Solomon criticism

I agree with all of the previous bloggers that the Solomon piece, in some way, shape, or form, represents the corruption in Twain's society and/or government. Sloan supports this thesis when she says, "In the brief King Sollermun passage, Twain uses Jim's parody of biblical justice as an interpretive key to a modern-day parable of his own about the social and pyschological enslavement of blacks twenty years after the Civil War" (Sloan 1). This also supports my original interpretation of the Solomon dialog in which I had believed Twain included this passage to expose the corrupt civilization and satirize government. Although I initially didn't understand it, I now understand Roxanne's interpretation in which the child represents justice and social rights. However, going further with that argument and including my interpretation, I see the child as the slave fighting for equality and social justice. However, the more interesting aspect reveals itself when Sloan writes, "For Jim, as powerless before an American Judge as the infant is in Solomon's court, the import of the biblical story understandably ends with the king's decree" (Sloan 2). Although Jim denounces the idea of being treated like property and only half a person, which is supported by the text when he says, "Now I want to ast you: what's de use er dat half a bill?--can't buy noth'n wid it. En what use is a half a chile? I wouldn' give a dern for a million un um" (Twain 77), he is powerless to make his own decisions because his fate lies in the hands of the government. So in this respect, although slaves are fighting for equality, freedom, and justice, it is ultimately up to the government to decide this for black people and judge who the real mother is.
Before reading the Sloan criticism, I believed that both Huck and Jim represented different views in which Huck was influenced by society, and Jim was influenced by his received treatment as a slave. However, I did not see that "neither Jim nor Huck really understands the King Solomon passage" (Sloan 3). Because of this, Twain's "then" audience, which was likely to be deeply religious, would read the Solomon discussion not as another bible story but more as an allegory to slavery and the corrupt government. Since "Twain's larger purpose [was] to encrypt Huck's story with a parable that his audience most likely does not wish to hear" (Sloan 3), Twain needed to find a way to get his purpose across. By instilling it within a biblical story, readers would read the story, praising Twain for being religious, but later, after understanding the allegory, would begin to understand the corruption behind their government.