It also makes me wonder of other factors such as the famous pamphlet published by David Walker. His Appeal or "Preample to the Colored Citizens of the World but Especially to those in the United States" was published before Turner's rebellion. Walker's appeal was seen as so radical that NC passed legislation making it illegal to own and death was the punishment if you were caught with this document. I like your point about sort of expanding our view when we talk about Turner or other revolts because there were so many other incidents and even abolitionists who wrote and called for enslaved people to quite literally break their chains and the systems or people keeping them enslaved.
I know that we've moved beyond this post, but this business with the health care ceo murder keeps reminding me of it. I'm curious that the groundswell response--at least in the internet I spend time in--has been to talk instead about stories of loved ones who have been denied lifesaving health care by insurance companies. Yeah, murder is bad, and we don't want folks running around killing people, but this guy and others like him have been responsible for so much financial devastation and lost lives.
Hell, I passed out from low blood pressure and injured myself in August and I have almost $7,000 in outstanding medical bills for things they wouldn't cover... so while I think violence is immoral, I'm having a hard time feeling any sympathy for this guy.
I fully understand why Nat Turner did what he did. I do not condone the killing of women and children but I would have rebelled too. Slavery is an abomination to both God and humanity.
Calling someone crazy is always shorthand for “I don’t want to take the time or energy to try to understand this person.” Book looks interesting. Can’t wait to read it.
You mention in passing the slave rebellion in Haiti but don’t try to convey what that was: the massacre of virtually all the white people on the island (hundreds of thousands) with the most bestial atrocities. You may dismiss this but the Southerners did not because the survivors came here and the Americans had it from the horse’s mouth. They had no intention of going like that and if you’re honest you wouldn’t either. So this should be your context when you are thinking about Nat Turner and what the Southerners did in response. Also, a major result of Nat Turners rebellion was that all the Southern states passed laws against teaching slaves to read, which meant that virtually 100 percent of emancipated slaves were illiterate. Considering the pointlessness of Turners murders I would consider this an own goal of massive proportions.
Thanks for taking the time to comment and for the reminder that there are plenty of slave apologists still around.
You are absolutely right that white southerners were especially fearful of people who might use violence to bring an end to the violence that was experienced every day by millions of enslaved men, women, and children.
Remind me - you’re a history professor? One would think you’d be more curious about historical people and what they thought. What *do* you put in your syllabus?
Well, you should be able to hear an alternative point of view without calling me an "apologist for slavery." As I think I said before, it's a peculiar treatment of a historical event to excise half the participants.
And this is where the hunt for historical causation soon gets bogged down in muddy history - what circumstances existed to produce such extremes of action - the hunt can go on almost endlessly but context is important in understanding historical events
Lincoln: God may will that the war continue "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword" announces the penalty paid for waiting too long to ensure "all men are created equal".
Those drops of blood paid, *should* have been enough to also guarantee the life of the (also *created* equal) unborn child a hundred years later. The same inalienable principle was in play, but ignored. Why it will not erupt in a new violent war is because the abolition proponents, this time, recognize the intrinsic value of *life*, the first inalienable right.
The childless cat ladies are actually childful, they just don't know it. Watch the riveting silent film "Where are my children?" to see the equivalent of "John Brown's body" being hummed by those limbic souls.
Re: Monument Avenue. The Democrat party is the last monument to slavery, confederacy, and segregation still standing. While the party's apparent defeat this November may seem its extinction, it at least remains alive in Trojan horse (Democrat plant) Trump, whose rape of the GOP platform (to deny the inalienable right to life) made the Democrat principles live on *in (what had been) the party of abolition*! Trump must reverse this rape and restore GOP to gOp (grand "Old" party) platform which promised to abolish slavery then and (until 7/2024) abortion today. Read momanddadmatters.substack.com for more on this.
I’m glad Kevin replied as he did. I want to add that one of the stupidest propaganda things that I continually see in the comments section at the Wall Street Journal is this: “The Democratic party is the last monument to slavery, confederacy, and segregation still standing.” 2024 is not 1861.
Kevin, I don’t know how much time you spend in the WSJ comment section, but in my view, you are right that there are ignorant people who believe that claim, but where the claim comes from is a place of propaganda, dishonest propaganda. It is one of the reality inversion lies that the Trump people tell.
I completely agree. It's purpose is to cast Democrats as the party of racism without any understanding of how the two political parties have evolved over the years. It was certainly around before Trump, but it has become a more common conservative talking point.
I kindly ask you to keep your comments in response to the content of the post. This is not a place for you to proselytize about your preferred subject. This is your one warning. Thank you for your understanding.
“What Nat Turner did is no different than the attacks last October on Israel by Hamas. Targeting women and children is morally depraved.”
Geeze. Yes, in a necessarily violent freedom struggle, targeting anybody but the actual barbarian oppressors is morally depraved.
But it’s also morally depraved to declare that what “Nat Turner did is no different than the attacks last October on Israel by Hamas.”
When it comes to civic memory of slavery days, my general view is that the biggest thing missing is esteem for the hundreds of thousands of Civil War freedom-striving, emancipation-forcing slavery escapees. Though the term “systemic racism” has become almost as useless from overuse as the term “racism,” I think completely inadvertent and unintentional systemic racism explains the absence of the esteem. People haven’t recognized our scanting of the self-emancipation movement because, as a country, we have been lazy about assessing racial assumptions left over from antebellum days.
That’s why, in the antebellum American context, we still use the word “plantation,” with its connotations of elegance and serenity and refinement, when referring to torture-enforced slave-labor farms.
But maybe there are beliefs even worse, like belief that there is no difference between the Hamas atrocity and Nat Turner’s horrendously-too-violent rebellion.
Often such believers are the same people who think that because it was mostly Black people who kidnapped and sold Black people in Africa, somehow America’s sustained sabotage of its own founding principles during slavery is a little less unjustified. It’s a colossal non sequitur, but it’s asserted regularly.
I’m always loath to compare one historical event with another hundreds of years later that took place under different socio economic conditions, let alone geographical conditions.
In the broader context, I always think of the story of Denmark Vesey in Charleston, of whom I imagine Nat Turner was somewhat aware. Denmark, who had purchased his freedom, just happened to be a member of the AME church which would become the current-day "Mother Emanuel," where nine people in a Bible study were murdered by Dylann Roof in 2015.
But in terms of the obvious longstanding failure to realistically consider the perspective of what it was like to be enslaved and its effects on the psyche and the "accepted" belief system that made any slave "uprising" a result of "bad" men, I think forward to the case of Trayvon Martin just a few years ago.
I confess that I don't have any idea what was said or not said in the courtroom, but knowing that the "stand your ground" defense in Florida was used for George Zimmerman, an "upstanding" gentleman in his neighborhood who was later accused of domestic violence by a partner, I remember wondering why the prosecution apparently failed to point out that 17-year-old Trayvon was entitled to "stand his ground" first. I would think the fact that his father was a resident in the neighborhood, entitled to his "ground," meant that the same rights to that ground would have passed to his child. But no. Trayvon, a 17-year-old boy who happened to be Black and wearing a hoodie on his way home with candy from a convenience store, had no right to defend himself first apparently. In my mind, George Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's ground and when Trayvon responded, he shot and killed him. Zimmerman lost his right to "stand his ground" the moment he ignored the advice of the police who told him to stay home.
I won't pretend that I believe violence is ever excusable except in clear cases of self-defense. And I won't pretend that if you attack someone I love that I won't respond with violence. I can't speak to the moral fiber or mental illness of Nat Turner or Denmark Vesey, but I do understand that there comes a time when desperation turns into violence. And 400 years of feet on the necks of African human beings and their progeny forced to labor in intolerable circumstances and live in squalor under threat of death to fill the pockets of their "masters" is far more than enough to break the camel's back.
I appreciate your analysis which brings more balance to the narrative of Nat Turner. Too often enslavers are excused for provoking reactions to their inhumane treatment of enslaved people.
I’ve always thought the closest historical equivalent to Turner was Joan of Arc. In both cases messages from either God or schizophrenia told them to be very violent with their enemies. She ended up a saint. Turner, not so much.
Thanks for the comment. I guess I don't see why we need to go that far back to find a comparison with Turner. That was one of the points I tried to make in referencing the Kaye/Downs book. Turner's visions were nothing unusual within the religious culture of nineteenth-century America.
Understood. I just think it’s interesting how the two have traveled rather different paths of historical memory despite their blatant similarities. The reason seems rather clear
I'm going to forward this to Brian Rose. He's working on a photo project related to this topic. He is the author of "Monument Avenue." I see he's using a quote you gave him for that book! https://www.brianrose.com/monument.htm
It also makes me wonder of other factors such as the famous pamphlet published by David Walker. His Appeal or "Preample to the Colored Citizens of the World but Especially to those in the United States" was published before Turner's rebellion. Walker's appeal was seen as so radical that NC passed legislation making it illegal to own and death was the punishment if you were caught with this document. I like your point about sort of expanding our view when we talk about Turner or other revolts because there were so many other incidents and even abolitionists who wrote and called for enslaved people to quite literally break their chains and the systems or people keeping them enslaved.
I know that we've moved beyond this post, but this business with the health care ceo murder keeps reminding me of it. I'm curious that the groundswell response--at least in the internet I spend time in--has been to talk instead about stories of loved ones who have been denied lifesaving health care by insurance companies. Yeah, murder is bad, and we don't want folks running around killing people, but this guy and others like him have been responsible for so much financial devastation and lost lives.
Hell, I passed out from low blood pressure and injured myself in August and I have almost $7,000 in outstanding medical bills for things they wouldn't cover... so while I think violence is immoral, I'm having a hard time feeling any sympathy for this guy.
I fully understand why Nat Turner did what he did. I do not condone the killing of women and children but I would have rebelled too. Slavery is an abomination to both God and humanity.
Calling someone crazy is always shorthand for “I don’t want to take the time or energy to try to understand this person.” Book looks interesting. Can’t wait to read it.
Exactly.
You mention in passing the slave rebellion in Haiti but don’t try to convey what that was: the massacre of virtually all the white people on the island (hundreds of thousands) with the most bestial atrocities. You may dismiss this but the Southerners did not because the survivors came here and the Americans had it from the horse’s mouth. They had no intention of going like that and if you’re honest you wouldn’t either. So this should be your context when you are thinking about Nat Turner and what the Southerners did in response. Also, a major result of Nat Turners rebellion was that all the Southern states passed laws against teaching slaves to read, which meant that virtually 100 percent of emancipated slaves were illiterate. Considering the pointlessness of Turners murders I would consider this an own goal of massive proportions.
Thanks for taking the time to comment and for the reminder that there are plenty of slave apologists still around.
You are absolutely right that white southerners were especially fearful of people who might use violence to bring an end to the violence that was experienced every day by millions of enslaved men, women, and children.
Remind me - you’re a history professor? One would think you’d be more curious about historical people and what they thought. What *do* you put in your syllabus?
No, I am not a history professor.
Well, you should be able to hear an alternative point of view without calling me an "apologist for slavery." As I think I said before, it's a peculiar treatment of a historical event to excise half the participants.
I did consider your "alternative point of view" and responded accordingly.
And this is where the hunt for historical causation soon gets bogged down in muddy history - what circumstances existed to produce such extremes of action - the hunt can go on almost endlessly but context is important in understanding historical events
Lincoln: God may will that the war continue "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword" announces the penalty paid for waiting too long to ensure "all men are created equal".
Those drops of blood paid, *should* have been enough to also guarantee the life of the (also *created* equal) unborn child a hundred years later. The same inalienable principle was in play, but ignored. Why it will not erupt in a new violent war is because the abolition proponents, this time, recognize the intrinsic value of *life*, the first inalienable right.
The childless cat ladies are actually childful, they just don't know it. Watch the riveting silent film "Where are my children?" to see the equivalent of "John Brown's body" being hummed by those limbic souls.
Re: Monument Avenue. The Democrat party is the last monument to slavery, confederacy, and segregation still standing. While the party's apparent defeat this November may seem its extinction, it at least remains alive in Trojan horse (Democrat plant) Trump, whose rape of the GOP platform (to deny the inalienable right to life) made the Democrat principles live on *in (what had been) the party of abolition*! Trump must reverse this rape and restore GOP to gOp (grand "Old" party) platform which promised to abolish slavery then and (until 7/2024) abortion today. Read momanddadmatters.substack.com for more on this.
I’m glad Kevin replied as he did. I want to add that one of the stupidest propaganda things that I continually see in the comments section at the Wall Street Journal is this: “The Democratic party is the last monument to slavery, confederacy, and segregation still standing.” 2024 is not 1861.
That claim comes from a place of ignorance and will not be tolerated.
Kevin, I don’t know how much time you spend in the WSJ comment section, but in my view, you are right that there are ignorant people who believe that claim, but where the claim comes from is a place of propaganda, dishonest propaganda. It is one of the reality inversion lies that the Trump people tell.
I completely agree. It's purpose is to cast Democrats as the party of racism without any understanding of how the two political parties have evolved over the years. It was certainly around before Trump, but it has become a more common conservative talking point.
I kindly ask you to keep your comments in response to the content of the post. This is not a place for you to proselytize about your preferred subject. This is your one warning. Thank you for your understanding.
From the online comment that Kevin quoted:
“What Nat Turner did is no different than the attacks last October on Israel by Hamas. Targeting women and children is morally depraved.”
Geeze. Yes, in a necessarily violent freedom struggle, targeting anybody but the actual barbarian oppressors is morally depraved.
But it’s also morally depraved to declare that what “Nat Turner did is no different than the attacks last October on Israel by Hamas.”
When it comes to civic memory of slavery days, my general view is that the biggest thing missing is esteem for the hundreds of thousands of Civil War freedom-striving, emancipation-forcing slavery escapees. Though the term “systemic racism” has become almost as useless from overuse as the term “racism,” I think completely inadvertent and unintentional systemic racism explains the absence of the esteem. People haven’t recognized our scanting of the self-emancipation movement because, as a country, we have been lazy about assessing racial assumptions left over from antebellum days.
That’s why, in the antebellum American context, we still use the word “plantation,” with its connotations of elegance and serenity and refinement, when referring to torture-enforced slave-labor farms.
But maybe there are beliefs even worse, like belief that there is no difference between the Hamas atrocity and Nat Turner’s horrendously-too-violent rebellion.
Often such believers are the same people who think that because it was mostly Black people who kidnapped and sold Black people in Africa, somehow America’s sustained sabotage of its own founding principles during slavery is a little less unjustified. It’s a colossal non sequitur, but it’s asserted regularly.
I’m always loath to compare one historical event with another hundreds of years later that took place under different socio economic conditions, let alone geographical conditions.
In the broader context, I always think of the story of Denmark Vesey in Charleston, of whom I imagine Nat Turner was somewhat aware. Denmark, who had purchased his freedom, just happened to be a member of the AME church which would become the current-day "Mother Emanuel," where nine people in a Bible study were murdered by Dylann Roof in 2015.
But in terms of the obvious longstanding failure to realistically consider the perspective of what it was like to be enslaved and its effects on the psyche and the "accepted" belief system that made any slave "uprising" a result of "bad" men, I think forward to the case of Trayvon Martin just a few years ago.
I confess that I don't have any idea what was said or not said in the courtroom, but knowing that the "stand your ground" defense in Florida was used for George Zimmerman, an "upstanding" gentleman in his neighborhood who was later accused of domestic violence by a partner, I remember wondering why the prosecution apparently failed to point out that 17-year-old Trayvon was entitled to "stand his ground" first. I would think the fact that his father was a resident in the neighborhood, entitled to his "ground," meant that the same rights to that ground would have passed to his child. But no. Trayvon, a 17-year-old boy who happened to be Black and wearing a hoodie on his way home with candy from a convenience store, had no right to defend himself first apparently. In my mind, George Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's ground and when Trayvon responded, he shot and killed him. Zimmerman lost his right to "stand his ground" the moment he ignored the advice of the police who told him to stay home.
I won't pretend that I believe violence is ever excusable except in clear cases of self-defense. And I won't pretend that if you attack someone I love that I won't respond with violence. I can't speak to the moral fiber or mental illness of Nat Turner or Denmark Vesey, but I do understand that there comes a time when desperation turns into violence. And 400 years of feet on the necks of African human beings and their progeny forced to labor in intolerable circumstances and live in squalor under threat of death to fill the pockets of their "masters" is far more than enough to break the camel's back.
I appreciate your analysis which brings more balance to the narrative of Nat Turner. Too often enslavers are excused for provoking reactions to their inhumane treatment of enslaved people.
Thanks for the feedback, Charles.
I’ve always thought the closest historical equivalent to Turner was Joan of Arc. In both cases messages from either God or schizophrenia told them to be very violent with their enemies. She ended up a saint. Turner, not so much.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comment. I guess I don't see why we need to go that far back to find a comparison with Turner. That was one of the points I tried to make in referencing the Kaye/Downs book. Turner's visions were nothing unusual within the religious culture of nineteenth-century America.
Understood. I just think it’s interesting how the two have traveled rather different paths of historical memory despite their blatant similarities. The reason seems rather clear
I'm going to forward this to Brian Rose. He's working on a photo project related to this topic. He is the author of "Monument Avenue." I see he's using a quote you gave him for that book! https://www.brianrose.com/monument.htm
Hi Margaret,
Thanks. It just so happens that Brian contacted me last week about his new project. It's a fascinating project.