Nat Turner: Opinions?

[RileyE104]

For those not familiar, he was a slave who led a rebellion that over its course caused the deaths of 56 men, woman AND children.

I myself do not agree with the killing of women and children, but when I think about this it makes me wonder whether or not the enslaved (and free) people who helped in this revolt actually knew (morally) what they were doing in regards to killing the women and children. But apparently they stopped that practice once their cause reached sufficient numbers? So deep down they must have known that it was wrong.

I honestly can't say that I don't agree with killing the men though. Don't get me wrong; at the core of my beliefs I support non-violence but these people were literally slaves, not just because they were forced to give up their wages and because their freedoms were severely limited, but they were forced to do labor at the order of other men.

The only similarity I can draw to this is if the Government ever tries to implement another draft. I can't say that I will remain non-violent in that instance but I know I would try. I would rather be in prison than be forced to lose my Liberty and make my body a target against my will under the ironic guise of protecting the "American" way of life.

 

[RileyE104]

Also, to add, as many people here know, violent-rebellion often results in more restrictions on freedom for the rest of the population.

That truth was also true back then:

Across the South, state legislators passed new laws prohibiting education of slaves and free blacks, restricting rights of assembly and other civil rights for free blacks, and requiring white ministers to be present at black worship services.

 

[Jeremy]

I myself do not agree with the killing of women and children

But killing men is okay? Sexist.

 

[RileyE104]

But killing men is okay? Sexist.

EDIT:

I would kill ANYONE who did harm or is in the process of trying to do harm to my family if that is what is necessary.

BUT, in this case, I'm talking about the killing of women and children as a result of a slavery revolt.

I fully support the actions of slaves killing the men who used physical force to enslave them. However, I don't support their killing of harmless women and children.

 

[emazur]

I don't know if they were thinking this or not but: "You know, I don't want to kill anyone who doesn't directly interfere with my right to live as I choose. But I am enslaved and treated worse than dirt by these slaveholders who would not hesitate to separate a slave from his family for the right price. Men will opt to continue the practice of slavery so long as the perceived economic benefits of owning a slave outweigh the evils of slavery, which may not even be apparent to the slaveholder. Thus, it is time to tip the scales. If the slaveholder cannot or will not recognize the evils he is doing, let us see if he is equally blind to horrendous acts done in retaliation to he and his family. And if such acts become widespread and commonplace across the lands, let us see if the perceived economic benefits of slavery go down in value to the point of no longer being worth it."

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I read a book once saying that the "women and children" was a lie started to provoke fear and uproar about the runaway slaves. Really hard to prove either way though.

 

[jmdrake]

I read a book once saying that the "women and children" was a lie started to provoke fear and uproar about the runaway slaves. Really hard to prove either way though.

Maybe so. It's hard to say. One historian noted that Nat didn't attack the poor white homes he came across.

(See: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1973/6/1973_6_42.shtml)

But for the sake of argument lets assume the worst about old Nat. What does that tell us about "blowback"? What does it tell us about what happens when you have no regard for the lives and families of those you enslave?



I don't condone the killing of children in Turner's rebellion (assuming that happened) the killing of children in Haiti's rebellion (not denied) or the killing of children by middle eastern terrorists. But this corrupt government cannot continue to say the price of killing children other places is somehow "worth it" and not expect others to reach the same conclusion from the same bloody calculus.

 

[oyarde]

Bottom line is this , slavery will lead to violent rebellion as the oppurtunity arises . Is it justified ? Everyone can have your own opinion , if you want the real answer , put yourself in the position of the slave . Justified or not , it is easily predictable . So , the slave master accepted the risk of his and his familes danger .

 

[oyarde]

Bump

 

[oyarde]

//

 

[RileyE104]

I'm still having a huge debate in my mind about Nat Turner, his actions and his rebellion.

I highly respect the man for standing up and taking action against being another man's slave.

I don't respect the killing of harmless women and children, but I can understand how the anger of being made into a slave would manifest this type of reaction.

I don't like how after this mini-revolution a response of making things worse for black people through the legislative process was established. HOWEVER, can we really blame Nat Turner and the other rebelling slaves for what misguided souls who deteriorate true rule of law by infecting it with such poor legislation did in response? Instead of waking up to what was indeed a WAKE-UP-CALL, the people it was meant to wake up made things worse. After much thought, I don't think I can bring myself to blame Nat and his rebellion on making things worse for the black population back then. It is the fault of those who abused the role of government.

Lastly, the words "Give me Liberty or give me DEATH!" come to mind, as well as "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is NO vice!". --- I recognize that Patrick Henry's words were meant to mean the individual losing liberty would rather die and NOT to go around killing people. I also recognize that Barry Goldwater's words were not intended to tell people to go out killing people. Before I catch any heat for that, I just want to clarify that I used their words to add to the belief that whatever one must do to protect his own liberty (if it is unjustly being taken), then how can we denounce such actions? In my view, whatever an enslaved man does to gain back his liberty or die is but a form of BLOWBACK.

 

[MarkoH]

An Ayn Rand Institute writer says in his article “Black Slaves Who Could Have Been American Founders” – which includes a tribute to Nat Turner – that

The black men who led slave rebellions in early America understood the principles of individual rights and liberty as well as did the abolitionists among the Founding Fathers, and perhaps more clearly than did the ... Virginians. Were it not for [their race] ... these black freedom fighters could have been among the Founders and/or leaders of the American Republic.

I think this is absurd, as argued in
Valedictorians of Yesteryear