Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good Read’s description of this book is hilariously erroneous and reeks of Orwellian historical revisionism.

First, this book is not a piece of “anti-Stowe” literature. William Gilmore Simms was the most prolific, and arguably the greatest, novelist of the antebellum period. He was among the best selling authors of historical romance in the world. Stowe, by comparison, was obscure for the vast majority of her career.

Second, he began “The Sword & the Distaff” well before Harriet Beecher Stowe began writing “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. The notion that one could write such a masterful 600-page novel in a matter of a few months (the period of time separating the publication of this novel from Stowe’s) is ludicrous.

Third, this novel is in no way a response to Stowe. It describes the antebellum South similar to every other novel written by Simms. There is no evidence that this was written in contemplation of Stowe’s novel. Clearly, whoever writes descriptions for Good Reads has not even bothered to read this novel.

Fourth, Harriet Beecher Stowe was an unabashed racist. In the end of her novel, she endorses Lincoln’s “Linconia” Plan - the North’s strategy to send all Blacks back to Africa (or, alternatively, Latin America and the Caribbean). This plan was, thankfully, rejected by Simms and other Southerners. If Stowe and Lincoln had their way, there’d be no Blacks in the U.S.

Fifth, this novel doesn’t interest exclusively “Civil War buffs.” Again, Simms is one of the best selling and most prolific American authors of the 19th century. Stowe wrote one notorious (see, infamous) book. She even admitted that “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was a piece of complete fiction, a view echoed by abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who stated the book was laughably theatrical in its portrayal of slavery. Stowe admitted that she never even visited the South prior to publishing her novel. Of course, ACTUAL slave narratives of the time prove that her perspective is wildly ahistorical and statistically false (again, based on accounting of slave narratives themselves, rather than White revisionist novelists).

Lastly, Good Read’s review of this book, predictably, casts a pathetically absurd light upon Southerners. Several states in the Union (Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, and yes, WASHINGTON D.C.) all allowed slavery, 95% of Southerners did not own slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation (which excluded Northern slavery from its abolitionist proclamation, and thus freed no one) was met with mass lynchings of Blacks in cities like Boston and Philadelphia. EVERY nation had permitted slavery through its history - those in Africa and the Middle allowed slavery, and still permit it in MODERN DAY, in it’s most barbaric form (e.g., castrating men so they could not reproduce, killing children to maintain population control, using them as foot soldiers for slaughter in battle, etc.). American slavery, though an evil (as is all slavery, of course) in consonance with modern day ethics, was objectively humane compared to almost all previous iterations of it (again, especially among Africans who enslaved other Africans) for all of human history. The fact that Simms does not portray any whipping or raping of slaves is HISTORICALLY ACCURATE as applied, statistically, to the vast majority of plantations (in fact, some of the most brutal cases of slave abuse is recorded by plantations in Union states, plantations in the South owned by New Englanders, and plantations owned by free Black masters).

The reign of ahistorical, Orwellian wokeness is coming to an end. The revisionist history of PC fascists is, alas, in moribund decline. Hopefully, Good Reads edits its description of this book, rather than relying on some low-IQ Wikipedia author to do their homework for them.

If you love great 19th century historical romance, this novel (second only to Simm’s “Cassique of Kiawah”) is nonpareil.