What 4CJ is trying to point out is that the Harriet Beecher Stowe primer on slavery was a witting lie, based on her sampling error inherent in interviewing runaways, some of whom had had to try several times before successfully fleeing to the North. She was a typical liberal: if you own the truth, and of course liberals do (because their motives are so pure), then you don't need to be careful of the facts. She wasn't, she didn't care, and she made other people pay the price. Frederick Douglass did the same thing, amping up his story and defaming his former owners during his period of antebellum advocacy for abolition; many years later, he made public corrections to the impression he'd left of the Maryland family that had once owned him, and tried to square accounts. Give him credit, at least, for doing that -- but a lot of Northern apologists refuse to follow Douglass's example, but continue to seek to turn the screw. You may suit yourself.