Nat Turner

[James B White]

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.

That's not the child's fault, though. I don't see why it actually strips the child of his innocence, although a slave who wanted revenge might of course decide to kill anyone he felt like targeting. A child today could legally own a casino, a strip club, a bar, etc., in an estate trust, with an adult trustee managing it, but it doesn't mean that in the 21st century we think the child is actually morally responsible for what goes on there.

Also, I don't see that having a child owner would make an enslaved person think there would be less chance of emancipation in the near future. Do you mean that the trustee would be required to act in the child's financial interest and therefore not give up rights to property? Some emancipations occurred when churches, local people, etc. raised funds to purchase a slave and set him free, due to good deeds, community sympathy, etc., so the estate wouldn't necessarily lose money.

The big hump to get past would be a forced estate sale to raise money to pay debts, which would mean the auction block, an unknown new owner, possibly leaving friends, family and home, but if that didn't happen when the adult owner died, I'd think that individual circumstances would have way more to do with any individual slave's assessment of the chance of being emancipated, than the fact he was held in trust for a child owner.

 

[gem]

That's not the child's fault, though. I don't see why it actually strips the child of his innocence, although a slave who wanted revenge might of course decide to kill anyone he felt like targeting. A child today could legally own a casino, a strip club, a bar, etc., in an estate trust, with an adult trustee managing it, but it doesn't mean that in the 21st century we think the child is actually morally responsible for what goes on there.

Also, I don't see that having a child owner would make an enslaved person think there would be less chance of emancipation in the near future. Do you mean that the trustee would be required to act in the child's financial interest and therefore not give up rights to property? Some emancipations occurred when churches, local people, etc. raised funds to purchase a slave and set him free, due to good deeds, community sympathy, etc., so the estate wouldn't necessarily lose money.

The big hump to get past would be a forced estate sale to raise money to pay debts, which would mean the auction block, an unknown new owner, possibly leaving friends, family and home, but if that didn't happen when the adult owner died, I'd think that individual circumstances would have way more to do with any individual slave's assessment of the chance of being emancipated, than the fact he was held in trust for a child owner.

It does not actually strip the child the of innocence, but the institution taints all (both slave society and enslaved society). Thus, the perception is that nobody is innocent.

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

Turner was buggier than a bug house rat. Justifiably yes,but still a nut case.

 

[ole]

C'mon guys. You round up 70 slaves for purposes of insurrection and all hell is going to break loose. Call it blood lust or mob mentality, as sure as night follows day, there's going to be trouble.

Turner and his followers had a reason to be angry. Of course, they ought not to have killed anyone, least of all the women and children, but these things have a life of their own. **it will happen.

Morality (19th, 20th or 21st century) has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dave Wilma]

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?

No, I would not say he was justified. His actions were understandable and predictable, but not justified. Now we get into a definition of "justified" and "justice" which are highly subjective. Had he attempted escape and some pateroler cornered him and he was given the alternative of freedom or murder I might be persuaded that he was justified in fighting back.

If he wanted his freedom he should have run away. Killing people was counter productive.

 

[Freddy]

No, I would not say he was justified. His actions were understandable and predictable, but not justified. Now we get into a definition of "justified" and "justice" which are highly subjective. Had he attempted escape and some pateroler cornered him and he was given the alternative of freedom or murder I might be persuaded that he was justified in fighting back.

If he wanted his freedom he should have run away. Killing people was counter productive.

I totally disagree. The evil of slavery needed to be stopped whether or not Turner decided to revolt. It is too bad more slaves did not revolt, then slavery might have ended without 700,000 dying in a war that ended the evil.

 

[JerseyBart]

According the his Wikipedia page, which of course is no authority, Turner was convicted of "conspiring to rebel and making insurrection." I find that ironic considering what occurred 30 years later.

Don't get me wrong. I disagree with murder, but I also disagree with enslaving a race of people through violence and threats and then not expecting revenge to occur in some way shape or form that includes violence and threats. Violence begets violence. If you don't want violence, don't bring on violence. If you don't want threats and terror, don't instill fear with threats and terror.

 

[gem]

No, I would not say he was justified. His actions were understandable and predictable, but not justified. Now we get into a definition of "justified" and "justice" which are highly subjective. Had he attempted escape and some pateroler cornered him and he was given the alternative of freedom or murder I might be persuaded that he was justified in fighting back.

If he wanted his freedom he should have run away. Killing people was counter productive.

Here is a counter-arguement. By running away (if successful) the slave would be able to get away from the evil. However, running away does not do anything to destroy the evil.

It's like running away from our problems. It is often the easier answer but the issue is it does not get rid of the problem. Thus, we realize the better though admittedly more difficult road is to deal with the problem head on.

It's only by confronting our problems are we able to eliminate them. Thus, not only would I say the slave is justified in revolting he would also be heroic for confronting the evil in an attempt to destroy it.

 

[James B White]

Here is a counter-arguement. By running away (if successful) the slave would be able to get away from the evil. However, running away does not do anything to destroy the evil.

If once you get away, you publish stories, give lectures and/or help others run away, it sure does.

 

[gem]

If once you get away, you publish stories, give lectures and/or help others run away, it sure does.

I'd say you're right but that is a more passive approach than confronting the evil head on right where it exists.

Plus, with the benefit of hindsight we know it took a war to get rid of the evil anyway.

 

[Rebforever]

The article posted above says this-

Turner described Travis as a kind master, against whom he had no complaints.

And then does this?

Turner and six of his men met in the woods to eat a dinner and make their plans. At 2:00 that morning, they set out to the Travis household, where they killed the entire family as they lay sleeping.

Yep, a crazed lunatic just like Dahmer!!

 

[James B White]

I'd say you're right but that is a more passive approach than confronting the evil head on right where it exists.

Plus, with the benefit of hindsight we know it took a war to get rid of the evil anyway.

At the time, no one knew which way would work best, so insurrections may have looked good then. But with the benefit of hindsight, we know that abolitionists gradually changing popular opinion, to lead to the election of Lincoln, then secession, then war, then victory, was the sequence which resulted in the end of slavery, rather than a Haiti-style slave insurrection in the south.

 

[JerseyBart]

The article posted above says this-



And then does this?



Yep, a crazed lunatic just like Dahmer!!

A kind master is still a master, still imprisoning and controlling another.

 

[gem]

At the time, no one knew which way would work best, so insurrections may have looked good then. But with the benefit of hindsight, we know that abolitionists gradually changing popular opinion, to lead to the election of Lincoln, then secession, then war, then victory, was the sequence which resulted in the end of slavery, rather than a Haiti-style slave insurrection in the south.

what we are talking about is really 2 different approaches an active approach vs a passive approach.

I think its fair to say that there is no reason why both couldn't be used.

Attacking slavery from both without and within is an appropriate strategy to eliminate the evil.

I think the way slavery actually ended resulted in more deaths than virtually any other way which we could image and that includes slave insurrections

A kind master is still a master, still imprisoning and controlling another.

I was going to make that point but i figured it was self-evident.
.

 

[Rebforever]

A kind master is still a master, still imprisoning and controlling another.

So what. That was no right for murder if he liked being a slave.

 

[gem]

So what. That was no right for murder if he liked being a slave.

I don't think he ever said he enjoyed being a slave.

Having a kind master just means the situation goes from being really really bad to just really bad.

Most people here seem to agree with you that he was not justified in leading an insurrection, so I guess on that point you're in the majority.

 

[CMWinkler]

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.

Your attempts to try to justify the murder of children is really beginning to turn my stomach. I do not believe the morality of child murder has altered much since the 1860's. and pretending that the cold blooded murder of children who could not in any way stop impede his desire nor efforts to gain his freedom. I'm sorry but I've seen enough of this tripe.

 

[gem]

Your attempts to try to justify the murder of children is really beginning to turn my stomach. I do not believe the morality of child murder has altered much since the 1860's. and pretending that the cold blooded murder of children who could not in any way stop impede his desire nor efforts to gain his freedom. I'm sorry but I've seen enough of this tripe.

its not about how you or I see things its about how things were seen through the eyes of the enslaved.

 

[James B White]

its not about how you or I see things its about how things were seen through the eyes of the enslaved.

"The enslaved" weren't a monolithic group. If you mean Nat Turner or those who helped him individually, sure, it's good to try to see things through their eyes, to understand why they did what they did--though deciding whether we personally should honor them will still be a decision based on how you or I see them.

But there was just as wide a spectrum of opinions among enslaved people as any other large population.

 

[CMWinkler]

its not about how you or I see things its about how things were seen through the eyes of the enslaved.

And how should I see the butchering of children through their eyes? This is simply more nonsense. This isn't subjective. OH, murdering kids is OK if you think you have a good enough reason or are mad enough because someone other than these children have wronged you. I've been a criminal defense lawyer for almost 30 years now. I've seen killers' motivation up close and personal. Trying to justify these child murders as you are, is nothing short of sick. It gives cover to anyone who thinks their "cause" or their wrong outweighs these children's right to live.

You want to lionize the murderous, fine. Just don't pretend you're doing anything else.