Civil War Blogger Wants Monument For Nat Turner

[Battalion]

...the guy that led a slave insurrection where scores of people were murdered including women and children.

http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/15/a-glaring-omission/

I wonder if Levin (who is from New Jersey) would want a monument for these guys-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...Revolt_of_1712
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...piracy_of_1741

[johan_steele]

Again there are people who want to put together monuments for Quantrill & Bloody Bill and the SCV even gave the commandant of Andersonville a "Medal of Honor." Takes all sorts, apparently one mans hero is another mans butcher.

To me this is clearly an attempt to smear a blogger who doesn't visit this site and is unlikely to defend himself here. Thus it's locked. I'll leave the link so that if anyone wishes to comment where the blogger can respond they can do so.

[ole]

Does anyone actually read what is written? Kevin wasn't stumping for a monument ... just a plaque recognizing that here, on this spot, Nat Turner did the unforgiveable, he rebelled. Sounds kinda American, doesn't it.

Ole

[ole]

Some more background. I just reopened a locked thread. I generally figure that we're all grown-ups here. I'm not here to schmooze and pat anyone's back. And y'all know I can make your sainted momma break into an uncharcteristeric rage.

But. In our zeal to keep things super-nice, we sometimes fall off the edge. There is room in this thread to evaluate what Kevin said. And we can, presumably, act like we're actually adults.

In short, read the blog. Then read it again just to be sure you've read what you think he was saying.

I see nothing controversial in there. Just a blogger who thinks there ought to be some mark to remember Nat Turner. Does that have to honor a rebellious slave who managed to murder some? No. But do we erase the Nat Turners from our memory? No. He was very much a part of history, and there really ought to be some notation that he was.

And that's all Kevin said.

[Battalion]

To me this is clearly an attempt to smear a blogger who doesn't visit this site and is unlikely to defend himself here. Thus it's locked. I'll leave the link so that if anyone wishes to comment where the blogger can respond they can do so.

Don't think there is any such rule as "smearing a blogger"...and especially one who doesn't post here.

You seem to have no problem in "smearing bloggers."

Why don't you follow your own rule?

Johan Steele:
"As to the Lew Rockwell site... years ago when I first stared researching the CW on the net I was all over the net looking at everything I could find on the subject. I found a lot of wild stuff, a lot of vile things that I began to backtrack to find where they came from. Many League of the South, Neo Nazi and White supremo sites had one thing in common, a link to the Lew Rockwell site, w/ some of the writers being the same. I dropped that site like a... you know what I mean. Same basic thing came w/ Dilorenzo: distortion, creative editing and outright invention as a common tactic of the contributors. All? I don't know, enough to corrupt it all in my eyes. I've not been back to the site since probably 04. I see no reason to return, I doubt it's gotten better."
http://civilwartalk.com/forums/campf...html#post89780

[Battalion]

Does anyone actually read what is written? Kevin wasn't stumping for a monument ... just a plaque recognizing that here, on this spot, Nat Turner did the unforgiveable, he rebelled. Sounds kinda American, doesn't it.

Ole

The article says monument.

[Battalion]

Some more background. I just reopened a locked thread....

Thanks.........

[captainrlm]

I see nothing wrong with the blog.

It is certainly possible to have some sort of monument to note that something significant happened, without glorifying or celebrating it.

Nat Turner's revolt was a significant event - it caused fear in southerners for many years of something like it. Just because many people disapprove of his methods does not mean the event should be ignored.

If the blog is true about there being no place or plaque or monument acknowledging Turner's revolt, I find that surprising and disappointing.

Acknolwedge it, don't ignore it. Even if it was wrong, it happened and, IMO, is important enough to be recognized. Educate people about all that took place in the revolt instead of taking the "out of sight, out of mind" approach.

Virginia has a lot of history, and, like it or not, Nat Turner is part of it.

[Scribe]

Virginia has a lot of history, and, like it or not, Nat Turner is part of it.

Ah, there's the rub. To some the only important history and heritage of Virginia starts with secession and ends at Appomattox.

[Battalion]

I see nothing wrong with the blog.

It is certainly possible to have some sort of monument to note that something significant happened, without glorifying or celebrating it.

Nat Turner's revolt was a significant event - it caused fear in southerners for many years of something like it. Just because many people disapprove of his methods does not mean the event should be ignored.

If the blog is true about there being no place or plaque or monument acknowledging Turner's revolt, I find that surprising and disappointing.

Acknolwedge it, don't ignore it. Even if it was wrong, it happened and, IMO, is important enough to be recognized. Educate people about all that took place in the revolt instead of taking the "out of sight, out of mind" approach.

Virginia has a lot of history, and, like it or not, Nat Turner is part of it.

Then what about a monument for John Wilkes Booth in Washington, DC?

A monument for Quantrill in Kansas?

[dvrmte]

Nat Turner has his marker.

[ole]

Strange. Maybe unusual? No one has suggested that Booth gets a statue next to the Lincoln Memorial. However, he was an historical figure. So if he gets a plaque or two, that works into our history.

And so, Nat Turner ought to be noted as a piece if this. Naah. Not a monument, but just a plaque. And I'm quite befoggled that a mention would be so condemned.

[Ellsworth avenger]

You have to win the war to get place monuments to controversial subjects.A monument to Saint Jude the Patron Saint of lost causes may be more appropiate.

[ole]

Thanks for that, dvrmte. Got's to pay more attenting to the gunts on the gound.

[Battalion]

Nat Turner has his marker.

A marker to note an historical event...

And no doubt there's a marker in Harper's Ferry about John Brown's raid.

...that's not what he's talking about.

"...We have such a rich history here and there are plenty of important and obscure individuals who deserve to be remembered in one way or another. It seems to me that the one glaring omission is the lack of any kind of monument to Nat Turner. That’s right, I said Nat Turner. I’m not suggesting that what is needed is something overtly celebratory [then what is it? covertly celebratory?], but some kind of acknowledgment of his role in Virginia history and the broader civil rights movement...."

Nat Turner slave insurrection part of the civil rights movement?

[K Hale]

Well, as dvrmte showed, the blogger's point is moot, because there already is a plaque.

That said, the blogger does say he wants a monument, not a plaque. A "public site dedicated to Turner." As long as it's not "overtly celebratory." So why isn't the extant plaque good enough?

The sticking point for me is that he says he wants "acknowledgment of [Turner's] role in ... the broader civil rights movement." I don't really like viewing a spree killer as being part of the civil rights movement, or any movement.

As for what he says about Dr. King, I sense sarcasm.

[captainrlm]

Thanks for finding that sign about Turner's revolt. That's not huge, but it does acknowledge the event, and that's what I meant. Nothing fancy, but at least acknowledge it happened, much like Ford's Theatre serves as acknowldegement of Booth's actions.

Good find.

[larry_cockerham]

You have to win the war to get place monuments to controversial subjects.A monument to Saint Jude the Patron Saint of lost causes may be more appropiate.

Our SCV camp in Franklin, TN owns a place called Winstead Hill. It was the site from which J.B. Hood watched his military career shattered along with 9,500 lives wearing both blue and grey. Over the past half century, many folks have offered money and support to acknowledge the presence of this high ranking general on November 30, 1864 (So far none has mentioned his brief presence on December 18, 1864.) The city park next door does have a very well presented visitor's sign with his photo, but alas they are somewhat politically correct, a malady that hasn't quite overcome private property as yet. Only a small plague mentioning J.B. Hood exists on top of the hill near his overlook position. He just doesn't have the votes as yet for a larger display. Things don't change very quickly in the midsouth. That may be good; I'm still thinking about it.

[ole]

so now I gotta go back and read it again.

Ole

[Scribe]

Then what about a monument for John Wilkes Booth in Washington, DC?

A monument for Quantrill in Kansas?

You honor who you honor; I'll honor who I honor.

[dvrmte]

Are there any historical markers in NYC regarding the 1712 and 1741 slave rebellions or the Wall Street Slave Market?

I couldn't find any on the internet. Why wouldn't these areas be marked?

I did find where a group of New York high school students were trying to have these sites acknowledged.

Sincerely,
dvrmte

[ole]

Spree killer? Guess if you were in Nat Turner's shoes, you might entertain a different view of what comprises spree killing. I'll guess that if you got whupped for being uppity and refusing a direct order and moving slowly, just killing the bastard wouldn't quite finish it. Getting the skin whipped off my back is going to get some serious payback.

I suspect that most of y'all wouldn't take a smack in the chops either. And we expect Nat Turner to just roll over and say, "thank you massa, may I have another?"

Back to the blogger. That he said monument once or twice does not convey what he was saying. Read it. And look into the words. Don't just see "monument" and conclude that he's glorifying Nat Turner.

Geez. I've heard of skimming and I'm guilty of that more often than not, but one would think that most of us could read and grasp a concept.

Guess I'll now relock the thread and acknowledge that Johan was right after all. We can't be trusted to play nice.

Ole

[The Iron Duke]

The sticking point for me is that he says he wants "acknowledgment of [Turner's] role in ... the broader civil rights movement." I don't really like viewing a spree killer as being part of the civil rights movement, or any movement.

It's obviously a politically motivated blog post. Turner was no civil rights leader and neither was Spartacus.

[Battalion]

I'll honor who I honor.

I don't care who you honor...

[ole]

So we need monuments to Capone and Dillinger and Kelly; Freedom Fighters all.

Ole