Module: HST5317 Race in the US: Slavery to Civil Rights
By: Rebecca Ogbonna
In this essay, I will argue that Nat Turner was religiously motivated to provoke the destabilisation of slavery and eventually, its complete abolition as an institution. Turner’s slave rebellion occurred in August 1831 in Southampton, Virginia. It is probably the most significant slave rebellion in the history of the United States. There is a lack of clarity about Turner’s true motivations and goals within historiography.[1] I will analyse the motives of Turner’s rebellion by exploring the religious undertones throughout his confession to lawyer Thomas R. Gray, prior to his court hearing. This confession would later be used by Gray to testify against Turner. In addition to this; the essay will examine how Turner’s rebellion was historically significant by considering the revolt to have marked a turning point within the fight for emancipation. This is because the extent of violence to which slaves were willing to commit forced the slave debate to the forefront of Virginia’s political sphere and intrinsically served as a catalyst for fear amongst the southern states of further rebellion. Overall, Turner was religiously motivated to provoke the destabilisation of slavery. When his goal of immediate emancipation no longer appeared likely, Turner hoped that the legacy of the revolt would provoke further insurrections and consequently foster discourse within state, and eventually, federal law that would prompt the complete abolition of slavery as an institution.
Turner’s religious beliefs motivated him to lead the slave rebellion to provoke forceful change within slave-based society. Turner was both fanatical and radical in his approach to religion. Historians have often highlighted that Turner did not adhere himself to a specific denomination within Christianity. Perhaps this in itself explains Turner’s rebellious and anarchistic conduct as he ‘refused to cohere to a complete theological system’ because he saw himself as personally and divinely appointed to lead African-Americans out of slavery.[2] It was this feeling of being ordained by God which fuelled Turner’s vigour and motivation in using his position as a revered and enslaved black preacher to inspire fellow slaves to join him in rebelling against the oppressive Virginian society. Furthermore, religious imagery is at the core of Turner’s confession as he states that he saw leading the slave rebellion as a mission from God to ‘obtain true holiness before the great day of judgement’.[3] Indeed, many of Turner’s fellow slaves would have felt empowered by Turner to also strive towards the same ‘holiness’ by rebelling against their enslavement. Turner’s radical religious alignments were further demonstrated when Gray questioned if Turner found himself mistaken for leading the rebellion and he boldly replied, ‘Was not Christ crucified.’[4] In proclaiming this, Turner insinuated that he knew the fate that awaited him after his trial and was willing to die for the cause of emancipation. Hence, it is possible that Turner considered himself as Christ-like because he took the risk of leading revolt and giving up his life for others. This strong sense of conviction is reflected in the absence of a question mark within this proclamation about the crucifixion of Christ. I would argue that Turner’s use of a full stop is a purposeful intonation that reinforces his presumption of himself as a sacrifice for his beliefs. Therefore, Nat Turner was motivated by religion in his carrying out of the 1831 Rebellion as he believed that God had instructed him to be a modern-day prophet and anti-slavery warrior.
Interestingly, Turner’s deeply religious enthusiasm regarding abolition developed throughout his childhood and youth. Turner had several religious visions and dreams in which he interpreted as ‘instructions for him to lead his people out of bondage’ from a young age.[5] Therefore, Turner’s radical religious beliefs and anti-slavery alignments blossomed over the course of his life as a young slave rather than as a result of what might be considered a single religious encounter. Perhaps this implied a certain amount of premeditation and confidence in leading the slave rebellion. As a result of Turner’s staunch religious beliefs, he considered himself different to the typically submissive slave. Hence, even from an early age, Turner stated that his intelligence for a child slave was ‘uncommon’. This even resulted in his grandmother and master acknowledging that he could ‘never be of service to any one as a slave’ because he was too ‘restless, inquisitive and observant’.[6] It is possible that Turner utilised the semantic field of defiance and resistance within his confession to negate the expectations of a slave being dependent on their master from a young age. This is further proven by Turner’s perception of himself as considerably autonomous from his master. In fact, even Turner’s slave owner Benjamin Turner, allowed him to learn how to read and write, which may indicate that he was seen as talented and gifted by his master, as it was uncommon for slaves to be exposed to such.[7] One could argue that perhaps Turner tried to dispel the myth that black people were less intelligent than white people by stating this within his confession. Overall, through his description of his childhood and exploration of racial hierarchy and prejudice which upheld slavery as an ingrained institution; Turner aims to deconstruct the belief that slaves were a subordinate species to the white man. He does this by pointing out the similarities between white and black people. Thus, his radical resentment towards slavery, his ‘uncommon intelligence’ and religious motivation allowed him to defy the institution of slavery as he was able to gather the support of fellow slaves by preaching to them because he was so courageous and determined to evoke change.
The idea of Turner being religiously motivated in leading the 1831 rebellion is further emphasised when he stated within his confession that he had run away from one of his masters, Samuel Turner, in 1821 but felt called by God to return. Turner had spent 30 days hiding in the woods, until he felt that he had been instructed by God to ‘seek first the kingdom of Heaven’ instead of ‘the world’.[8] Subsequently, Turner was religiously motivated in carrying out the rebellion as he saw it not as a glory pursuit but as a pursuit to make Heaven. Turner’s return back to the plantation was not a symbol of weakness or submission but instead, an emblem of him realising that slavery could only be eroded through mass rebellion. Biblical imagery and religious connotations used throughout Turner’s confession imply that Turner considered himself as a necessary martyr for freedom.
Furthermore, his radical views echoed throughout his confession about the rebellion as he stated that ‘neither age nor sex was to be spared.’[9] Thus, Turner believed that forceful emancipation could only occur through brutality and ruthlessness. Overall, Turner’s crude approach to the violence he and his rebels committed is emphasised within his confession through the use of monotonous listing of his victims and grotesque imagery depicting their murders. Perhaps Turner employs this technique to highlight how he and his rebels were detached and nonchalant in their violence as they went from house to house, targeting and killing any white person inside. This can be seen through lines such as ‘I killed her with a blow on the head’ and ‘[I] viewed the mangled bodies as they lay, in silent satisfaction’.[10] This showed that Turner was religiously motivated to carry out the rebellion as he saw it as a requirement for him to make heaven and please God by obeying the instructions of his visions. This essentially blinded Turner to the fact he was committing senseless murder as he found it satisfying and fulfilling to his calling.
Turner’s main goal in leading the rebellion was to advance further insurrections in Virginia in the hopes of destabilising the institution of slavery as a whole and leading to the ultimate goal of liberation. When asked to explain his origins of influence, he stated ‘[…]to give a history of the motives which induced me to undertake the late insurrection, as you call it […] I must go back to the days of my infancy, and even before I was born’.[11] In stating this, Turner suggested that slavery was engrained within Virginian society and had been enforced on his ancestors. The overall tone of this line conveys the notion that Turner was appalled with the long existing injustice of slavery. For this reason, Turner had the main goal of forceful emancipation when he began the revolt.
However, towards the end of his confession, one might note that there was a deviation from calling for immediate emancipation to instead focusing on inspiring further insurrection during his journey to Jerusalem. At this time, Turner’s efforts had weakened by his expansion of rebels which drew attention to the rebellion and resulted in ‘white men’ pursuing and firing on them ‘several times’.[12] This marked the derailing of the rebellion as his rebels progressed to Jerusalem and Turner and his men faced further opposition which soured his morale. The addition of ‘new recruits’ appeared positive although this was short-lived as even after this, it became evident that Turner opted to shift from immediate emancipation to inspiring further insurrection given the retaliation of white militaria.[13] Overall, Turner accepted that his rebellion failed to achieve its initial goal but refused to be defeated and instead focused on influencing further insurgence. At this time, Turner had also accepted the fate which awaited him but remained confident that he had carried out his mission from God.
Moreover, the wider historical significance of the revolt can be understood by the fact that it brought the debate on slave emancipation and anti-slavery discourse to the forefront of Virginian society and politics. The role of media was crucial when considering the impact of the slave revolt as it becomes explicit through newspaper outlets such as the ‘Constitutional Whig’ and ‘The Liberator’, that there was a definite divide of public opinion over emancipation. This also reflected the divide between pro-slavery and anti-slavery supporters in state government. Within Virginia Governor John Floyd’s diary accounts, questions arose on whether to split the slave communities, colonise slaves or emancipate them following Turner’s Rebellion.[14] Privately, however, he wrote to the governor of South Carolina advocating for tighter restriction of slaves. This showed that pro-slavery ideology was entrenched within American society and government.[15]
The ‘Constitutional Whig’ was a pro-slavery newspaper that was published in August 1831, in the aftermath of the rebellion and was later active during the American Civil War. It was founded by John Pleasants, who was an American businessman and journalist.[16] The main audience of this newspaper would have been fellow pro-slavery Americans within the southern states. Pleasants wrote to alarm the public of the great terror and force that Turner and his rebels used in order to create a sense of morale panic by emphasising the reality that the rebellion had called into question the stability of slave-owning society. Pleasants also discussed how the rebellion devastated and divided many innocent and helpless white families. He did this with particular impetus on how ruthless Turner and his rebels were as, ‘whole families, father, mother, daughters, sons, sucking babes and school children, [were] butchered, thrown into heaps’ as well as children being ‘cruelly wounded and left for dead’.[17] As a pro-slavery newspaper, it was written in a tone of distress and bewilderment to convey to its readers that the rebellion was extremely violent and not at all expected. There is a general sense of emotive language employed throughout the article in order to truly capture the horrific nature of the rebellion, with particular focus on women and children who were considered the most vulnerable of society. In doing so, Pleasants suggested that future insurrections were something that should be feared as they posed a severe threat to society. The following month, (September 1831) there was a further newspaper article by the ‘Constitutional Whig’ with a significantly different tone. Pleasants tried to calm the mounting public panic within the southern states by focusing on the exaggeration of some media reports. He claimed that some media outlets had circulated ‘false, absurd, and idle rumours’, which caused further public havoc and alarm.[18] Pleasants also presented the weaknesses of the rebellion being led by marginalised and inexperienced slaves that had no real power in fully threatening the stability of slavery as an institution. He did this in order to suggest that the white population could always outsmart the slaves.[19] In essence, the September edition of the ‘Constitutional Whig’ is historically significant because it tried to downplay the rebellion and maintain a racial hierarchy within Virginian society. The September edition was a swift departure from the sense of fear in the edition of the previous month, suggesting that slaves were inferior and less capable than their white and powerful owners. In addition, the September issue also demonstrated that slavery could still remain an ingrained and successful institution to Virginian society providing the white slave-owning society kept in high spirits.
In contrast, the historical significance of the rebellion can also be seen through pro-abolition media coverage. This form of media coverage was opposite to media coverage that was pro-slavery because it supported the liberation of slaves. It was made to educate the public on how corrupt and evil the institution of slavery was in order to call for political, legal and social change. An example of pro-abolition media coverage was the Boston newspaper ‘The Liberator’, written in September 1831 by William Lloyd Garrison.[20] The newspaper had the goal of provoking immediate, rather than gradual emancipation. Garrison suggested that while progress was being made towards gradual slave emancipation following the brutal rebellion, a more intense approach was needed. Garrison proclaimed that ‘the crime of oppression [was] national’, by referring to slavery as a ‘crime’ that was ‘oppressive’ and widescale throughout the United States. Garrison ultimately indicated that slave-owning should no longer be sustained because of the possibility of further insurrection in the fight for emancipation.[21] For this reason, Garrison and his newspaper held great historical significance within the pro-abolition lobby. Garrison also went on to be one of the co-founders of The American Anti-Slavery Movement in 1833, further calling for emancipation.[22] Fundamentally, Turner’s rebellion brought the slave debate to the forefront of politics and society as the threat of slave-led insurrection served as a catalyst of public fear of future rebellions and widespread media coverage. One might argue that despite media coverage from pro-slavery outlets like the ‘Constitutional Whig’, the impact of the rebellion could not be diminished, and slave-owning morale did begin to decline in response to the influence of pro-abolition media in southern states.
Equally, the current scholarship and historiography of Turner’s rebellion is beneficial in trying to understand the historical significance of the 1831 rebellion as these secondary sources assess and evaluate primary sources in a modern context in order to produce a more cohesive historical narrative of the legacy of Nat Turner’s rebellion. Scholarship on Turner’s revolt tends to either focus on the social ramifications in two ways. While the orthodox perspective focuses on how vital the rebellion was for inciting political change, a more unorthodox view might focus on how the political change was not all positive because the white elite largely responded by trying to regain control over slaves. According to Charles Morris, Turner’s actions prompted a substantial political and social change in the sense that southern Virginian slaveholders took steps to regain control over their county in fear of further revolt. This meant harsher conditions for slaves.[23] On the other hand, a more conventional assessment of the revolt by historians such as Jakobi Williams commend Turner for his brave efforts that eventually led to the Civil War and emancipation.[24] In terms of the scholarship that I find more compelling, I would argue that there is still much more to be uncovered about the legacy of Turner’s rebellion. With this being said, both the unorthodox and conventional schools of thought offer valid interpretations. However, in terms of long-term historical significance, I view the unorthodox perspective as most convincing because despite the shortcomings of the revolt leading to harsher conditions for slaves, Turner’s rebellion was still fundamental in shaping and challenging political order within Virginia and agitating for emancipation within the US as a whole. In other words, I believe that conditions for slaves had to worsen before they could get better as slaves began to demand for their own autonomy. For this reason, scholarship is very important in highlighting the historical significance of Turner’s rebellion as it enables one to analyse the revolt from various possible outlooks.
In conclusion, Nat Turner’s primary motivation for leading the rebellion was religion. He believed that he was instructed by God to lead a mass slave rebellion to achieve liberation. Initially he hoped to provoke the end of slavery but when this seemed unlikely, his goal shifted to hoping to provoke further insurrections within Virginia. This would, in turn, destabilise Virginia’s white slave-holding society and allow for the complete liberation of black slaves. Although Turner’s rebellion failed in achieving his immediate goal of emancipation as originally intended, the rebellion was historically significant because it highlighted the extent to which slaves inflicted violence to provoke political action. Despite being downplayed by media outlets to protect the slavery institution, Turner’s rebellion undoubtedly began the public debate on emancipation within Virginia, which would later lead to widespread discourse about emancipation within the United States altogether.
[1] Patrick Been, ‘A Prophet in His Own Land: Support for Nat Turner and His Rebellion within Southampton’s Black Community’, in Kenneth Greenberg (eds.), Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) pp. 109-10. [2] Herbert Aptheker, Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion including the 1831 “Confessions” (New York: Humanities Press, 1966) p. 29. [3] Thomas R. Gray, The Confessions of Nat Turner, The Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton (Virginia: Lucas and Dear Print, 1931) p. 45. [4] Ibid., p. 46. [5] Joseph Drexler-Dreis, ‘Nat Turner’s Rebellion as a Process of Conversion: Towards a Deeper Understand of the Christian Conversation Process’, Black Theology 3:1 (2014): pp 85-113. [6] Thomas R. Gray, The Confessions of Nat Turner, The Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton (Virginia: Lucas and Dear Print, 1931) p. 42. [7] Ibid., p. 43. [8] Ibid., pp. 43-44. [9] Ibid., p. 46. [10] Ibid., pp. 48-49. [11] Ibid., p. 1. [12] Ibid., p. 50. [13] Ibid., pp. 50-51. [14] John Floyd, Excerpts from the Diary of Virginia Governor John Floyd, (Virginia, 1832-1833), p. 101. [15] John Floyd, Letter from John Floyd to South Carolina Governor James Hamilton Jr, (Virginia 1831), p. 107. [16] John Pleasants, ‘The Constitutional Whig’, (Richmond, Virginia, August 29. 1831), p. 63. [17] Ibid., p. 63. [18] John Pleasants, ‘The Constitutional Whig’, (Richmond, Virginia, September 3. 1831), p. 70. [19] Ibid., p. 73. [20] William Lloyd Garrison, ‘The Liberator’, (Boston, September 3. 1831), pp. 66-7. [21] Ibid., p. 68. [22] Rebecca Saunders, ‘The Immediate Reaction to the Nat Turner Rebellion August-November 1831’, Richmond: University of Richmond Scholarship Repository, 7:26, (1969): pp 1-19. [23] Charles-Edward Morris, ‘Panic and Reprisal: Reaction in North Carolina to the Nat Turner Insurrection, 1831’, The North Carolina Historical Review 64:1, (1985) pp. 29-52. [24] Jakobi Williams, ‘Nat Turner: The Complexity and Dynamic of His Religious Background’, The Journal of Pan-African Studies 4:9, (2012) pp.113-47.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aptheker, H. Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion including the 1831 “Confessions” (New York: Humanities Press,1966).
Been, P. ‘A Prophet in His Own Land: Support for Nat Turner and His Rebellion within Southampton’s Black Community’, in Kenneth Greenberg (eds.), Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Drexler-Dreis, J. ‘Nat Turner’s Rebellion as a Process of Conversion: Towards a Deeper Understand of the Christian Conversation Process’, Black Theology, 3:1, (2014): pp. 85-113.
Floyd, J. Excerpts from the Diary of Virginia Governor John Floyd, (Virginia, 1832-33).
Floyd, J. Letter from John Floyd to South Carolina Governor James Hamilton Jr, (Virginia, 1831).
Garrison, W. L. ‘The Liberator’, (Boston, September 3. 1831).
Gray, T. The Confessions of Nat Turner, The Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton (Virginia: Lucas and Dear Print, 1931).
Morris, C. E. ‘Panic and Reprisal: Reaction in North Carolina to the Nat Turner Insurrection, 1831’, The North Carolina Historical Review 64:1, (1985): pp. 29-52.
Pleasants, J. ‘The Constitutional Whig’, (Richmond, Virginia, August 29, 1831).
Pleasants, J. ‘The Constitutional Whig’, (Richmond, Virginia, September 3, 1831).
Saunders, R. ‘The Immediate Reaction to the Nat Turner Rebellion August-November 1831’ Richmond: University of Richmond Scholarship Repository 7:26, (1969): pp. 1-19.
Williams, J. ‘Nat Turner: The Complexity and Dynamic of His Religious Background’, The Journal of Pan-African Studies 4:9, (2012) pp.113-47.
Comments