As a member of the jury, I voted Mark Twain not guilty of racism because of the stance he took at the stand, his use of satire throughout the entire book and the argument that not every aspect of a book fully represents one's particular beliefs.
It is hard to argue with the theory that no one knows Mark Twain better than he himself. Therefore, in my eyes he was the most reliable witness throughout the entire trial. Under oath Mr. Twain pleaded not guilty of racism. What stood out to me was the passage the defense provided for him to read stating he had no prejudices of someone because of their skin tone or race-- coming from an article he himself had written. There was however other evidence that showed he might have been guilty of racism. When the prosecution pointed out that he had fought with the Confederate Army in the Civil War it effected my initial reaction. However, after listening to Mr. Twain's response I was swayed back into the belief that he was not guilty. Twain explained that he had created a regiment but only on the sole purpose of defending Missouri, his home state. He also emphasized that he only fought for two weeks for it failed after that. The prosecution came back and tried to prove that he fought to protect the institution of slavery rather than fight for his home state. However, in my perspective, if Twain had truly favored slavery and wanted to protect it he would have fought in the Army long after the two weeks which he had joined. Although the prosecution made a great argument, it just wasn't strong enough to persuade my decision after hearing Twain's response.
The main argument the defense made was that through the use of satire Twain meant to expose and ridicule the institution of slavery and racism in the South at that time rather than be racist himself. After listening to the literary expert they brought to the stand I had a clearer view of the satire used by Twain to emphasize the injustice of slavery. The literary expert explained that the satirical references in the book could be mistaken as racist, but that is up to the reader to interpret, even though being racist was not Twain's intent-- showing racism was. As he testified, Twain wanted to point out the cruelty and injustice of racism which was a booming issue of that time. It was explained that the word "nigger" was used so commonly even though it was offensive to blacks to show the impurities of society. Twain used satirical references in the white characters in the book to show people how wrong society was. This was the main argument that the defense used and in my eyes it was strong enough to prove Twain had not racist intent behind his words, rather the opposite in fact.
The defense made a great argument when they asked the court to answer the questions- if Twain wrote of murder, would he be considered a murderer compared to if Twain wrote of racism, would he be considered a racist. This was an excellent example on behalf of the defense. The defense proved that Twain wrote of the racist, prejudice South however showed no evidence of supporting or believing in racism. The prosecution failed to show any evidence that Twain was racist himself therefore leading me to my conclusion that Twain was not guilty of racism.
