Nat Turner

[Nathanb1]

So if I snap, kill a bunch of students and influence a movement for reforming education that turns out to be excellent, I'll be honored. Right?

Wow.

 

[gem]

One has to compare apples to apples to have any meaning.

Thus if we want to compare Turner's movement with other movements it has to be a movement as sacred as Turner's movement to fight for his own freedom while held in bondage.

Similiarly if we want to compare Turner to other individuals they have to have an actual cause that is as sacred as fighting for one's own freedom. Otherwise the comparisons are meaningless and only serve to belittle and detract from the actual history of the antebellum.

So far I have not heard any equal comparisons. If someone can come up with one I'd be happy to see the comparison of apples to apples.

 

[leftyhunter]

The only comparisons I can see is if slaves in say Haiti or Brazil had similar rebellion?. Did Spartcus in Greece kill the women and children of slave owners? Were there similar rebellions in the Roman Empire? Does slavery exist today ? Indeed it does in LA the there are occasional prosecutions based on slavery I have not heard of the modern slaves killing the children of the slave owners maybe I missed one.
Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

Nat Turner's "success" was in increasing the fear of slave rebellion and measures to suppress any freedom a slave had. Passes and pattyrollers and rules and new laws.

No matter how much we hear about the "darkies am asinging," everyone was a little edgy about slave rebellion. No one was safe -- even those who treated their slaves better than average. The guy across the field might have a fomenting rebellion that could reach over here. And those who didn't own slaves but were white.

Mob action has a way of drawing lines. They're white; they're the enemy. They're black; they're the enemy.

And this has always been. It is not a matter of 21st century thinking overlaid on 19th century thinking. It is what it was.

 

[gem]

The only comparisons I can see is if slaves in say Haiti or Brazil had similar rebellion?. Did Spartcus in Greece kill the women and children of slave owners? Were there similar rebellions in the Roman Empire? Does slavery exist today ? Indeed it does in LA the there are occasional prosecutions based on slavery I have not heard of the modern slaves killing the children of the slave owners maybe I missed one.
Leftyhunter

the answer to your question is yes, other slave rebellions were carried out in a similiar cold blooded fashion.

regarding hati:

"A slave rebellion of 1791 finally toppled the colony. Launched in August of that year, the revolt represented the culmination of a protracted conspiracy among black leaders. According to accounts of the rebellion that have been told through the years, François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture helped plot the uprising, although this claim has never been substantiated. Among the rebellion's leaders were Boukman, a maroon and voodoo houngan (priest); Georges Biassou, who later made Toussaint his aide; Jean-François, who subsequently commanded forces, along with Biassou and Toussaint, under the Spanish flag; and Jeannot, the bloodthirstiest of them all. These leaders sealed their compact with a voodoo ceremony conducted by Boukman in the Bois Cayman (Alligator Woods) in early August 1791. On August 22, a little more than a week after the ceremony, the uprising of their black followers began.
The carnage that the slaves wreaked in northern settlements, such as Acul, Limbé, Flaville, and Le Normand, revealed the simmering fury of an oppressed people. The bands of slaves slaughtered every white person they encountered. As their standard, they carried a pike with the carcass of an impaled white baby. Accounts of the rebellion describe widespread torching of property, fields, factories, and anything else that belonged to, or served, slaveholders. The inferno is said to have burned almost continuously for months."

http://www.travelinghaiti.com/history_of_haiti/slave_rebellion.asp

 

[ole]

Gem. If I am a slave, I am going to kill someone.

But then, I'm a white guy. But I am still going to kill someone.

OK. The slave was getting used to his "place." That happens. This was the way it was. The Stockholm Syndrome. But I would be obliged to kill someone, and don't find fault with those who felt the same.

And no, Christ does not guide me. I just naturally object to being subject to someone's orders.

And I'm not that far removed from the slave.

Chances are, he knows nothing of freedom, but he knows that it isn't right. On that edge,

 

[leftyhunter]

there you have it slavery is not the most fun you can have with your cloths on and inspires actions that are not nice. Ole you look muck more attractive then you used to.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

Is it proper to honor Nat Turner?

No.

He and his actions should be remembered.

But honored, no.

Unionblue

 

[gem]

No.

He and his actions should be remembered.

But honored, no.

Unionblue

which actions are you referring to?

The action of fighting for one's freedom? the action of killing slavemasters? killing innocents? or all of them?

 

[unionblue]

OK, this brings up some weird stuff I read about Denmark Vesey some years back. (I grew up in and near Charleston, so this is especially interesting to me.) Much more than Nat Turner, Vesey has been lauded by many as heroic although he insisted on his innocence to the end. According to this scholar, the actual court documents strongly indicate that it was a case of white hysteria -- that he was innocent of the conspiracy. Have any other scholars come to agree with this? It seems to me that nobody else ever came on board with this theory. Yet it seems somewhat plausible to me.

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2001/22oct01/22sleuth.html

Georgia Coast,

Thanks for providing the above link about Vesey.

Made for an interesting read.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

which actions are you referring to?

The action of fighting for one's freedom? the action of killing slavemasters? killing innocents? or all of them?

Yes.

"God told me to" is the most evil of excuses when committing murder.

 

[gem]

Yes.

"God told me to" is the most evil of excuses when committing murder.

what about the other people in his insurrection who did not act because of God's inspiration.
are you ok with them?

 

[unionblue]

what about the other people in his insurrection who did not act because of God's inspiration.
are you ok with them?

How do you know they did not act so and how do we know this event was because of "God's inspiration?"

 

[gem]

How do you know they did not act so and how do we know this event was because of "God's inspiration?"

What Turner's people did is only murder if they had no right to fight for their freedom. While I lament the loss of the innocents I also know that there is no 'proper' way to have an insurrection.

Based on historical record Turner acted on God's inspiration (as he saw it). What we know about slave insurrections Turner's or others like Haiti is that slaves who participated wanted to freedom and were willing to do whatever they thought necessary to get it.

 

[unionblue]

What Turner's people did is only murder if they had no right to fight for their freedom.

Again, "God told me to" is the worst excuse a person can make for justifying a cause. And murder is not right no matter what the context it is placed in.

While I lament the loss of the innocents I also know that there is no 'proper' way to have an insurrection.

There is no plan that survives contact with the enemy, but murder can take place anywhere, to include battlefields and insurrections. There are ways to fight for one's beliefs without becoming a beast to do so.

Based on historical record Turner acted on God's inspiration (as he saw it).

Based on the historical record we know the 9/11 hijackers murdered thousands in the name of God as they saw it.

You have asked if I think Turner should be honored. The crushing of babies skulls and the murder of children who could do no harm excludes him from being honored in my view. I was taught one could tell the difference between the actions of a God inspired act and an act inspired by Satan. God only does good. Satan does evil. Where does the murder of innocent babies and children stand with God? How is Turner going to justify his actions of such before God when he stands and gives the excuse, "You told me too?" Man can claim he acted on God's inspiration but all we can do is judge the results of Man's actions. The truth of the matter is we do not know, even with the historical record, if Turner acted on God's inspiration, an illusion of Satan or out of madness. Simply stating such in a post does not make it true.

What we know about slave insurrections Turner's or others like Haiti is that slaves who participated wanted to freedom and were willing to do whatever they thought necessary to get it.

Right and wrong are eternal.

A good cause simply gets swallowed by evil when wrong is used to obtain it.

Unionblue

 

[gem]

Right and wrong are eternal.

A good cause simply gets swallowed by evil when wrong is used to obtain it.

Unionblue

The slave has the right to kill people as a revolutionary action whether God inspired or not. The 9/11 cause was a presumed one unlike the slavery cause which was an actual tangible one. Again I maintain that we have to compare apples to apples.

We honor Unions soldiers , we honor confederate soldiers and what did they do - kill one another. Yet we find reasons to honor them - bravery, loyalty to state and society, courage etc. We also lament the loss and tragic acts committed due to the war, yet we still honor.

Should we automatically exclude the likes of Turner from any honor?

I would maintain that we can honor his bravery, courage, his desire to help his fellow man and his fight for freedom. We can also lament the fact that the slave system created this tragic character and the reprehensible acts that resulted in response to the wicked evil of slavery.

 

[unionblue]

gem states: The slave has the right to kill people as a revolutionary action whether God inspired or not.

Kill, not murder. There is a difference. But at least we now seem to agree that God does not issue blank checks for murder.

The 9/11 cause was a presumed one unlike the slavery cause which was an actual tangible one.

The Twin Towers are gone and we have thousands of innocent lives murdered and you call 9/11 "presumed?" You think the hijackers had no inspiration or did not claim they did such murder without inspiration from God? And again, unless you can prove beyond doubt that God inspired Turner to murder you can only believe that his actions were more "tangible" than the 9/11 hijackers. God was in neither acts, in my own view.

Again I maintain that we have to compare apples to apples.

Two acts of mass murder committed by men who claim to be inspired of God. We are comparing murder to murder.

We honor Unions soldiers , we honor confederate soldiers and what did they do - kill one another. Yet we find reasons to honor them - bravery, loyalty to state and society, courage etc. We also lament the loss and tragic acts committed due to the war, yet we still honor.

A soldier kills the enemy, he does not murder. The soldiers on each side knew they were going to have to kill one another in order to advance the goals of their nation. A soldier kills the enemy in combat. But soldiers will shun those of their ranks who murder babies and children for no other reason than to commit murder. When you compare a man who murders to a soldier who kills, I maintain you are comparing apples to oranges.

Should we automatically exclude the likes of Turner from any honor?

Yes, because the murder of defenseless innocents excludes any chance at honor.

I would maintain that we can honor his bravery, courage, his desire to help his fellow man and his fight for freedom.

I would maintain that his rants and supposed visions that supported the murder of babies and helples children negates any reason to suppose he had the qualities of bravery, courage, or the desire to help his fellow slaves in a spree that resulted in more innocents being slaughtered than any of his fellow slaves being freed.

We can also lament the fact that the slave system created this tragic character and the reprehensible acts that resulted in response to the wicked evil of slavery.

Turner was a slave but was it the system that created him or was it his mental state that created visions resulting in the tragic evil response he created?

Like I said, God does not issue blank passes for evil to fight evil. That's not how God works.

Unionblue

 

[James B White]

Putting aside the legality, the question seems to be: what level of retaliation is morally acceptable for a wrong?

Most people seem to accept the morality of the underground railroad today, despite the fact it was illegal at the time, because it was theft in retaliation for theft. You claim to own something you have no right to (a human being), I help that human being steal himself. Equal. If a death occurs during the counter-theft, it's not pre-planned; the goal might have been accomplished with no one getting hurt.

But Turner took it further. Murder for theft. That's less obviously ethical.

To put it in today's terms: Someone steals my car. The cops won't help, so I go to the thief's house and take the car back. I don't think most people would have a problem with that.

Same scenario. Instead, I go to the thief's house, deliberately kill him and his two children and steal the car back. That will certainly publicize that I think theft is wrong, and make other potential thieves think twice. But even if everyone agrees that stealing the car was wrong in the first place, people are going to disagree over whether it deserved a retaliation of three murders, including some innocent people.

 

[gem]

Right and wrong are eternal.

A good cause simply gets swallowed by evil when wrong is used to obtain it.

Unionblue

Do you condemn the entire confederate cause for the murder of innocent blacks in retaliation for the Turner revolt?

 

[CMWinkler]

that's ok. I'm not suggesting that one should.

This has caused me to violate my Gem ignoring rule. You are seriously positing here that you are not suggesting Nate Turner should be honored? You expect that to be credible after you say that he was, in fact, honored by two of those you have idolized, John Brown and Frederick Douglas? I'm sorry but that seems wholly incredible to me.

To answer your question, honor him if you choose. If you do, however, don't be hypocritical enough to criticize the honoring of any Confederate, period.