Nat Turner

[James B White]

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.

I don't disagree with any of that. Southern whites definitely feared insurrections and thought there was an abolitionist hiding behind every tree.

But I thought Gem's point was that northern abolitionists used southerners' actions to promote abolition. Southern whites' fear of insurrection, and the laws they passed to prevent it, seem to me only a minor weapon in abolitionists' arguments for why slavery was morally wrong.

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.

 

[Georgia Coast]

I don't disagree with any of that. Southern whites definitely feared insurrections and thought there was an abolitionist hiding behind every tree.

But I thought Gem's point was that northern abolitionists used southerners' actions to promote abolition. Southern whites' fear of insurrection, and the laws they passed to prevent it, seem to me only a minor weapon in abolitionists' arguments for why slavery was morally wrong.

I don't know about other abolitionists, but Garrison's first report of the insurrection in The Liberator included this:

"Ye patriotic hypocrites! ye panegyrists of Frenchmen, Greeks and Poles! ye Christian declaimers for liberty! ye valiant sticklers for equal rights among yourselves! ye haters of aristocracy! ye assailants of monarchy! ye republican nullifiers! ye treasonable disunionists! be dumb! Cast no reproach upon the conduct of the slaves, but let your lips and cheeks wear the blisters of condemnation."

That's pretty much out there in terms of attitude -- I'd say it goes far beyond "understanding" or "condoning" and does indeed "honor" Turner. Though I admit this quote doesn't directly address Garrison condemning the whites' reaction -- I don't have access to that much abolitionist scholarship here at home, so I can't say whether or not that gets addressed as his coverage of the revolt continues, but I would imagine he gets around to that.

 

[James B White]

That's pretty much out there in terms of attitude -- I'd say it goes far beyond "understanding" or "condoning" and does indeed "honor" Turner. Though I admit this quote doesn't directly address Garrison condemning the whites' reaction -- I don't have access to that much abolitionist scholarship here at home, so I can't say whether or not that gets addressed as his coverage of the revolt continues, but I would imagine he gets around to that.

I think we're still not quite on the same page, though I may have misinterpreted Gem.

Again, I agree that abolitionists supported slave rebellions to varying degrees. Garrison always seemed to be on the enthusiastic fringe of anything. The Tappans took a lot of heat for their open support of the Amistad slaves, while I think other Quakers were more hesitant to promote gratuitous violence. And abolitionists certainly also pointed out the immorality of the laws passed to prevent insurrections.

But if Gem's point is correct, I'd expect to see abolitionists saying, after Turner: 'Slavery is now more obviously immoral because owners require passes, won't let slaves assemble to hear black preachers, and have made it legal to shoot insurrections on sight.' I'd expect the general northern public to react: 'We were a little against slavery before, but now they've added those new laws, we're convinced it's immoral and should be ended.'

In other words, Turner's actions caused harsher laws, which gave abolitionists more ammunition to point out the immorality of slavery, which eventually helped end slavery.

If I've understood Gem's point correctly, I think that slavery was harsh enough, even without the anti-insurrection laws, that abolitionists had plenty of ammunition to show that it was immoral. It did take time to get the word out and time for public opinion to shift. The abolition movement picked up a lot of traction in the 1830s, soon after Turner's rebellion, but I think it had as much to do with the increase in the interstate slave trade and the opening up of more black belt cotton land, than the laws following Turner's rebellion.

The migration to the southwest in the late 1820s-1830s produced the cliche of the upper-south slave sold away from his family and sent to the cottonfields to work under a brutal overseer, which was iconic of slavery's horrors. That's why I said that if we follow Gem's logic that worse treatment ended slavery sooner, then Franklin & Armfield, the big interstate slave traders, did as much to help the abolition movement as Nat Turner, because their actions also made slavery worse and therefore more obviously immoral.

 

[Georgia Coast]

I think we're still not quite on the same page, though I may have misinterpreted Gem.

Again, I agree that abolitionists supported slave rebellions to varying degrees. Garrison always seemed to be on the enthusiastic fringe of anything. The Tappans took a lot of heat for their open support of the Amistad slaves, while I think other Quakers were more hesitant to promote gratuitous violence. And abolitionists certainly also pointed out the immorality of the laws passed to prevent insurrections.

But if Gem's point is correct, I'd expect to see abolitionists saying, after Turner: 'Slavery is now more obviously immoral because owners require passes, won't let slaves assemble to hear black preachers, and have made it legal to shoot insurrections on sight.' I'd expect the general northern public to react: 'We were a little against slavery before, but now they've added those new laws, we're convinced it's immoral and should be ended.'

In other words, Turner's actions caused harsher laws, which gave abolitionists more ammunition to point out the immorality of slavery, which eventually helped end slavery.

If I've understood Gem's point correctly, I think that slavery was harsh enough, even without the anti-insurrection laws, that abolitionists had plenty of ammunition to show that it was immoral. It did take time to get the word out and time for public opinion to shift. The abolition movement picked up a lot of traction in the 1830s, soon after Turner's rebellion, but I think it had as much to do with the increase in the interstate slave trade and the opening up of more black belt cotton land, than the laws following Turner's rebellion.

The migration to the southwest in the late 1820s-1830s produced the cliche of the upper-south slave sold away from his family and sent to the cottonfields to work under a brutal overseer, which was iconic of slavery's horrors. That's why I said that if we follow Gem's logic that worse treatment ended slavery sooner, then Franklin & Armfield, the big interstate slave traders, did as much to help the abolition movement as Nat Turner, because their actions also made slavery worse and therefore more obviously immoral.

 

[ole]

What Nat Turner did, I try to determine what I would do were I in his place. I do not respond well to orders. Thank God I was not in the military.

But I can't get in his place. I've been fired many times for being a headstrong butthead, but never whipped. A whipping might call up the Viking. Touch me with that sucker and I'm really going to get even.

Could Turner have been far from that attitude?

 

[James B White]

But I can't get in his place. I've been fired many times for being a headstrong butthead, but never whipped. A whipping might call up the Viking. Touch me with that sucker and I'm really going to get even.

Could Turner have been far from that attitude?

There's actually a type of enslaved man who shows up on and off in period writing, who managed to carve out a niche like that. He simply was too intimidating to whip. The outcome usually wasn't good, but as long as they did their share of work, most overseers figured it was best to leave them alone.

Others took them on as a challenge, though, and when it came to a battle of wills, the armed man generally won. From Frederick Law Olmsted:

"Some negroes are determined never to let a white man whip them, and will resist you, when you attempt it; of course you must kill them in that case. Once a negro, whom he was about to whip in the field, struck at his head with a hoe. He parried the blow with his whip, and, drawing a pistol, tried to shoot him; but the pistol missing fire, he rushed in and knocked him down with the butt of it. At another time, a negro whom he was punishing insulted and threatened him. He went to the house for his gun, and as he was returning, the negro, thinking he would be afraid of spoiling so valuable a piece of property, broke for the woods. He fired at once, and put six buck-shot into his hips.... It was only when he first came upon a plantation that he ever had much trouble. A great many overseers were unfit for their business, and too easy and slack with the negroes. When he succeeded such a man, he had hard work for a time to break the negroes in; but it did not take long to teach them their place."

 

[gem]

What Turner did was he acted as a revolutionary for the negro. He set the example that it was heroic to fight against bondage.

 

[gem]

What Nat Turner did, I try to determine what I would do were I in his place. I do not respond well to orders. Thank God I was not in the military.

But I can't get in his place. I've been fired many times for being a headstrong butthead, but never whipped. A whipping might call up the Viking. Touch me with that sucker and I'm really going to get even.

Could Turner have been far from that attitude?

I think there is little doubt that when the slaves revolted they not only sought their own freedom but were also looking for revenge against the slaveholding society.

 

[gem]

Is it appropriate to commemorate Nat Turner?

 

[gem]

Sorry Gem, even to me he has nothing to honor..And in fact, made life much worse for slaves...

do you think its wrong to commemorate Nat Turner?

 

[gem]

This Week August 21-22 1831 Nat Turner lead a revolt that sent shockwaves through the South.