Censorship: The U.S. Constitution and Mark Twain

The first constitution for Connecticut (when it was still an English colony) was known as the Fundamental Orders and was adopted 372 years ago this week on January 24, 1639 (N.S.). Some historians believe that the Fundamental Orders were the first constitution written in the western tradition, thus beginning a long association between this state and constitutions of one sort or another.

Take a look at a Connecticut license plate and remind yourself that you live in the “Constitution” state. The nickname is appropriate not only because of the Fundamental Orders but also from the so-called “Connecticut Compromise” and “Three-fifths Compromise,” proposed principally by delegate Roger Sherman of New Haven at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The debate over House representation for the states under the proposed U.S. Constitution became an impasse that threatened ratification.

Southern states hypocritically wanted all of their slaves counted as citizens toward determining the number of House representatives that they received. Northern states, fearing Southern dominance in the House under that scenario, vehemently disagreed. Sherman helped to cut the Gordian Knot with the Three-Fifths Compromise: Slaves would count as sixty percent of a person when determining House representation.

It pleased enough delegates to carry the day. The Constitution was adopted. Now, it may seem rather odd that fame came Roger Sherman’s way because he and James Wilson had the idea of counting a black human being as sixty percent of a person. However, that notion was lost amid the celebration of the greater good of the Constitution’s ratification. The legal march toward equality still had a ways to go.

When the new Congress convened in Washington, D.C. for the first time nearly two weeks ago, the Republican majority, perhaps spurred on by the Tea Party movement, began the session by reading the U.S. Constitution into the record. But there was a problem: They were going to leave out the part about a black man being counted as only 3/5ths of a person.

Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Illinois, son of the famous Civil Rights activist, wanted the part about the 3/5ths clause to be read. He wanted people to remember the time in our history when the degrading idea of a black man being only 60 percent of a human was prevalent (The emphasis is on “man” here because no woman, black or white could vote until the 20th century). Opposing the reading of an expurgated version of the Constitution, Jackson argued that to leave out this part of our history would be a distortion of the truth of race relations at the time.

I find that argument very interesting because it applies to another controversy in the news these days that centers around another Connecticut-based historical figure/celebrity: Mark Twain. Twain lived on Farmington Avenue in Hartford for many years, largely because his publisher and nephew, Charles Webster, had his business located in Hartford.

His most famous and most controversial book, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," was written and first published in Hartford in 1885. Recently, an expurgated edition of that American classic was published. This new edition leaves out the so-called “N”-word, which occurs 270 times in the book, and replaces it with “slave.” The word “Injun” — found far less frequently — is replaced with “Indian.” Its publication has sparked controversy.

Having taught "Huck Finn" for many years, I believe the expurgated edition of the Twain classic is a mistake for a number of reasons. First, it is false. In the world that Mark Twain knew, the “N-word” was an everyday occurrence. Racial discrimination was an unfortunate reality. Segregation and degradation were realities of life.

Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Supreme Court case that legalized “separate but equal,” came down just eleven years after the novel’s first publication but was the de facto law of the land well before that. Associate Justice Stephen Field of Haddam was a member of the nation’s highest court during Plessy vs. Ferguson and voted with the majority in that landmark Supreme Court case.

Furthermore, I object to the expurgated edition for the same reason that Rep. Jackson wanted to include the part of the Constitution that said that a black man was to be counted as 60 percent of a human being: To leave it out would be a distortion of race relations at the time. Are we supposed to sugarcoat reality and pretend that race relations had evolved to a situation closer to equality in 1885?

Finally, the evolution of Huck’s character gives the lie to Jim being regarded merely as a piece of property. Raised in a world of racial discrimination and by a racist father, who is one of the most repugnant characters in American literature, Huck has an epiphany about Jim in chapter 31 where he must decide whether or not to turn Jim in as a runaway slave.

Does he do what the racist world he inhabits commands him to do — turn in a runaway slave — or does he follow the dictates of his conscience and save Jim? He chooses to save Jim.

I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself, "All right, then, I'll GO to hell.”*

And what might Mark Twain himself say about changes to his manuscripts? That’s easy to figure. Consider the following Twain quotations about censorship and editorial changes to manuscripts:

“Yesterday Mr. Hall wrote that the printer’s proof-reader was improving my punctuation for me. I telegraphed orders to have him shot without giving him time to pray.” (Mark Twain in a letter to W.D. Howells, 1889)

“In the first place God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made proof-readers.” (Mark Twain in his notebook, 1893)

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." –Mark Twain

Mark Twain detested the “uninvited emendations” of typists, editors, and proofreaders. The bowdlerized version of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn just released is supposed to protect people from harsh and upsetting language. It would turn Mark Twain’s stomach. It is the artistic equivalent of putting underwear on Michelangelo’s statue of David so that people can be "protected" from seeing a nude statue. No thanks. Bad idea.

Twain’s portrayal of both Huck and Jim is both realistic and honest for the time in which it was written. The original version should stand as written, just as the original Constitution should be read in its entirety. Neither of these two vital works with strong Connecticut connections should be sugarcoated for either political purposes or political correctness.