Nat Turner

[gem]

As much as I view the institution of slavery as a monstrous that almost destroyed our nation, I can't quite get to the point of "honoring" Turner when so many innocents were slaughtered. I can grieve for him and his life, but I can't get to the point of "honor."

Its a difficult task but we have to try to see Turner's life though his eyes, not our own.

For such a wickedly oppressed people was any family member of a slavemaster truly innocent.

At a very simple level if women and children were left alive they could go and tell the neighbors. Thus the are not really innocent if they are going to stop the insurrection.

A slave child is taught to grow up and become a slave master. Women could also own slaves and gave birth to children who would one day own slaves. Unfortunately, in this ugly institution who was truly innocent.

There is no question that the insurrection involved reprehensible acts. However, if there was no slavery there would be no insurrection. we can't ignore how everything was intertwined.

Also its not fair for us to deny the slave the basic human emotion that we all possess - revenge.

With slave children being sold off and slave women being brutally treated the slaves wanted slave families to feel the same type of pain that they felt. Make the stakes of having slaves so high that one has no other choice but to get rid of them.

 

[gem]

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.

Let me clarify my position. I'm not telling anyone what they should think.

I do have my own opinion of Turner, which does fall on the side of honor (i've talked about the reasons) with the realization that I lament the loss of the women and children. However, I do also lament the whole institution of slavery.

 

[Nathanb1]

I asked my 8th graders after they studied Turner today, if they would honor him. They looked at me with their jaws dropped and said what most reasonable folks have said here. They understand his wanting to be free, and sympathize with him for being a slave....but he's a "homicidal maniac." Wow. I didn't know they had that kind of vocabulary!

 

[CMWinkler]

Let me clarify my position. I'm not telling anyone what they should think.

I do have my own opinion of Turner, which does fall on the side of honor (i've talked about the reasons) with the realization that I lament the loss of the women and children. However, I do also lament the whole institution of slavery.

Let me clarify. You asked about honoring Nat Turner in the same way you did about John Brown. You then posit that he was honored by Frederick Douglas and John Brown for whom you have expressed your unreserved admiration. You then suggest that you are offering no opinion on Nat Turner. I'm sorry, Gem, but that is simply disingenuous. One of the reasons I instituted my rule to ignore you. I am hereby reinstating that rule.

 

[Lazy Bayou]

Its a difficult task but we have to try to see Turner's life though his eyes, not our own. For such a wickedly oppressed people was any family member of a slavemaster truly innocent. At a very simple level if women and children were left alive they could go and tell the neighbors. Thus the are not really innocent if they are going to stop the insurrection.

Sooo, are you saying that infants are not innocent?

 

[gem]

Let me clarify. You asked about honoring Nat Turner in the same way you did about John Brown. You then posit that he was honored by Frederick Douglas and John Brown for whom you have expressed your unreserved admiration. You then suggest that you are offering no opinion on Nat Turner. I'm sorry, Gem, but that is simply disingenuous. One of the reasons I instituted my rule to ignore you. I am hereby reinstating that rule.

i not going to say i'm disappointed. Again my point is i'm not trying to tell people what they should think.

There is a difference between posting an opinion and telling people what they should think. I've always tried to do the former .

 

[gem]

Sooo, are you saying that infants are not innocent?

sure they are innocent. But the key question is are they innocent in the eyes of the enslaved.

We know that slave children were innocent and didn't deserve to be sold off.

We cant change history all we can do is seek to understand it.

 

[Lazy Bayou]

sure they are innocent. But the key question is are they innocent in the eyes of the enslaved. We know that slave children were innocent and didn't deserve to be sold off.
We can't change history all we can do is seek to understand it.

There's a difference between being "sold off" and outright murder.

 

[gem]

There's a difference between being "sold off" and outright murder.

you're right there is a difference though both are egregious acts.

However, there were many black children who died a premature death as a result of the institution.
That is tantamount to murder certainly in the eyes of a parent.

 

[Nathanb1]

Again my point is i'm not trying to tell people what they should think.

You could've fooled me.

 

[gem]

There is a difference between telling people ,presenting information,debating and allowing people to come to their own conclusion.

I began the post with a documentary which gives a balanced view on Turner some opposed , some for.

I've never denied historical facts.

No doubt its a difficult journey to try to understand slaves insurrections.

 

[gem]

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.

I think we would agree that freedom is a sacred right and fighting for freedom is honorable.
I think many people can agree that those involved in slave insurrections had the right to kill for their freedom.
The next question naturally becomes to what extent of killing is acceptable.

I think if there was a 'proper' way to have a slave insurrection and if Turner's men did not follow that proper way then they would not be worthy of honor. However, we know for many different reasons there was no proper way.
Further if we take the proper or best way to be the most successful one then we look to Haiti which resulted in a free nation.
The Haiti insurrection was viciously brutal with mass killings of white men, women and children.

Unfortunately, we can't dissociate the brutality of the insurrections with the brutality of the institution.

I've always maintained that we have to compare apples to apples.

Thus comparing stealing a car, to holding people in bondage is not an equal analogy and thus won't shed much light on the topic.

However, the idea of an equal retaliation is an interesting idea. For the slave who always had the underhand equal retaliation only meant more retaliation . A master speaks badly to a slave a slave retaliates equally by speaking badly to the master only will result in a whipping, a worse retaliation. That's why the slaves had to take the stakes to the highest level, all or nothing.

 

[gem]

regarding the Haiti revolts

'The slaves sought revenge on their masters through "pillage, rape, torture, mutilation, and death"

 

[Nathanb1]

 

[gem]

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

you make a number of reasonable arguements , I would like to offer some counter arguements.

First you've drawn a parallel between Turner and jihadists. There is a big difference however. We can go to any people in the world and get ubitiqitous agreement that personal freedom from slavery is a sacred right. Thus fighting for freedom from bondage is a cause which we can think of few true parallels.

You also compare a declared war to an insurrection. However, they are very different entities for reasons i've already outlined.

Also even with declared war rarely does either side truly follow the rules. Certainly, we can name many examples on both sides of the war where rules were ignored.

This gets to my main point that war declared or undeclared does not fit into this nice little box of rules and morality.
Nevertheless, we still honor the general war effort for reasons i've talked about and lament for other reasons i've talked about. that goes for both declared and undeclared wars.

 

[Freddy]

I think most people would have liked to see Turner sparing the children in this slave rebellion. When Denmark Vesey and 34 others were executed for simply planning a slave revolt all rules are off!

 

[Nathanb1]

I find it interesting we haven't had a thread on honoring Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman or Sojourner Truth. Apparently finding ways to fight back and educate people on the horrors of slavery isn't as interesting as murder of innocent people.

 

[Freddy]

Here is what William Lloyd Garrison had to say about Nat Turner.

"What we have long predicted,-at the peril of being stigmatized as an alarmist and declaimer,-has commenced its fulfilment. The first step of the earthquake, which is ultimately to shake down the fabric of oppression, leaving not one stone upon the other, has been made. The first drops of blood, which are but the prelude to a deluge from the gathering clouds, have fallen. The first flash of lightening, which is to ignite and consume, has been felt. The first wailings of bereavement, which is to clothe the earth in sackcloth, have broken upon our ears.

In the first number of the Liberator, we alluded to the hour of vengeance in the following lines:
Wo if it come with storm, and blood, and fire,
When midnight darkness veils the earth and sky!
Wo to the innocent babe-the guilty sire-
Mother and daughter-friends of kindred tie!
Stranger and citizen alike shall die!
Red-handed Slaughter his revenge shall feed,
And havoc yell his ominous death-cry,
And wild Despair in vain for mercy plead-
While hell itself shall shrink and sicken at the deed!

Read the account of the insurrection in Virginia, and say whether our prophecy be not fulfilled. What was poetry-imagination-in January, is now bloody reality. 'Wo to the innocent babe-to mother and daughter!' Is it not true? Turn again to the record of the slaughter! Whole families have been cut off-not a mother, not a daughter, not a babe left. Dreadful retaliation! 'The dead bodies of white and black lying just as they were slain, unburied'-the oppressor and the oppressed equal at last in death-what a spectacle!"

"IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION can alone save her from the vengeance of Heaven, and cancel the debt of ages."

 

[Lazy Bayou]

I find it interesting we haven't had a thread on honoring Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman or Sojourner Truth. Apparently finding ways to fight back and educate people on the horrors of slavery isn't as interesting as murder of innocent people.

I agree. Well said.

 

[diane]

Imho, Nat Turner had a few screws mighty loose but I can see what made others follow him. Sometimes desperate measures seem the only answer. As has been pointed out, it made things worse. But, my friend gem, you do seem to have a knack for threads about folks with a few screws loose. It would be interesting to see a thread about the ex-slaves and how they did after emancipation. Just like a lot of things about our CW, things didn't fall out as they did in other places. Their freedom didn't bring about a Haiti. In fact, they seemed to have learned Christianity a whole lot better than the masters who presumed to teach them. There was surprisingly little retribution. And many became prosperous. From that prosperity came a veritable wave of benevolence and philanthropy. It was really remarkable, all things considered.