Nat Turner

[diane]

Actually, I can understand the killing of women and children, and say it's a terrible thing at the same time. After all, some of the Oklahoma Confederate Indians enlisted just so they could kill some white people without paying for it later.

p s
Tipsu Tyee's personal war around here was simply killing all the white people he could. He brought so much trouble on his own people that it was they who killed him and his sons. That often happens when you bring too much trouble on your own.

 

[JerseyBart]

I just get tired of using the pretense of slavery as justification to commit cold blooded murder. The conditions at Attica were horrendous but that did not justify the riot and killings that resulted. Turner and Brown were homicidal lunatics on a par with Mason, Booth and others. Slavery and institutional racism is wrong by any stretch of the imagination. But as the good book says 2 wrongs DO NOT make a right. Slavery was wrong but so was indiscriminate killing in the name of freeing the slaves.

Weren't slaves murdered indiscriminately??? If I'm imprisoned against my will, and I didn't commit a crime to be imprisoned, someone's going to eventually die or be hurt severely for it.

You said that Turner, Brown, Booth and others were homicidal lunatics. Here is what I pulled from Nat Turner's wikipedia page. Wikipedia is no primary source, but hey...it's a quick easy source with decent information.

"By early 1828, Turner was convinced that he "was ordained for some great purpose in the hands of the Almighty.""
To me, that sounds no stranger than a Civil War general committing his men to battle and possible death/wounds and saying that the outcome is all in God's hands now.

A comparison that I could agree with would be Polish freedom fighters in the Warsaw Ghettos...Native Americans fighting to regain/retain land that they felt Americans were stealing from them, but attica prisons, Dahmer, Manson...no.

As an aside... I am enjoying the debate!!!

 

[gem]

When something like Turner's Rebellion starts, there is no way to control it. Morality has nothing to do with the ensuing actions. Mob mentality?

Take the NY Draft Riots. Was it moral to burn a black orphanage and hang black men? Or was this just a mob gone wild?

There is no morality inherent in a riot; there is only anger. Start one and all hell breaks loose. The instigator might have lofty reasons for starting a riot, but has no control over it after it is started.

We are wasting time lamenting about the murder of children during a riot of people who were enslaved. Especially those of 180 years ago.

you make a valid point in that Turner only killed one person during the revolt and they were not a child.

 

[gem]

Weren't slaves murdered indiscriminately??? If I'm imprisoned against my will, and I didn't commit a crime to be imprisoned, someone's going to eventually die or be hurt severely for it.

You said that Turner, Brown, Booth and others were homicidal lunatics. Here is what I pulled from Nat Turner's wikipedia page. Wikipedia is no primary source, but hey...it's a quick easy source with decent information.

"By early 1828, Turner was convinced that he "was ordained for some great purpose in the hands of the Almighty.""
To me, that sounds no stranger than a Civil War general committing his men to battle and possible death/wounds and saying that the outcome is all in God's hands now.

A comparison that I could agree with would be Polish freedom fighters in the Warsaw Ghettos...Native Americans fighting to regain/retain land that they felt Americans were stealing from them, but attica prisons, Dahmer, Manson...no.

As an aside... I am enjoying the debate!!!

you make a valid point that a lot of people put a lot of trust in God to guide their actions in the antebellum.

 

[unionblue]

Murder of innocents in a supposed 'just cause' = Murder.

Nat Turner should be remembered, not honored.

 

[ole]

This is getting tedious. We're talking about an aggrieved fruitcake who fomented a somewhat justifiable rebellion in which some innocents were killed. Has there ever been a rebellion in which no innocents were killed?

Reality sucks, but it remains reality. No amount of hand-wringing is going to change what happened,

 

[gem]

No, I would not say he was justified. His actions were understandable and predictable, but not justified. Now we get into a definition of "justified" and "justice" which are highly subjective. Had he attempted escape and some pateroler cornered him and he was given the alternative of freedom or murder I might be persuaded that he was justified in fighting back.

If he wanted his freedom he should have run away. Killing people was counter productive.

Who lost more by Turner's revolt? The slaves or the slaveholders who now saw their 'benign' institution delivered a shocking blow?

 

[gem]

Murder of innocents in a supposed 'just cause' = Murder.

Nat Turner should be remembered, not honored.

What do you make of the fact that the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, and killed thousand of innocent women and children. The whole point of dropping the bomb was to create a devastation that was so severe the cost of Japan continuing would be too great and thus they would surrender.

The same concept holds with Nat Turner. His rebels created devastation that was so severe that he thus wanted to force slaveholders into seeing that the cost of holding slaves was so great as not to be worth it.

 

[gem]

The only line Turner crossed was killing children. The slave had a fundamental human right to stop slave owners' from oppressing the Black race in the evil of American chattel slavery. Turner did not murder slave owners, rather he killed the enemy in a revolt against chattel slavery.

The institution of chattel slavery created an environment where the slave also saw it beneficial to kill the enemies (slaveholders) offspring.

If they did not see it as beneficial they would not have done it.

 

[James B White]

Who lost more by Turner's revolt? The slaves or the slaveholders who now saw their 'benign' institution delivered a shocking blow?

I'd say the slaves, because slave-owners had been fearing both insurrections or more insidious things like poisonings for years. Turner's revolt obviously was an example of those fears come true, but it's not like slave-owners were truly unworried before. I was recently researching black-white relations in central Virginia in the 1810s (admittedly west of Southampton), and was surprised that every few years, there were serious rumors of a major uprising. Because nothing really came of them, we don't hear much about them today. But there were rumors of a major uprising to happen at the start of the War of 1812, then a John Brown figure in George Boxley, who was informed on by a slave and caught before he could start his revolution, and in between, all the usual individual murders, rapes, etc. by slaves on their owners or neighbors--just in one small area covering a handful of counties.

The other difference is that the slave-owners could decide what to do in response--what laws to pass, whether to end slavery or decrease slaves' freedom. They had the power to decide what they felt was the best outcome for them. The slaves could only endure whatever the slave-owners decided to do.

 

[Freddy]

The institution of chattel slavery created an environment where the slave also saw it beneficial to kill the enemies (slaveholders) offspring.

If they did not see it as beneficial they would not have done it.

Do you have any evidence that other slaves who revolted actually killed children as Turner did?

 

[Nathanb1]

What do you make of the fact that the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, and killed thousand of innocent women and children. The whole point of dropping the bomb was to create a devastation that was so severe the cost of Japan continuing would be too great and thus they would surrender.

The same concept holds with Nat Turner. His rebels created devastation that was so severe that he thus wanted to force slaveholders into seeing that the cost of holding slaves was so great as not to be worth it.

It was a war. Are you really that naive? I claim major B.S.

 

[gem]

Do you have any evidence that other slaves who revolted actually killed children as Turner did?

I'm not sure if I fully understand your question. Turner did not personally kill any children, though other slaves who were part of his revolt did.

We know that the largest slave uprising took place in Haiti and what took place in Haiti made Turner's rebels look nice.

 

[gem]

I'd say the slaves, because slave-owners had been fearing both insurrections or more insidious things like poisonings for years. Turner's revolt obviously was an example of those fears come true, but it's not like slave-owners were truly unworried before. I was recently researching black-white relations in central Virginia in the 1810s (admittedly west of Southampton), and was surprised that every few years, there were serious rumors of a major uprising. Because nothing really came of them, we don't hear much about them today. But there were rumors of a major uprising to happen at the start of the War of 1812, then a John Brown figure in George Boxley, who was informed on by a slave and caught before he could start his revolution, and in between, all the usual individual murders, rapes, etc. by slaves on their owners or neighbors--just in one small area covering a handful of counties.

The other difference is that the slave-owners could decide what to do in response--what laws to pass, whether to end slavery or decrease slaves' freedom. They had the power to decide what they felt was the best outcome for them. The slaves could only endure whatever the slave-owners decided to do.

What you're saying would be absolutely correct if the slaveholders had the power to continue slavery forever. Then, I would concede that efforts to revolt by the slave would simply be in vain. However, the slaveholding society by enacting laws and other acts which further mistreated slaves, only served to further weaken the shaky moral ground slavery stood upon. By acting with increasing desperation the slaveholding society actually weakened the institution of slavery even if they believed they were actually strengthening it.

 

[James B White]

What you're saying would be absolutely correct if the slaveholders had the power to continue slavery forever. Then, I would concede that efforts to revolt by the slave would simply be in vain. However, the slaveholding society by enacting laws and other acts which further mistreated slaves, only served to further weaken the shaky moral ground slavery stood upon. By acting with increasing desperation the slaveholding society actually weakened the institution of slavery even if they believed they were actually strengthening it.

Not sure I see any direct connection between the rise of the abolition movement and the increase in anti-insurrection laws. Laws barring blacks from assembling and preaching, requiring passes, etc. were certainly among the things that abolitionists pointed out as wrong, but overwork, poor food, clothing and shelter, the slave trade that separated families, and corporal punishment to encourage production, were equally strong selling points for ending slavery.

It seems a convoluted way to go about helping enslaved people: rebel, make the laws worse, so a generation of slaves suffers more, making whites finally upset enough that abolition gets some traction, leading to more paranoia about abolition in the south, leading to secession, leading to war and eventual emancipation.

Using that logic, Isaac Franklin and John Armfield did as much to end slavery as William Lloyd Garrison and Arthur Tappan.

 

[Freddy]

I'm not sure if I fully understand your question. Turner did not personally kill any children, though other slaves who were part of his revolt did.

We know that the largest slave uprising took place in Haiti and what took place in Haiti made Turner's rebels look nice.

I know about Haiti, but I was asking about any revolt in the US.

 

[unionblue]

What do you make of the fact that the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, and killed thousand of innocent women and children. The whole point of dropping the bomb was to create a devastation that was so severe the cost of Japan continuing would be too great and thus they would surrender.

The same concept holds with Nat Turner. His rebels created devastation that was so severe that he thus wanted to force slaveholders into seeing that the cost of holding slaves was so great as not to be worth it.

I call this reply misdirection from murders committed by Nat Turner on a thread about honoring Nat Turner.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[gem]

I call this reply misdirection from murders committed by Nat Turner on a thread about honoring Nat Turner.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

What I trying to point out is the parallel of going to extreme measures to try to end an evil.

 

[unionblue]

What I trying to point out is the parallel of going to extreme measures to try to end an evil.

gem,

In all honesty, you're failing.

WWII and Nat Turner's Rebellion.

If you cannot see a difference, then you will continue to fail.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Georgia Coast]

Not sure I see any direct connection between the rise of the abolition movement and the increase in anti-insurrection laws. Laws barring blacks from assembling and preaching, requiring passes, etc. were certainly among the things that abolitionists pointed out as wrong, but overwork, poor food, clothing and shelter, the slave trade that separated families, and corporal punishment to encourage production, were equally strong selling points for ending slavery.

It seems a convoluted way to go about helping enslaved people: rebel, make the laws worse, so a generation of slaves suffers more, making whites finally upset enough that abolition gets some traction, leading to more paranoia about abolition in the south, leading to secession, leading to war and eventual emancipation.

Using that logic, Isaac Franklin and John Armfield did as much to end slavery as William Lloyd Garrison and Arthur Tappan.

I agree that there isn't necessarily a connection, BUT...there was certainly a connection in the minds of the white owners and politicians in the county and state. David Walker's "Appeal" in particular had a great deal to do with anti-insurrection fears and the response to them, with Southern whites complaining that every black preacher in the south had somehow managed to become familiar with Walker's pamphlet. Some scholars (including Carter G. Woodson, A.B. Hart, R.A. Brock) believed it possible that abolitionist literature, even Walker's pamphlet, "may have" influenced Turner. The governing whites of the time certainly made this connection very directly. The governor, John Floyd, stated that "Negro preachers and northern abolitionists" were responsible for the insurrection. [Dec. 6, 1831] However, Garrison denied ever inciting insurrection, and there is no historical evidence at all that Turner was influenced from sources outside his own personal and religious experience. He certainly could have been...but there's no evidence that he was.