Nat Turner

[Ellsworth avenger]

what do you make of the slave revolts in Haiti?

I find the 1733 slave revolt on St John more interesting as the slaves made an attempt to hold ground for monetary gain. Very commendable.

 

[patbold]

Slaves did not commit an illegal act to be sent to prison. Prisoners in Attica did. Slave getting tired of being enslaved is totally understandable. Prisoners, in most cases, put themselves in prison and have no business complaining or revolting, in most cases and not understandable unless the prison conditions or guard and warden behavior are deplorable.

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.

 

[gem]

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.

Under what circumstances do you feel killing is justified? Only in declared war like the civil war?

Do you believe that unconventional warefare is never justified?

 

[Georgia Coast]

I am not at all a defender of Nat Turner. However, one important point that has been forgotten here, is that after Turner was captured, the white mob in retaliation murdered slaves indiscriminately. Scholars agree that about 100 of those killed were completely innocent and had no connection with Turner. If you want to defend that slaughter as understandable (I do not) after what Turner did, then logically, you also have to be able to see Turner's actions as defensible considering what his people had suffered. I don't see either as justifiable. Hanging those who participated in the insurrection is one thing; massacring innocents is no more justified by whites than by blacks. So it's not that simple.

Sorry, guys -- obviously this WAS discussed earlier but I must have missed a couple of pages.

 

[gem]

I am not at all a defender of Nat Turner. However, one important point that has been forgotten here, is that after Turner was captured, the white mob in retaliation murdered slaves indiscriminately. Scholars agree that about 100 of those killed were completely innocent and had no connection with Turner. If you want to defend that slaughter as understandable (I do not) after what Turner did, then logically, you also have to be able to see Turner's actions as defensible considering what his people had suffered. I don't see either as justifiable. Hanging those who participated in the insurrection is one thing; massacring innocents is no more justified by whites than by blacks. So it's not that simple.

You're absolutely right. Earlier in the thread I posted a road sign describing the insurrection:
It completely ignores all of the innocent blacks who were killed.

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.

 

[Nathanb1]

I am not at all a defender of Nat Turner. However, one important point that has been forgotten here, is that after Turner was captured, the white mob in retaliation murdered slaves indiscriminately. Scholars agree that about 100 of those killed were completely innocent and had no connection with Turner. If you want to defend that slaughter as understandable (I do not) after what Turner did, then logically, you also have to be able to see Turner's actions as defensible considering what his people had suffered. I don't see either as justifiable. Hanging those who participated in the insurrection is one thing; massacring innocents is no more justified by whites than by blacks. So it's not that simple.

Sorry, guys -- obviously this WAS discussed earlier but I must have missed a couple of pages.

Totally okay. That's what happens around here. I agree totally. Murder doesn't justify more murder. One, IMO, is just as bad as the other....and I maintain Turner, had he acted rationally, would have known what would happen and would have realized he had no chance of success. I would point to the much more well-organized German Coast massacre as an example of something that actually had a chance. Was he desperate? Yes, no doubt. Sometime we can UNDERSTAND something without condoning it.

 

[diane]

I am not at all a defender of Nat Turner. However, one important point that has been forgotten here, is that after Turner was captured, the white mob in retaliation murdered slaves indiscriminately. Scholars agree that about 100 of those killed were completely innocent and had no connection with Turner. If you want to defend that slaughter as understandable (I do not) after what Turner did, then logically, you also have to be able to see Turner's actions as defensible considering what his people had suffered. I don't see either as justifiable. Hanging those who participated in the insurrection is one thing; massacring innocents is no more justified by whites than by blacks. So it's not that simple.

Sorry, guys -- obviously this WAS discussed earlier but I must have missed a couple of pages.

I can understand this. That's what set off the Modoc War in these parts - Capt Jack was sane but prideful and killed Canby during negotiations. Sigh. You just can't kill CW generals and not have the weight of the US Army come down on your head. That didn't happen with Nat Turner - as you say, the whites gave extra retribution. And, as usual, innocent people trying to mind their own business and tread water got killed. That's what happened to a beat-up little band of Shasta sitting at a bend in the river waiting for relations so they could have a salmon ceremony. The local yokel vigilantes decided they were a Modoc war party, even though the youngest man there was over 50. They were always murdering the wrong tribe. One Indian same as another - that type of logic.

 

[gem]

History has told us no one is innocent? Well, you may believe that but it is just balderdash. If your premise is correct, then everyone living in the US at the time was equally guilty as they also lived in a slave holding society. More nonsense. Your continued attempts to justify the unjustifiable are increasingly desperate and sickening. Try as you might, you cannot justify child murder as some noble goal.

What do you make of the retaliatory killing of innocent blacks?

 

[gem]

Totally okay. That's what happens around here. I agree totally. Murder doesn't justify more murder. One, IMO, is just as bad as the other....and I maintain Turner, had he acted rationally, would have known what would happen and would have realized he had no chance of success. I would point to the much more well-organized German Coast massacre as an example of something that actually had a chance. Was he desperate? Yes, no doubt. Sometime we can UNDERSTAND something without condoning it.

Turner believed in divine retribution based on his understanding of the bible. I know that seems to support your feeling that he was nuts, but retribution was where his head was at.

 

[CMWinkler]

What do you make of the retaliatory killing of innocent blacks?

The same thing I think of the innocent killings of anyone else, unlike you, who sees babes in arms as oppressors and legitimate targets.

 

[gem]

I never said they were legitimate targets. The acts were deplorable.

 

[CMWinkler]

I never said they were legitimate targets. The acts were deplorable.

Nonsense. In post 61 you said: "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."

You reiterated this in post 67 as well.

You clearly state that slave owners children were legitimate targets for murder. You'd garner more credibility if you didn't deny saying what you clearly said, especially when there's a readily available record.

 

[gem]

Nonsense. In post 61 you said: "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."

You reiterated this in post 67 as well.

You clearly state that slave owners children were legitimate targets for murder. You'd garner more credibility if you didn't deny saying what you clearly said, especially when there's a readily available record.

What I was doing was explaining how things were being seen throught the eyes of the enslaved.

There is a difference between understanding how / why something happened, and celebrating the act.

 

[CMWinkler]

What I was doing was explaining how things were being seen throught the eyes of the enslaved.

There is a difference between understanding how / why something happened, and celebrating the act.

You explained why innocents were legitimate targets. Denying you did so only makes this look sillier. I'm curious as to how you've managed to see things through the eyes of those enslaved more that 180 years ago. That really is an incredible feat. Frankly, it matches your other incredible aspects.

 

[gem]

You explained why innocents were legitimate targets. Denying you did so only makes this look sillier. I'm curious as to how you've managed to see things through the eyes of those enslaved more that 180 years ago. That really is an incredible feat. Frankly, it matches your other incredible aspects.

by reading the confessions of Nat Turner

 

[CMWinkler]

by reading the confessions of Nat Turner

Thank you, another conformation of the wisdom of my no gem rule. I'll go back to that.

 

[patbold]

Under what circumstances do you feel killing is justified? Only in declared war like the civil war?

Do you believe that unconventional warefare is never justified?

The killing of women and children because massa beat you is never justified. The white mob lynching 100s of blacks in retaliation is never justified. I have seldom agreed with CMWinkler on much but I do agree you seem to have this morbid need to justify and honor murderous nut cases like Turner and Brown. Over and over that seems to be all you push. But that is just my humble opinion and this will be the last time I respond to any of your posts. It does no good.

 

[ole]

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.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

<snipped for brevity> I'm curious as to how you've managed to see things through the eyes of those enslaved more that 180 years ago. That really is an incredible feat. Frankly, it matches your other incredible aspects.

I guess it's no different than the "incredible feat" of you and others to see "things" through the eyes of Southerners 150 years ago when you defend their actions.

 

[CMWinkler]

I guess it's no different than the "incredible feat" of you and others to see "things" through the eyes of Southerners 150 years ago when you defend their actions.

Interestingly enough I can't see it through their eyes and freely admit that. What I do do, on the other hand, is try not to impose 21st Century norms on them, unlike some here.