Searching for Justice in an Unjust World

In A Lesson Before Dying, Ernest J. Gaines paints a portrait of the American South during the pre-Civil War years, during the time of the famous Dred Scott case, where states enacted so-called Jim Crow laws in order to prevent Africans Americans from enjoying the same rights as their white counterparts. The novel tells the story of an African American named Jefferson who witnesses the murder of a white citizen. Although he had nothing to do with the crime, Jefferson is ultimately convicted and executed for the murder. Jefferson’s story is recounted by Grant Wiggins, a local African American schoolteacher, with the primary themes of the novel being injustice, how prejudice can cause some to lie in order to avoid punishment and redemption.

The story begins with Grant recounting the scene of the murder. Grant informs readers that the defense claimed Jefferson walked into the store after the botched robbery and subsequent shootout, where he finds the two robbers dead, and a dying store owner named Mr. Grope lying on the floor in a pool of blood and alcohol (Gaines, 1993, p. 6). Unsure whether to call for help or run due to fear of being blamed for the crime, Jefferson quickly becomes confused and cannot even remember if he came with Brother and Bear (the two robbers), or whether he had arrived after the fact, although it is ultimately revealed that the two murderers offered Jefferson a ride and he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time (Gaines, 1993, p. 7). Following the murder, Jefferson decides to stay and takes a drink of whiskey before taking money from the cash register. After he drinks the whiskey and stuffs his pockets full of money, two white men arrive and witness the aftermath.

The prosecution, on the other hand, claimed Jefferson conspired with the two murderers to kill and rob Mr. Grope. They claimed Jefferson was an animal who had full intention of robbing and killing Mr. Grope, and that he was satisfied when Brother and Bear were killed, evidenced by the fact that he stole the money and drank alcohol in the presence of their dead bodies (Gaines, 1993, p. 7). The defense makes a passionate plea for acquittal, claiming, “What justice would there be to take his life? Justice, gentlemen? Why, I would just as soon put a hog in the electric chair as this” (Gaines, 1993, p. 8). After only a few hours of deliberation, the twelve white jurors return with a verdict of guilty on the counts of robbery and murder, and the judge sentences Jefferson to death by electrocution.

In describing the trial, Grant paints a picture of how injustice was prevalent in the South during the years following the Civil War. Being one of the primary themes of the novel, injustice is portrayed in a number of ways in the first few chapters alone. An all-white jury decides the fact of Jefferson, a black man, during his trial, essentially denying him his right to a jury of his peers. A biased jury has been a problem throughout the history of the United States, as many feel blacks are not given a fair trial in many instances, with some even calling for African Americans to refuse to convict their peers in order to redress the racism and discrimination faced by African Americans in the country (Collins-Chobanian, 2009). The fact that the jury returned a quick verdict would also lead many to believe that they did not discuss the matter thoroughly and were quick to convict Jefferson due to the color of his skin.

Another theme of the novel that was discussed during the description of the crime scene was the role of honesty when faced with punishment. Although Jefferson realizes that the store owner is dying and requires immediate attention, he thinks to himself whether he should run or attempt to use the telephone in order to call for help (Gaines, 1993, p. 6). With three white men dead, he wants to run, but cannot bring himself to do so. Instead, he freezes and decides to take a drink of whiskey. This scene displays how an unjust culture can prevent citizens from doing the right thing because they are more concerned with being blamed for a crime they did not commit than they are with helping someone who is dying. Ultimately the system was designed to promote the superiority of the white race, making it nearly impossible for an African American on trial to receive fair treatment.

Throughout the novel, Grant, the only educated African American in town, worries that Jefferson will fulfill the white stereotype of blacks. Tasked with reforming Jefferson after his conviction, Grant asks how he is supposed to transform Jefferson into a new man. He questions, “Now his godmother wants me to visit him and make him know – prove to these white men – that he’s not a hog, that he’s a man. I’m supposed to make him a man. Who am I? God?” (Gaines, 1993, p. 31). He also questions whether it is even worth visiting Jefferson, as he will still ultimately be sentenced to death either way.

Grant has trouble connecting with Jefferson, and fears that his lack of education and unwillingness to eat will contribute to whites viewing him as an animal, as he was described during his trial. During one chapter, Grant and Miss Emma bring Jefferson fried chicken and yams to eat during a visit. However, Jefferson responds, “It don’t matter” and, “Nothing don’t matter” before refusing to eat (Gaines, 1993, p. 73). Grant at times becomes frustrated with Jefferson’s apathetic attitude but never stays angry with him for very long. He ultimately wants Jefferson to show conviction, so he does not live up to the stereotype whites have of blacks at the time.

Although women do not play a major role in the novel, they are certainly present throughout. Women are largely portrayed as submissive and dependent upon men during the story. This is unsurprising, as the role of women at the time was largely defined as housewives whose main responsibilities were to cook for the family and maintain the home. This attitude is displayed in a number of ways throughout the story. Every time Grant and Miss Emma got to visit Jefferson, it is always Miss Emma who cooks the food. Women took pride in their cooking, as it was one of their only duties at the time. This pride is evidenced in chapter four when Grant informs Miss Emma that he will be eating in town and will not be returning for dinner, claiming that, “Nothing could have hurt her more when I said I was not going to eat her food” (Gaines, 1993, p. 24). They also ask Grant to visit Jefferson alone on a few occasions even though he is not related to him like the females are, once again showing that society had defined roles for females at the time, one that was submissive and deferent to men. Over time, this attitude has changed in society, as women and men have become more co-dependent in the decision-making process, as opposed to the husband primarily making decisions concerning the family (Dorfman and Hill, 1986).

Near the end of the story, Reverend Ambrose tells Grant that he is uneducated because he does not believe in an afterlife and refuses to teach Jefferson something he does not believe in. Reverend Ambrose becomes upset and claims, “You learned reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic, but you don’t know nothing. You don’t even know yourself” (Gaines, 1993, p. 215). This exchange ties into the third theme of the novel, which is redemption. Jefferson eventually comes to terms with his fate and realizes he will soon die, but believes there is more to life after death due to the teachings of Reverent Ambrose and Grant. During their final meeting, Jefferson claims that he will do his best while admiring how pretty it is outside before offering Grant a sweet potato (Gaines, 1993, p. 225).

Grant ultimately admits that he is lost and confused by a world dominated by racism, discrimination and prejudice. In discussing the situation, Reverend Ambrose says that African Americans are compromising their integrity due to the fact that they must lie to get by in an unjust world. He says, “I know they done cheated themselves, lied to themself – hoping that one they all love and trust can come back and help relieve the pain” (Gaines, 1993, p. 218). Ambrose’s statement leads one to question whether lying and saying nothing in the face of evil makes one complicit in the injustices. The situation is complicated, as there is no clear answer one way or another. On one hand, it is hard to deny that lying in order to avoid punishment is not complying with the unjust law, as the complicit are doing nothing to protest their treatment. However, when the justice system is designed in a way to discriminate against a certain race of people, it would certainly be difficult to protest, knowing that a severe punishment awaits anyone who speaks out. In the end, by saying nothing those who do not protest are technically complicit in the injustices, but it is not always easy to stand up for a cause if one knows that death could be around the corner, as evidenced by Jefferson. Instead of calling for help, which he knew was the right thing to do, he chose to lie to himself and do nothing because he knew he would be blamed for the crime due to the color of his skin.

In conclusion, Gaines portrays the American South as it was at the time, a racist society where laws were designed to keep African Americans from enjoying the same rights as whites. As evidenced in the story, even educated blacks such as Grant were still subject to the same racism and intolerance as those who were uneducated. By exposing an unjust criminal justice system, the author shows how biased laws can compel an honest group of people to engage in dishonesty. This is evidenced numerous times throughout the novel, from the fact that Jefferson receives an unfair trial, to the fact that Grant lies to himself because he is dissatisfied with the racism that dominated Southern culture at the time. The story also shows how the power of religion can provide a sense of redemption and give hope that there is something better awaiting those who are discriminated against after death. Gaines highlights how there are moments of joy in life for all humans, evidenced by the fact that Jefferson spends the last day of his life admiring how beautiful the world is, despite the fact that he was about to be executed for a crime he did not commit and lived in a world dominated by hatred and racism.

References

Collins-Chobanian, Shari (2009). Analysis of Paul butler’s race-based jury nullification and his callto black jurors and the African American community. Journal of Black Studies, 39, 508-527.

Dorfman, Lorraine T., & Hill, Elizabeth A (1986). Rural housewives and retirement: Joint decision-makingmatters. Family Relations, 35, 507-514.

Gaines, Ernest J. (1993). A lesson before dying. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.