“Mars Dugal’,’ sezee, ‘I knows I’s be’n monst’us bad -, but befo’ I go I wanter git sump’n off’n my mine. Dave didn’t steal dat bacon w’at wuz tuk out’n de smoke-’ouse. I stole it all, en I hid de Ham under Dave’s cabin fer ter th’ow de blame on him-en may de good Lawd fer-gib me fer it.” (Chesnutt; Dave’s Neckliss 29).

In the section “David’s Neckliss,” of Tales of Conjure and the Color Line by Charles Waddell Chesnutt, Uncle Julius tells the story about an enslaved man, David, who was driven to kill himself by a punishment and humiliation inflicted over a theft of ham that David did not commit. David was the scapegoat, and in the passage above another enslaved person admits to stealing the ham and hiding it under David’s house. David bore the punishment for her actions, which though they weren’t actually wrong were treated as such. David suffered for actions or sins he did not commit due to false blame and died as a result. 

I thought this story line seemed familiar however. Who else suffered for sins that weren’t their own and died as a result while hanging, not by a rope as David was, but on a cross. This made me curious if Chesnutt might have intended to compare the character David to christ because he suffered so the other slaves wouldn’t face consequences from cruel masters. Supporting this observation, is David’s name. Although this could be wrong as I’m not a very religious person, I believe that David was the only character, especially out of the black characters that had a religious name. This seems to make the connections that can be drawn from David and Christ more overt as why else would David be the only slave with a name from the bible. 

The introduction to Chesnutt’s stories claims that Chesnutt wanted to generate more equality through his writing, but I found this hard to absorb while reading. He only gives accents to black speakers. His characters make comments about why slaves shouldn’t be able to read. The overall characterization of Uncle Julian makes him seem manipulative and stupid all at once somehow. And this is what makes the possible connection between David and Christ so interesting. Despite being told his writing works to argue against slavery by the book introduction, I struggled to understand how while reading. This makes the godliness and righteousness of David seem so contrary to the rest of the reading. I would be really curious to know if Chesnutt interpreted David’s righteousness as an argument against slavery, especially considering the constant white savior complex and blatant racism and stereotypes his writing implements.