Scott Kamps
Mark Twain’s greatest literary achievement is arguably Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Twain’s genius is demonstrated in writing the narrative from Huck’s perspective. The historical mid-1800’s language is often racially insensitive and incredibly offensive to our ears, 150 years after the struggle that abolished slavery.
Huck Finn – the uneducated son of the town drunk – fakes his own death in order to escape his abusive father. Encountering a runaway slave named Jim, they embark down the Mississippi River on a raft.
In their many adventures traversing downstream, the main struggle is Huck’s internal wrestling with right/wrong, especially in regard to helping a runaway slave. Though incomprehensible to us today, Huck believed he was sinning by helping Jim. It’s important to recognize the dominant culture – especially in the South – had produced a deformed conscience in the hearts and minds of many Americans. The reasoning of flawed human beings often rationalizes sin that benefits the powerful in society. These justifications can become so entrenched that national sins get etched into the hearts of citizens. Huck’s uneducated mind had been filled with moral arguments to justify the slavery that benefited aristocratic southern society.
Consider some of them:
* Ownership argument: The slave is my property; it’s my choice what to do with it (i.e., “My slave, my choice”);
* Inevitability argument: Slavery has always been around and always will be, necessitating a safe and legal system for it;
* Privacy argument: No one forces owning slaves – mind your own business;
* Superseding rights argument: Property rights come before slaves’ rights;
* Legality argument: It’s legal – therefore, it’s moral;
* Socio-economic argument: If slavery is abolished, slaves will end up on the street;
* False compassion argument: Slavery is in the best interest of slaves;
* Pseudoscience argument: The slave isn’t a real person.
These faulty (but pervasive) arguments caused Huck’s struggle with the morality of helping a runaway slave; the “property” of a good woman.
Eventually Huck tried to “repent” of helping Jim, but he couldn’t actually bring himself to confess the “sin,” saying, “You can’t pray a lie.” He knew in his heart he ought to help Jim. During their adventures, Huck started to see Jim as a fellow human being – even as a father figure.
In Huck’s mind, he would have to live contrary to his culture’s deformed definition of right/wrong. Although Huck couldn’t articulate moral arguments against the cultural elites, his conscience led him to know Jim was a person and it was right to help him. This led to Huck’s well-known climactic confession, “Alright then, I’ll go to hell.” He felt condemned by society and even God when following his conscience.
The brilliance of Mark Twain’s epic novel demonstrates that all people in democratic societies – even the illiterate son of the town drunk – must wrestle with right/wrong. And one’s conscience is often more compelling than moral arguments for existing national sins.
May God bless America with consciences that persevere to abolish any national sin – no matter how widely supported – if it’s currently preventing equal justice to society.
Scott Kamps writes a bi-weekly column for The Graham Star. He can be reached via email, thestableguy@frontier.com.