Bird’s higher law argument is decisively advanced when Eliza Harris appears at their door, a veritable picture of “the real presence of distress”-“a young and slender woman with garments torn and frozen, with one shoe gone, and the stocking torn away from the cut and bleeding foot.” Punctuated by the emotionally compelling appearance of Eliza and her son, the Birds’ debate closes with a new consensus between husband and wife, and Senator Bird’s ideas of law are re-grounded in the moral sense expressed by Mrs.

Her objection to the Fugitive Slave Act accords with the Founding Fathers’ belief in a legal system grounded in virtue and sanctioned by the citizenry’s moral sense. Bird’s answer-“I don’t know anything about politics, but I can read my Bible and there I see that I must feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the desolate”-is disingenuous to the extent that it seems to separate the moral and legal areas of expertise. we mustn’t suffer our feelings to run away with our judgment you must consider it’s not a matter of private feeling,–there are great public interests involved.” Mrs. Senator Bird replies, “Your feelings are all quite right, dear. While she does not normally “trouble her head” about the affairs of state, the moral issues raised by the new law compel Mary Bird to interrogate her husband. Worn out by the “tiresome business” of legislating, Senator Bird has returned for some “good, home living.” Senator Bird’s relaxation is broken by his wife’s inquiry about the Fugitive Slave Act.

Mr and mrs bird uncle toms cabin