Nat Turner

[Nathanb1]

Nobody ever has a thread about my childhood heroes....Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver.....I grew up reading everything I could get my hands on about them. Didn't realize until I was an adult that Carver was a big part of starting the Cooperative Extension Service. One of their aims was educating poor rural folks about practical farming and homemaking practices.....and that always included all races. That, my friends, is incredibly cool.

 

[gem]

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!

Of course the killing of children is awful, it makes me feel as sick as the institution of slavery itself.
You're right it certainly would be easier for people to 'connect' with Turner's insurrection had children not been killed.

However, the fact that children were killed has to make us really ponder the institution.

You bring up a great point though which is using excessive force due to a grave perceived consequences of an action.

The consequences of a slave insurrection were potentially so great that people were executed simply for planning one.

The flip side is true of Turner's insurrection. The consequences of failure were so great they went to extreme measures to try and ensure success.

 

[gem]

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.

Do you think the people were wrong who followed Turner?

 

[diane]

Do you think the people were wrong who followed Turner?

Was it wrong for the people who did not follow Turner not to follow him? If they had, you would have had Haiti, no? Would you be suggesting indirectly that Haiti is what the whites deserved for holding people as slaves?

 

[unionblue]

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

I cannot condemn a "confederate cause" that did not exist at the time of Turner's murder of innocent children.

 

[unionblue]

gem stated to 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.

Correct.

There is a big difference however.

No, murder in the name of God, no matter what era, is what took place at both events.

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.

Clothing a monster in shining garments of freedom does in no way change the monster or his murder. No matter what cause he dresses up in, committing murder and evil to attain it, tarnishes a goal beyond repdemption or excuse.

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

No, I did not. I compared a soldier on the battlefield to a murderer. You tried to make both the same, I cannot.

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.

As I stated/alluded to in my previous post, murder is murder, no matter where or by whom it is committed. But lets make sure we understand exactly what I said. A soldier kills his enemy who is out to kill him on the battlefield. This is not regarded as murder, such as Turner committed when murdering children during his uprising.

This gets to my main point that war declared or undeclared does not fit into this nice little box of rules and morality.

Yet soldiers before and during a war are constantly taught the Rules and Laws of War and are held accountable for them. Yes, it does get brutal, but don't think that a soldier is not held to a higher standard than Turner ever showed in his actions.

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.

You are doing your utmost to avoid calling a murderer a murderer by at times saying a slave is given a free pass from God to murder innocents in order to obtain his freedom thus saying God permits evil in order to achieve good, which simply violates every teaching I have ever read or that soldiers are murderers so therefore Turner is some kind of soldier.

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

He should be remembered, not honored.

Unionblue

 

[gem]

gem stated to 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.

Correct.

There is a big difference however.

No, murder in the name of God, no matter what era, is what took place at both events.

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.

Clothing a monster in shining garments of freedom does in no way change the monster or his murder. No matter what cause he dresses up in, committing murder and evil to attain it, tarnishes a goal beyond repdemption or excuse.

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

No, I did not. I compared a soldier on the battlefield to a murderer. You tried to make both the same, I cannot.

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.

As I stated/alluded to in my previous post, murder is murder, no matter where or by whom it is committed. But lets make sure we understand exactly what I said. A soldier kills his enemy who is out to kill him on the battlefield. This is not regarded as murder, such as Turner committed when murdering children during his uprising.

This gets to my main point that war declared or undeclared does not fit into this nice little box of rules and morality.

Yet soldiers before and during a war are constantly taught the Rules and Laws of War and are held accountable for them. Yes, it does get brutal, but don't think that a soldier is not held to a higher standard than Turner ever showed in his actions.

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.

You are doing your utmost to avoid calling a murderer a murderer by at times saying a slave is given a free pass from God to murder innocents in order to obtain his freedom thus saying God permits evil in order to achieve good, which simply violates every teaching I have ever read or that soldiers are murderers so therefore Turner is some kind of soldier.

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

He should be remembered, not honored.

Unionblue

As I've always maintained each person is entitled to their opinon.

 

[gem]

gem stated to 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.

Correct.

There is a big difference however.

No, murder in the name of God, no matter what era, is what took place at both events.

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.

Clothing a monster in shining garments of freedom does in no way change the monster or his murder. No matter what cause he dresses up in, committing murder and evil to attain it, tarnishes a goal beyond repdemption or excuse.

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

No, I did not. I compared a soldier on the battlefield to a murderer. You tried to make both the same, I cannot.

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.

As I stated/alluded to in my previous post, murder is murder, no matter where or by whom it is committed. But lets make sure we understand exactly what I said. A soldier kills his enemy who is out to kill him on the battlefield. This is not regarded as murder, such as Turner committed when murdering children during his uprising.

This gets to my main point that war declared or undeclared does not fit into this nice little box of rules and morality.

Yet soldiers before and during a war are constantly taught the Rules and Laws of War and are held accountable for them. Yes, it does get brutal, but don't think that a soldier is not held to a higher standard than Turner ever showed in his actions.

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.

You are doing your utmost to avoid calling a murderer a murderer by at times saying a slave is given a free pass from God to murder innocents in order to obtain his freedom thus saying God permits evil in order to achieve good, which simply violates every teaching I have ever read or that soldiers are murderers so therefore Turner is some kind of soldier.

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

He should be remembered, not honored.

Unionblue

Were Turner's followers wrong for following him?

 

[unionblue]

As I've always maintained each person is entitled to their opinon.

And I have always maintained a murderer who states "God told me to do it" is still a murderer.

I determine not to honor Turner based upon his actions and the result of those actions.

He needs to be remembered, as some here have stated, in the context of his times. He murdered innocent children and women with the end result of hundreds of innocent slaves being executed out of the fear and chaos he created.

Trying to hide him behind God inspired theories or in white robes of seeking freedom in no way detract from the evil of his methods. This is no mystery, no tough call.

He should not be honored.

Were Turner's followers wrong for following him?

If they committed acts of murder with him, of course they were wrong.

Unionblue

 

[gem]

And I have always maintained a murderer who states "God told me to do it" is still a murderer.

I determine not to honor Turner based upon his actions and the result of those actions.

He needs to be remembered, as some here have stated, in the context of his times. He murdered innocent children and women with the end result of hundreds of innocent slaves being executed out of the fear and chaos he created.

Trying to hide him behind God inspired theories or in white robes of seeking freedom in no way detract from the evil of his methods. This is no mystery, no tough call.

He should not be honored.



If they committed acts of murder with him, of course they were wrong.

Unionblue

Let's take the God element out of it for a moment as we know slave insurrections in history have a common theme of cold blooded killing and many were not God inspired. I don't think people were trying to hide behind God as they were simply trying to get their freedom. Yes, I believe their was a rage element to it but that was a common theme in slave insurrections. Thus what blame do you put on the slave vs what blame do you put on the institution of slavery?

 

[gem]

And I have always maintained a murderer who states "God told me to do it" is still a murderer.

I determine not to honor Turner based upon his actions and the result of those actions.

He needs to be remembered, as some here have stated, in the context of his times. He murdered innocent children and women with the end result of hundreds of innocent slaves being executed out of the fear and chaos he created.

Trying to hide him behind God inspired theories or in white robes of seeking freedom in no way detract from the evil of his methods. This is no mystery, no tough call.

He should not be honored.



If they committed acts of murder with him, of course they were wrong.

Unionblue

Look at things another way. In Haiti the leaders of the slave insurrections are hailed as heros, honored , celebrated, exhalted. It really all comes down to what lens one is looking through.

 

[gem]

Was it wrong for the people who did not follow Turner not to follow him? If they had, you would have had Haiti, no? Would you be suggesting indirectly that Haiti is what the whites deserved for holding people as slaves?

Do you think the slave revolt in Haiti was wrong?

 

[unionblue]

Let's take the God element out of it for a moment as we know slave insurrections in history have a common theme of cold blooded killing and many were not God inspired. I don't think people were trying to hide behind God as they were simply trying to get their freedom. Yes, I believe their was a rage element to it but that was a common theme in slave insurrections. Thus what blame do you put on the slave vs what blame do you put on the institution of slavery?

Odd.

I thought this thread was about honoring Nat Turner.

Let me ask you a question.

Is it correct and proper to murder innocent people, even children and women, to achieve freedom from slavery?

When we wade through this topic, I will be more than happy to debate you concerning slave revolts (sans the "God element") and the blame I put on the institution of slavery, on a new and different thread.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[gem]

Was it wrong for the people who did not follow Turner not to follow him? If they had, you would have had Haiti, no? Would you be suggesting indirectly that Haiti is what the whites deserved for holding people as slaves?

I think its too bad more did not follow him but I would not say it was wrong that they did not.
I don't think the slaves had near enough power to ever pull off anything close to a Haiti. If they had the ability however, to gain their freedom by force I certainly would not fault them.

The sad part is the south saw what happened in Haiti and still did not care. Deserves is a bit of strong word but I think a war was inevitable given the course the country chose to take

War was the atonement for the evils of slavery at least according the people like Lincoln and John Brown.

 

[gem]

Odd.

I thought this thread was about honoring Nat Turner.

Let me ask you a question.

Is it correct and proper to murder innocent people, even children and women, to achieve freedom from slavery?

When we wade through this topic, I will be more than happy to debate you concerning slave revolts (sans the "God element") and the blame I put on the institution of slavery, on a new and different thread.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

We see things a bit differently. I see the insurrection as an undeclared war. No, i don't think its proper to kill women and children. However, I don't see a proper way to have a slave insurrection either. What's the best way not to have a bloody slave insurrection? not to have slavery.

 

[unionblue]

gem states to Unionblue: We see things a bit differently.

Indeed.

I see the insurrection as an undeclared war.

I see murder as murder, no matter what label is slapped on such.

No, i don't think its proper to kill women and children.

I see your above statement...

However, I don't see a proper way to have a slave insurrection either.

But then you qualify your statement that you "don't think its proper to kill women and children" with "However, I don't see a proper way to have a slave insurrection either" ultimately condoning Turner's murder of women and children when you feel the conditions warrent such. Again, murder is murder, evil is evil, and any cause that avails itself of such methods does not warrent to be honored.

What's the best way not to have a bloody slave insurrection?

Don't subvert it by murder of innocents.

not to have slavery.

Don't stoop to the level of your enslavers.

Unionblue

 

[diane]

Do you think the slave revolt in Haiti was wrong?

What do you think of Haiti today? Why is it that one side of the island is decidedly miserable while the other side of the same island is not? Why did the Dominicans forbid the rebel Haitians to come to their side? Was it a matter of who the colonial power was - Spain on one hand, France on the other? Spain didn't seem to leave too much order behind in their fallen empire - yet the Dominicans did much better than the Haitians.

 

[diane]

I think its too bad more did not follow him but I would not say it was wrong that they did not.
I don't think the slaves had near enough power to ever pull off anything close to a Haiti. If they had the ability however, to gain their freedom by force I certainly would not fault them.

The sad part is the south saw what happened in Haiti and still did not care. Deserves is a bit of strong word but I think a war was inevitable given the course the country chose to take

War was the atonement for the evils of slavery at least according the people like Lincoln and John Brown.

Actually, when you compare Haiti to the American South, the only thing they have in common is slavery. The situation in Haiti was much different - there wasn't exactly a Napoleon to deal with, for one thing. And the French emperor's heavy hand had a large thing to do with the thousands of dead French soldiers. (After seeing that, I'm not sure how any American general, Southern or Northern, could suggest African people couldn't fight...) In the end, the Haitians gained their independence and that was a fine accomplishment. But it also lead to chaos and poverty - they were exploited by all sorts of foreign countries and petty dictators. It was a direct result of the French Revolution. The leadership had military men - Gen Toussaint L'Ouverture, for instance, had served with the French military against Spain. Very different situation and circumstances and outcome.

Emancipation, and a little (very little!) help from the government, and a lot of elbow grease and help from each other - the American ex-slave came out of it remarkably well. They did more, too, than just sit on their watermelons waiting for the white man to free them. They fought for their freedom in non-violent but very effective ways - work slowdowns, for instance. They knew whose work fed the army fighting to keep them slaves.

They also knew that if they did a Nat Turner even their friends in the North would turn on them for violent savages. As mentioned before, the situation in Haiti was far different than the situation in the South. As it was, the Jim Crow and black laws were an effort to 'legally' re-enslave them and it worked fairly well - but there was another civil war that finally removed most of the shackles. This was not bloodless, either, but far less bloody than outright war.

Lincoln and Brown were likely both right on viewing the necessity of a national atonement. Individuals largely felt they had nothing to atone for - that they had even been most kind to their poor benighted charges. Where does that fit into your suggestion of justification for the kind of woe that befell Haiti? If an atonement is required of a nation, is it required of individuals as well? Guess that happened - most of the planters ceased to be the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country. Again, though - isn't a willingness to be chastised necessary for that? An acknowledgement that you did wrong? Not many slave owners thought that.

 

[gem]

Actually, when you compare Haiti to the American South, the only thing they have in common is slavery. The situation in Haiti was much different - there wasn't exactly a Napoleon to deal with, for one thing. And the French emperor's heavy hand had a large thing to do with the thousands of dead French soldiers. (After seeing that, I'm not sure how any American general, Southern or Northern, could suggest African people couldn't fight...) In the end, the Haitians gained their independence and that was a fine accomplishment. But it also lead to chaos and poverty - they were exploited by all sorts of foreign countries and petty dictators. It was a direct result of the French Revolution. The leadership had military men - Gen Toussaint L'Ouverture, for instance, had served with the French military against Spain. Very different situation and circumstances and outcome.

Emancipation, and a little (very little!) help from the government, and a lot of elbow grease and help from each other - the American ex-slave came out of it remarkably well. They did more, too, than just sit on their watermelons waiting for the white man to free them. They fought for their freedom in non-violent but very effective ways - work slowdowns, for instance. They knew whose work fed the army fighting to keep them slaves.

They also knew that if they did a Nat Turner even their friends in the North would turn on them for violent savages. As mentioned before, the situation in Haiti was far different than the situation in the South. As it was, the Jim Crow and black laws were an effort to 'legally' re-enslave them and it worked fairly well - but there was another civil war that finally removed most of the shackles. This was not bloodless, either, but far less bloody than outright war.

Lincoln and Brown were likely both right on viewing the necessity of a national atonement. Individuals largely felt they had nothing to atone for - that they had even been most kind to their poor benighted charges. Where does that fit into your suggestion of justification for the kind of woe that befell Haiti? If an atonement is required of a nation, is it required of individuals as well? Guess that happened - most of the planters ceased to be the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country. Again, though - isn't a willingness to be chastised necessary for that? An acknowledgement that you did wrong? Not many slave owners thought that.

Brown said prophetically prior to his execution that the sins of the guilty land will only be purged in blood. Lincoln said in hindsight that war was a way of paying for the sins of slavery. Turner said prophetically that 'the first shall be the last and the last shall be the first'

What I make of all of this is that slavery could have ended in a peaceful manner, but the nation was not ready.

Thus, perhaps Brown was right, only blood would purge the nation of the sins.

The purging came at great cost in the ACW, which at least got rid of slavery. You're right the slaves came out pretty well, as it was the free people who killed one another.

However, denial still did exist, which is why as a nation we went through the civil rights movement.

Also, its worth noting that during the civil rights movement other people like Turner, took an intransigent position.

"We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary." -Malcolm X

 

[gem]

When thinking about Turner what one is really talking about is taking an intransigent position. Turner was uncompromising, but the key question is was justified in his stance.

I would say he was because his position was in response to the intransigent position of the slaveholding south.

Vesey and many others were executed simply for planning an insurrection.

Thus South being totally uncompromising created the conditions which lead to the bloody Turner revolt.

While the acts were reprehensible one can understand why it happened.