Nat Turner

[diane]

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

Nice response, thanks. However, there is a difference between atonement and purging. It seems to me that you're more inclined to think slave owners were punished, or purged, by blood rather than doing an atonement, which would be at least some acknowledgement of wrong. That may be the better term, I suppose, as not a lot of them were acknowledging wrongdoing in holding slaves. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a planters' insurgency.

 

[Georgia Coast]

Speaking of Frederick Douglass, let me just be a horrible, horrible, shallow person and ask if any of the women in the forum have seen photographs of him as a YOUNG man? That white lion's mane of hair as an elder statesman was a look that worked for him, but in his prime he was fiiiiiiiine -- and I understand, quite the ladies' man when touring England. Not to say there weren't some equally attractive Confederates, of course -- I may dislike Forrest on some points, but he was kinda hunky in his day as well. All right, now I've totally humiliated myself and will leave this serious thread and go somewhere else in shame. :>) Maybe to start a thread on best-looking general. I could create a PowerPoint slide show. Oh, wait, would that get me banned?

 

[Nathanb1]

Speaking of Frederick Douglass, let me just be a horrible, horrible, shallow person and ask if any of the women in the forum have seen photographs of him as a YOUNG man? That white lion's mane of hair as an elder statesman was a look that worked for him, but in his prime he was fiiiiiiiine -- and I understand, quite the ladies' man when touring England. Not to say there weren't some equally attractive Confederates, of course -- I may dislike Forrest on some points, but he was kinda hunky in his day as well. All right, now I've totally humiliated myself and will leave this serious thread and go somewhere else in shame. :>) Maybe to start a thread on best-looking general. I could create a PowerPoint slide show. Oh, wait, would that get me banned?

Not at all. And Douglass was quite handsome, as was Forrest. My 7th graders haven't quite gotten over the hair and beard styles, but they're beginning to!

 

[ole]

It's difficult to tell who was good looking and who wasn't Under all that Brillo. Just open your thread over in "Campfire Chat."

 

[diane]

Speaking of Frederick Douglass, let me just be a horrible, horrible, shallow person and ask if any of the women in the forum have seen photographs of him as a YOUNG man? That white lion's mane of hair as an elder statesman was a look that worked for him, but in his prime he was fiiiiiiiine -- and I understand, quite the ladies' man when touring England. Not to say there weren't some equally attractive Confederates, of course -- I may dislike Forrest on some points, but he was kinda hunky in his day as well. All right, now I've totally humiliated myself and will leave this serious thread and go somewhere else in shame. :>) Maybe to start a thread on best-looking general. I could create a PowerPoint slide show. Oh, wait, would that get me banned?

Frederick Douglass was unusually handsome - and he had brains to go with it!

 

[Lazy Bayou]

You girls calm down now. These guys are long dead and they won't ever know how much you care.

 

[gem]

Nice response, thanks. However, there is a difference between atonement and purging. It seems to me that you're more inclined to think slave owners were punished, or purged, by blood rather than doing an atonement, which would be at least some acknowledgement of wrong. That may be the better term, I suppose, as not a lot of them were acknowledging wrongdoing in holding slaves. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a planters' insurgency.

if atonements requires acknowledgement of the wrong then certainly purging is the more appropriate word.

 

[gem]

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

What it all comes down to is how one views the taking of an uncompromising position.

The south took this position in their decision to secede.
The south took this position in executing in mass Vessey and others for the mere planning of an insurrection.
John Brown took this position at pottawattomie.
Nat Turner and his rebels took this position in southhampton VA.

At the end of the day how we reconcile these events depends on the view that we see the world through.

Ask a group of people about the above 4 events and you are likely to get answers which vary based on an individuals world view.

For many he will continue to be a hero who took an uncompromising stance against an uncompromising institution. For many others he will be a fanatical killer.

In a country that still does not know how to reconcile the legacy of slavery, Nat Turner will continue to remain a troublesome property.

 

[Freddy]

Frederick Douglass in his "The Heroic Slave" supports slave insurrections. Madison Washington was a real slave who gained his freedom in a slave rebellion in 1841 and is Douglass' hero in his fictionalized version of Washington's life written in 1852.

 

[gem]

Frederick Douglass in his "The Heroic Slave" supports slave insurrections. Madison Washington was a real slave who gained his freedom in a slave rebellion in 1841 and is Douglass' hero in his fictionalized version of Washington's life written in 1852.

That's true Douglass did support slave insurrections.

http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/douglass.htm

Washington authenticates his rectitude and justifies his goal. Most significantly, the soliloquy establishes Washington as a man who is willing to die in his pursuit of freedom: "Liberty I will have, or die in the attempt to gain it" (Douglass 475). This declaration initiates the correlation between the rebellion's aim and that of the American Revolution (Sale 42).
By the time Washington asserts himself on the decks of the slave ship Creole, Douglass has established in him all the attributes that had been ideally attached to the Revolutionary forefathers (Sale 43). As his narrative maintains, his fight is analogous to the one fought in 1776:

• 
  'God is my witness that LIBERTY, not malice, is the motive for this night's work. . . . We have struck for our freedom, and if a true man's heart be in you, you will honor us for the deed. We have done that which you applaud your father's for doing, and if we are murderers, so were they.' (Douglass 503)

Washington's desire for liberty and justice, his qualities of courage and determination--all exemplify what is ideally American. Thus, the violence is justified and the perpetrator is deemed righteous. By equating the Creole rebellion with the American Revolution and the insurrectionists with the freedom fighting forefathers, Douglass establishes the institution of slavery as fundamentally unAmerican.

 

[gem]

Expired Image Removed
Is this the best they could come up with?

Inscription.
On the night of 21-22 August 1831, Nat Turner, a slave preacher, began an insurrection some seven miles west with a band that grew to about 70. They moved northeast toward the Southampton County seat, Jerusalem (now Courtland), killing about 60 Whites. After two days militiamen and armed civilians quelled the revolt. Turner was captured on 30 October, tried and convicted, and hanged 11 November; some 30 Blacks were hanged or expelled from Virginia. In response to the revolt, the General Assembly passed harsher slave laws and censored abolitionists.

 

[gem]

Here is a short video about Turner

 

[patbold]

Personally I would put Turner in the same class as J W Booth. Both believe passionately in their cause. Neither were overly brilliant. Both were a little crazy. Both were cold blooded murderers and in the end both did their cause and the people they wanted to help much more harm. Neither are worthy of honor.

Nat Turner or John Brown did nothing to help the enslaved blacks and probably made their plights much worse. If you want some one to honor for what they actually did I'd say Frederick Douglas or Sojourner Truth. Those two atr true heroes.

 

[Freddy]

Personally I would put Turner in the same class as J W Booth. Both believe passionately in their cause. Neither were overly brilliant. Both were a little crazy. Both were cold blooded murderers and in the end both did their cause and the people they wanted to help much more harm. Neither are worthy of honor.

Nat Turner or John Brown did nothing to help the enslaved blacks and probably made their plights much worse. If you want some one to honor for what they actually did I'd say Frederick Douglas or Sojourner Truth. Those two atr true heroes.

Booth was not enslaved as Turner was. Turner should have spared children. Killing slave owners was an attempt to rebel against the evil institution of slavery, because simply running away to gain freedom was not going to end the institution. The slave owners were not going to end it therefore the slaves tried to rebel and fight back to end it. Personally, I cannot imagine being enslaved, but if I was enslaved killing those who do the slave holding to end it would be a just cause. In reality, there were 250 slave rebellions.

 

[gem]

Booth was not enslaved as Turner was. Turner should have spared children. Killing slave owners was an attempt to rebel against the evil institution of slavery, because simply running away to gain freedom was not going to end the institution. The slave owners were not going to end it therefore the slaves tried to rebel and fight back to end it. Personally, I cannot imagine being enslaved, but if I was enslaved killing those who do the slave holding to end it would be a just cause. In reality, there were 250 slave rebellions.

By 21st century standards we recognize the innocence of children. Thus, the acts of Turner's rebels are particularly heart-breaking. However, by using 21st century standards we fall into the trap of not seeing things through the eyes of the enslaved just as we fall into the trap of not seeing things through the eyes of the slaveholding society.

Thomas Moore had been Turner's prior owner. At the beginning of the year 1830, Turner was moved to the home of Joseph Travis, the new husband of Thomas Moore's widow. His official owner was nowThomas Moore's son Putnum Moore, a child of 9, though Turner was under the control of Travis as Putnam was a mere child.

Slavery as an institution stripped children of their innocence. That goes both for the enslaved and for the enslavers.

That's what people mean when they say slavery corrupts both the enslaved and the enslavers.

The insurrection highlights that fact in the most startling fashion.


oore died in 1828. Turner then became the legal property of Thomas Moore's nine-year-old son Putnam Moore, whose mother married Joseph Travis in 1829, and thus Joseph Travis gained control of Nat Turner, who continued to be the proputnam Moore.

 

[James B White]

His official owner was nowThomas Moore's son Putnum Moore, a child of 9, though Turner was under the control of Travis as Putnam was a mere child.

Slavery as an institution stripped children of their innocence. That goes both for the enslaved and for the enslavers.

Slaves could be owned by children through inheritance or other reasons, just like any other property, but just like today, people realized that children weren't able to make responsible decisions about expensive property and so they were given guardians to take charge of it until they came of age.

It doesn't mean that the children were morally or legally culpable for what the adults around them were doing. People in the antebellum period realized that just like today, or they wouldn't have required legal guardians or trustees to manage the property.

 

[gem]

Slaves could be owned by children through inheritance or other reasons, just like any other property, but just like today, people realized that children weren't able to make responsible decisions about expensive property and so they were given guardians to take charge of it until they came of age.

It doesn't mean that the children were morally or legally culpable for what the adults around them were doing. People in the antebellum period realized that just like today, or they wouldn't have required legal guardians or trustees to manage the property.

There are many things we know are not true about slavery. That's after we put on our 21st century hats. Slavery was based on numerous false principles and thus created a false reality both for the enslaved society and the enslaving society. Nevertheless, since these perceptions represented reality its the perceptions we must understand.

In a slave society where the slave dreamt of freedom having a child owner had serious implications. To the slave it meant they were going to be a slave for a long long time without any real hope of being granted freedom in any near term. Thus to the slave the child is now associated with little hope for freedom.

This is what I mean when I say slavery corrupts ALL in a society. Everyone appeared tainted and rotten. Nothing escaped being ruinous and that went both for the enslaving society and the enslaved society.

 

[Dave Wilma]

Booth was not enslaved as Turner was. Turner should have spared children. Killing slave owners was an attempt to rebel against the evil institution of slavery, because simply running away to gain freedom was not going to end the institution. The slave owners were not going to end it therefore the slaves tried to rebel and fight back to end it. Personally, I cannot imagine being enslaved, but if I was enslaved killing those who do the slave holding to end it would be a just cause. In reality, there were 250 slave rebellions.

Turner should not have killed anyone. That he killed at all and that there were other rebellions are predictable and almost logical results of such a system. Rather than consider the folly of slavery the slaveocracy worked on ways to further repress the slaves and even to expand the system's reach.

 

[gem]

Turner should not have killed anyone. That he killed at all and that there were other rebellions are predictable and almost logical results of such a system. Rather than consider the folly of slavery the slaveocracy worked on ways to further repress the slaves and even to expand the system's reach.

What do you mean by he shouldn't have killed anyone? Do you mean he was not justified in killing anyone? or do you mean he knew better or should have known better that leading a revolt would result in more harm than good and thus should not have gone that route?

 

[wondering]

What do you mean by he shouldn't have killed anyone?

Dwilma means he should not have killed anyone. Aaaargh.