33 pages • 1 hour read
Charles W. ChesnuttA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Charles W. Chesnutt uses diction, including dialect, to make racial and socioeconomic distinctions between the story’s characters. He contrasts the colloquialisms and vernacular of the townspeople and Sam with the educated speech of Sheriff Campbell, Polly, and Tom. Chesnutt introduces the reader to the townspeople via the district’s dialect. One calls the captain’s death “the durndes,’ meanes’ murder ever committed in the caounty” and another “hangin’ air too good fer the murderer” (133). Throughout, they substitute “gwine” for going, “ole” for old, and “jestice” for justice. This places them as both poor and uneducated and also ties them to racial and ideological systems in place before the war. Chesnutt avoids simple contrasts, however. The mob leaders speak eloquently and use correct grammar and diction except for racial slurs, showing that racial hatred is not limited to the uneducated.
Tom is the most articulate character and uses the purest diction when he expresses his most complex thoughts. Although he lapses into occasional colloquialism, his speech primarily paints him as an educated, conscious man. His diction reflects the elevation of his thoughts. Unfortunately, while the townspeople’s simple speech does not change their racial privilege, Tom’s elevated dialect cannot change his fate as a Black man.
That both the sheriff and Tom move in and out of vernacular and educated speech ties them to each other and illustrates their complex identities. While the townspeople use only the most offensive racial slurs, the sheriff switches between using racial slurs, “the prisoner,” and “son” when considering Tom. His diction increasingly shifts to the latter as his process of soul-searching progresses. This illustrates his conflicted roles as sheriff, “white man,” of the county, former enslaver, and father, and brings his character’s trajectory into greater understanding.
Chesnutt uses juxtaposition to establish context, define characters, and explore dichotomies. In describing the town, he juxtaposes industry and indolence, manmade devices with nature, cities with rural towns. When describing the characters, he juxtaposes the educated with the boorish townspeople, the duty-bound sheriff with the unlawful mob, the ingrained dogma of the lynchers with the “majesty of law” (131), and the mob’s sense of duty to “honor” the captain’s memory with the sheriff’s vow to honor his role in the new era. Chesnutt’s story revolves around the moral juxtaposition posed by the sheriff’s meeting with his son. The story implicitly compares the sheriff’s crimes as a previous enslaver to those of Tom, highlighting the skewed ways in which society views these two men and their actions. In this sense, Chesnutt illuminates dichotomies around pre- and post-war cultures, North and South, old and new thought, stagnancy and change, and life and death.
Authorial intrusion provides the reader with direct commentary around the narrative. This occurs three times within “The Sheriff’s Children,” drawing the reader into an express relationship with the narrator. It is used at key points to reveal or analyze the intentions of the characters. When addressing the townspeople and their decision to lynch Tom, the narrator asserts that “[w]hether the fear of losing the round-shouldered farmer operate[s] to bring about the result or not is immaterial to this narrative” (134), directly proclaiming the town’s economic hardship and desire to retain the durable farmer insignificant in contrast to their racist interests. The narrator informs the reader that the townspeople are driven by the latter, privileging the motivation to restore social order over their fear of poverty. Secondly, the narrator addresses the morality of the sheriff when facing Tom’s threat of death:
The sheriff hesitated. The struggle between his love of life and his sense of duty was a terrific one. It may seem strange that a man who could sell his own child into slavery should hesitate at such a moment, when his life was trembling in the balance. But the baleful influence of slavery poisoned the very foundations of life, and created new standards of right. The sheriff was conscientious; his conscious had merely been warped by his environment (145).
In this section, the narrator uses intrusion to analyze why people think and behave as they do and to embrace the moral contradictions inherent in human decision-making. Thirdly, the author intrudes during the stalemate between the sheriff and Tom; they were “fighting a harmless duel with their eyes” (141). The dueling eyes are indicative of the inner conflict at the story’s heart, which mirrors the physical conflict of the plot.
By Charles W. Chesnutt