Module: HST5317 Race in the US: Slavery to Civil Rights
By: Tayyiba Nasir
The slave rebellion of Nat Turner in Virginia in 1831 has generated competing interpretations and ongoing controversies in academic literature and beyond.[1]Depictions of Turner have fluctuated according to political circumstances, particularly as it pertained to the history of racism in America. Abolitionists such as Thomas W. Higginson created a heroic image of Turner as an ‘extraordinary man…devoted to the cause of his race without a trace of personal hope or fear’.[2] This image was later mobilised by civil rights activists in the 20th century. The chairman of the Black Panther Party described Turner as ‘the force that pushed forward with speed for freedom’ and his rebellion as ‘the turning point in the historical crossroad towards liberation’.[3] A more conservative narrative, however, condemned Turner as a bloodthirsty ‘fanatic’, a view that found academic affirmation. An early historical account by William Drewry, for example, depicted Turner as a ‘wild, fanatical preacher’.[4] Modern historians such as Herbert Aptheker challenged this view, arguing that Turner was a ‘highly intelligent man’ who led a ‘struggle for freedom’.[5] Media representations have similarly grappled with Turner’s legacy. William Styron’s novel, published in 1967, attempted to ‘humanise’ Turner by adding an erotic dimension to his character, drew harsh criticism from the ‘Ten Black Writers’.[6] They criticised Styron for not only ‘reducing Nat Turner to impotence and implying that negroes were docile and content with slavery,’ but also ‘dehumanizing every black person in the book.’[7] Turner’s motives and goals in launching his rebellion have thus invited intense debate since its occurrence.
The lack of primary sources and their contested nature, especially the scarcity of unmediated black perspectives, has further complicated our understanding of the rebellion. Nevertheless, working closely with the material available, namely Turner’s ‘Confession’ and contemporary newspaper reports, this essay argues that Turner’s actions were a deliberate response to the oppression of his race through the institution of slavery, which he clearly understood as unjust. His reflections on the ‘evil’ of ‘white men’ use the language of Christianity to express emotions of anger and revenge. In particular, emphasis is placed on ‘justice’ and ‘retribution’ which informs Turner’s morality, giving his rebellion direction and purpose towards achieving ‘retributive justice’. Retributive justice, however, only partially captures Turner’s goals. The events of the rebellion, however, reveal his political motivations, grounded in strategy and pragmatism. His deliberate associations with the American Revolution and its ideals seek to bring to light contradictions between ‘liberty’ and ‘bondage’, with hope to inspire a movement to end slavery. The profound significance of the revolt, the essay concludes, lies in the deep challenge it presented to pro-slavery ideology. In particular, the idea of slavery as a benign institution and the capacity of slaves to challenge it.
Turner’s ‘Confession’, as mediated by Thomas R. Gray, describes events which influenced Turner starting from ‘the days of [his] infancy’, providing an insight into his deeply moral critique of slavery.[8] It is clear from the start that Turner wants his audience to understand the centrality of certain visions he has had over his lifetime, which ‘induced [him] to undertake the late insurrection’.[9] Whilst reporters dismissed these as ‘some hallucination of his imagined spirit of prophecy’,[10] the content of these visions reveals much about Turner’s thought process. Christopher Tomlins terms it a ‘confession of his faith’, which provides an intimate insight into the person of Nat Turner, making it invaluable in assessing Turner’s motivations.[11] The visions reveal Turner’s views on slavery as he emphasises the centrality of the ‘sin’ of white men, and assigns himself the role of delivering the ‘yoke’ that ‘Christ had laid down for the sins of men’.[12] The goal of which would be that ‘the first should be the last and the last should be first’.[13] This reference to the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus is addressing the issue of social inequality, rich vs poor, clearly highlights the link Turner saw with slavery. Turner, therefore, is driven by the hope for ‘justice’ as he repeatedly refers to what is to come as ‘the day of judgement’.[14] Other revelations include similar messages promising the ‘redemption of sinners’ as the ‘saviours hands stretched from east to west…’.[15] Furthermore, the visual imagery of these revelations repeatedly paints a conflict between whiteness and darkness. He saw ‘white spirits and black spirits engaged in battle and the sun darkened’ and ‘there were lights in the sky to which the children of darkness gave other names’.[16] Clearly, by the use of ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’ throughout the text we know that slavery had become racialised by this time, therefore, apart from ‘lightness’ and ‘darkness’ referring to ‘good’ and ‘evil’, these visions may be taken literally to refer to a battle between white and black men. From this we can conclude that what Turner seems to be motivated by is the oppression and ‘sin’ of white men against black men, with his goal being to bring ‘justice’.
Turner’s understanding of justice and the ‘redemption of sinners’ seems to be retributive, although there is evidence of the ‘reformative’ aspect when he converts ‘a white man’, Etheldred T. Brantley, from his 'wickedness'.[17] Turner seems convinced that he is ordained for some ‘great purpose’, but it is his interpretation of the revelations which informs his ‘method’. Historian Henderson notes the heavy influence on Turner of the messianic visions of the New Testament, which ‘advocated retributive justice’, as opposed to the exegesis ‘found typically in slaves’ catechism from the missionaries’, which emphasised Jesus as ‘obedient to his master.’[18] For example, as Turner spends more time ‘praying for light on this subject’, the revelations begin to get more detailed, focusing in particular on ‘blood’: ‘I discovered drops of blood’, ‘the blood of Christ had been shed…’ and ‘blood oozed from the pores’, so that by the time he begins the rebellion, he says, ‘twas my object to carry terror and devastation wherever I went…’.[19] This helps us understand why Turner uses violence. It was the guidance he claims to receive from the revelations which provides his ‘goal’, i.e. justice with a method of expression, namely violent retribution.
Although most of his confession speaks through the ‘language of religion’, it is Turner’s ‘political’ goals, by which I mean an awareness and association with American ideals of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’, that give his religious ideas a concrete reality. Turner does not at any point explicitly condemn his own treatment as a slave. He assures Gray that he had a ‘kind master’ and even his attempt at running away appears to have only been temporary, as he remains in the ‘woods thirty days’ and is convinced by the spirit to ‘return to the service of [his] earthly master’.[20] At the same time, Turner is convinced with the idea that he is ordained with some ‘great purpose’, which reveals his motivations as not being concerned with his immediate personal experiences but the experiences of the broader slave population, implying that he had political motives. Newspaper reports at the time, including for example the Virginia-based Constitutional Whig, reported that Turner announced that ‘the blacks ought to be free and that they would be free one day or another’.[21] Indeed, there are hints of Turner’s attempts at making this rebellion politically symbolic. For example, he says initially ‘it was intended by us to have begun this work of death of the 4th July…’ which suggests that he was trying to make a political statement, just as many abolitionists chose this day as a ‘day of mourning’.[22] Perhaps, Turner intended this to be his own ‘revolution’ as he employs the language of ‘war’ when narrating the rebellion. He says, ‘I saluted them on coming up’, ‘where we paraded’, ‘I formed them in a line of soldiers’ and ‘after carrying them through all the manoeuvres I marched them off…’.[23] Moreover, at his arrest, the Norfolk Herald reported that Turner still believed that he could ‘succeed in conquering the county of Southampton!...as the whites did in the revolution.’[24] Clearly, Turner sees himself as heading some sort of military operation, possibly intended to mimic the American Revolution.
Moreover, the rebellion was not as random and spontaneous as it might appear but seems rather planned. For example, he says ‘many were the plans formed and rejected by us and it affected my mind to such a degree that I fell sick’.[25] The Constitutional Whig reported that Turner would take his men ‘out one at a time and hold long conversations with them’ and his strategy for only telling a few men ‘was that the negroes had frequently attempted similar things…and it always leaked out’.[26] Since Turner is repeatedly described as being able to read and write, notes historian Brian Gabrial, ‘he likely knew of other slave plots and revolts and understood that American abolitionists were sharpening their call for slavery's end.’[27] This suggests that Turner had long thought about his strategy and studied other attempts to organise a sophisticated form of resistance. This is also evident in the way the rebellion is carried out which appears quite systematic, as he ‘ordered them to mount’, ‘took my station in the rear’ and ‘placed the best armed and most relied on at the front’, illustrating the planned and controlled nature of the rebellion, not one carried out in a frenzy by a blood thirsty ‘religious fanatic’.[28]
Those who joined Turner were clearly driven by political motivations with hopes of freedom coupled with vengeance. Indeed, as Aptheker noted, Tuner’s supporters were not ‘deluded wretches and monsters’ but ‘…human beings willing to resort to open struggle in order to get something precious to them—peace, prosperity, [and] liberty.’[29] For example, when Turner asked Will ‘how came he there’, he answered, ‘his life was worth no more than others and his liberty as dear to him’.[30] Others appear to be driven by personal experiences with their masters. In the trials of Jim, Isaac and Preston, Beck a slave witness claims she ‘heard the prisoners…they would join and help kill the white people…that his master had crossed him and that he would be crossed…’, illustrating their desires for joining as rooted in their oppression, not inspired by Turner’s divine religiosity.[31]
Some appear to have been forced to join as the trials of Nathan, Tom and Davy reveal, ‘they went unwillingly…guarded by negroes with guns…’.[32] Although this forms a convenient defence for someone accused of participation, this lack of strong will among Turner’s ‘supporters’ is also evident in the way Turner differentiates his ‘most relied on’ men and earlier says, ‘Jack I knew was only a tool in the hands of Hark’.[33] Turner’s awareness of this reluctance – and his determination to force these men to join – demonstrates his determination to make this a ‘general uprising’, knowing full well the challenge ahead. This again illustrates the strategic side of the rebellion, one not so sure of divine intervention but grounded in reality and pragmatism. Turner’s strategic thinking is also evident when he describes his time in the woods where he seems confused and afraid of the situation, eavesdropping in the houses, trying to gather ‘intelligence’ and being ‘afraid of speaking to any human being’.[34] Clearly at this stage, Turner’s concern seems to be survival. It is only later when Gray questions ‘do you not find yourself mistaken now?’ that he says, ‘was Christ not crucified?’, as if he had always intended to get caught.[35] What this illustrates is that Turner is strategic and pragmatic, not a spontaneous fanatic.
Turner’s moral and political goals bring into sharp relief the broad historical significance of his rebellion, revealing much about the slaveholders and their relationship to slavery. The immediate panic and efforts to calm that panic in the wider community of Southampton and beyond illustrates the slave holders’ inability to come to terms with the inevitability of such a reaction from their slaves. The fact that so many of the Southern reports begin by trying to address the ‘exaggeration’ and ‘rumours’ of previous reports shows their efforts to reassure the public that everything is under control.[36] Yet, as the Constitutional Whig reveals, ‘the exaggerations to which we have alluded are calculated to give the slaves false conceptions of their numbers and capacity’ which demonstrates that the concern about these rumours had to do with the fear of inciting another rebellion than with stating reality.[37] This is more explicitly evident in a later report in the Constitutional Whig where the author writes that ‘some of our citizens will…never again feel safe and be happy. But let us examine into their apprehensions and see if we can administer no comfort’ and goes on to claim that those who fear a general insurrection are ‘ignorant’, that for ‘men, debased and degraded as they are’, it is impossible to organise such a rebellion.[38] This deliberate need to ‘administer comfort’ highlights his attempts at trying to reassure his readers, highlighting the instability and fear that the rebellion generated.
What is also implicit in this is the inability of white Southerners to come to terms with the abilities and grievances of their slaves, which challenges their notion of ‘paternalism’.[39] In the wake of the rebellion, most southern reports were hesitant to admit that the rebels could have had any valid reasons for rebelling, hence their tendency to dismiss it as an isolated event. The Constitutional Whig concludes that ‘it was a sudden and unprepared attack of fanaticism and subtle craft’ and that ‘the ulterior object…is unknown. The more intelligent opinion is that they had none’.[40] Again, the Constitutional Whig says, ‘if there was any ulterior purpose, he probably alone knows it…we still believe there was none’.[41] Another report observes that it was because they ‘took offence at something’ and another believes it was the result of some ‘local cause’ whilst the Richmond Enquirer claims, it was ‘without any cause or provocation’.[42] Some, on the other hand, do address other reasons, for example, the Constitutional Whig explains that it was for revenge against the ‘whites, as the enslavers of himself and his race.’[43] The inconsistency and reluctance of some reports to admit the cause to be slavery shows their inability to come to terms with the failure of their ‘benign’ institution. Perhaps, this is why they seem keen to report the loyalty of those slaves who did not join. For example, the Constitutional Whig insists on ‘passing tribute to our slaves’, boasting about how ‘if the [slaves] had to choose a master it would never be a black one’.[44] These efforts of reassurance and reluctance to take responsibility demonstrate the way Turner threatened to expose the façade of paternalism that had helped the slave owners satisfy their conscience.
In contrast, reports in the North, such as the abolitionist paper The Liberator, openly blame slavery and point to the inevitability of such rebellions, remarking ‘the oppressor and the oppressed equal in death’, blaming ‘patriotic hypocrites’.[45] The only solution being ‘IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION’.[46] On the other hand, southern reports blame ‘missionaries’ and ‘philanthropists’ who are ‘preaching up equality’.[47] The Governor of Virginia singles out the ‘principally northern’, claiming it’s the ‘Yankee population…pedlers and traders’ who preach that ‘the black man was as good as the white’.[48] This illustrates the way the slavery issue fuelled sectional conflict as the Southerners felt threatened by the growth of abolitionism in the North, which they believed was influencing slaves.[49] Moreover, the rebellion also forced Southerners to debate the possibility of gradual abolition as the Virginia Governor writes, ‘I will not rest until slavery is abolished in Virginia’.[50] Indeed, following the rebellion, a committee was established to debate the gradual abolition of slavery, although one that did not condemn slavery as a ‘breach of moral or political ideals', but one more concerned with the political and economic consequences.[51] Nevertheless, the rebellion was significant in providing legitimacy to Northern abolitionists and forcing the issue of slavery to the forefront of political debate, fuelling the already increasing sectional conflict.
To conclude, Turner’s rebellion was motivated by his refusal to accept the oppression of his race. His emotions are expressed through the language of religion in ideas about ‘sin’, ‘justice’ and ‘retribution’, which guide the ‘essence’ of his rebellion, inspiring him to undertake a ‘great purpose’. This does not, however, detract from the political sophistication of the rebellion which was planned, strategic and validated by ‘political’ and ‘secular’ ideas of liberty. This means that although Turner uses religious language to narrate the event, this did not depoliticize and reduce his efforts to an outburst of ‘religious fanaticism’. Moreover, the reaction of the wider community reveals much about the relationship of white southerners to slavery. The panic and rumours that follow the rebellion reveal its destabilising effects, especially the inability of white southerners to question the unjust nature of their institution and the ability of slaves to challenge it. Turner’s rebellion, though temporarily, forces the community to reflect and debate on the issue of slavery and consider the possibility of emancipation.
The resonance of Turner’s rebellion remains profound. As Americans today face black protest and violence, such as the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, they again struggle to recognize these as conscious challenges to racial inequality and abuse, often dismissing them in the words of President Trump, as forms of ‘crime and violence’ carried out by ‘Thugs’.[52] Just like white Virginians almost two centuries ago, the government fails to see black protest as a deliberate political act. Nevertheless, Turner’s persistence and determination was ultimately successful, sparking a vigorous debate on slavery. It is to be hoped that current protests, triggered by racial violence, would similarly inspire a broad movement to fundamentally eradicate racial inequalities in the U.S. today.
Notes: [1] Scot French, The Rebellious Slave: Nat Turner in American Memory, (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004). For media representations, see for example, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Dred: A Tale of the Dismal Swamp (1856); G. P. R. James, The Old Dominion, (1859); William Styron, The Confessions of Nat Turner (1967); Sherley Anne Williams, Dessa Rose, (1986), amongst others. [2] Thomas Higginson, Nat Turner Insurrection, (Atlantic Monthly, 1861) ref. in The Nat Turner Rebellion: The Historical Event and the Modern Controversy, eds. John B. Duff and Peter M. Mitchell, (New York: Harper and Row, 1971),p.52. [3] Bobby Seale, Chip Faces Death in Fascist Trial, Black Panther Community Newsletter, (Southern California Chapter), March 11, 1970 in Jakobi Williams, From the Bullet to the Ballot, (University of North Carolina press, 2013), p.5-6. [4] William Drewry, The Southampton Insurrection, (Washington, The Neal Company, 1900), p.26. [5] Herbert Aptheker, Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion: Including the 1831 Confessions, (Mineola NY: Dover Publications, 2006), p.35&46. [6] William Styron, The Confessions of Nat Turner, (Random House, 1967). John Clarke, The Second Crucifixion of Nat Turner, (Black Classic Press, 1997). [7] John Clarke, p.viii. [8] Thomas R. Gray, ‘The Confessions of Nat Turner’, (Baltimore: Lucas and Dearer Print, 1831) in The Confessions of Nat Turner: And Other Related Documents, eds. Kenneth S. Greenberg, (Palgrave Macmillan, 1996).p.42. [9] Ibid. [10] Randolph Ferguson Scully, ‘I Come Here Before You Did and I Shall Not Go Away’: Race, Gender and Evangelical Community on the Eve of the Nat Turner Rebellion, (Journal of the Early Republic, Vol.7, No.4, 2007),p.630. [11] Christopher Tomlins, In the Matter of Nat Turner: A Speculative History, (Princeton University Press, 2020), p.43. [12] The Confessions, p.46. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid., p.45. [15] Ibid., p.45. [16] Ibid., p.44-45. [17] Ibid., p.45. [18] Errol Henderson, The Revolution Will Not Be Theorised: Cultural Revolution in the Black Power Era, (SUNY Press, 2019), p.110. [19] The Confessions, p44-45,49. [20] Ibid.,44-46. [21] The Constitutional Whig, September 26, 1831, p.79. [22] The Confessions, p.39. James Colaiaco, Fredrick Douglass and the Fourth of July, (St Martin’s Publishing Group, 2015). [23] The Confessions, p46-47. [24] The Norfolk Herald, November 4, 1831, p.86. [25] The Confessions, p.46. [26] The Constitutional Whig, September 26, 1831, p.80. [27] Brian Gabrial, From Haiti to Nat Turner: Racial Panic Discourse during the Nineteenth Century Partisan Press Era, (American Journalism, 30:3, 2013), p.348. [28] The Confessions, p.49 [29] Herbert Aptheker, p.5. [30] The Confessions, p.46. [31] Excerpts from the Court Records of Southampton County, p.97. [32] Ibid., p.94. [33] The Confession, p.46. [34] Ibid., p.51. [35] Ibid., p46. [36] See for example, The Constitutional Whig, September 26, 1831 and The Richmond Compiler, August 24, 1831. [37] The Constitutional Whig, September 3, 1831, p70-71. [38] The Constitutional Whig, September 26, 1831, p.76-78. [39] Eugene Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974) and Walter Johnson, Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market, (Harvard University Press, 1999). [40] The Constitutional Whig, August 29, 1831, p.64. [41] The Constitutional Whig, September 3, 1831, p.74. [42] The Richmond Enquirer, August 30, 1831, p.66. [43] The Constitutional Whig, September 3, 1831, p.74. [44] The Constitutional Whig, September 26, 1831, p.81. [45] The Liberator, September 3, 1831, p.68. [46] Ibid., p70. [47] The Constitutional Whig, September 26, 1831, p.78. [48] John Floyd, Letter from Virginia Governor to South Carolina Governor James Hamilton Jr., November 19, 1831, p.108. [49] Louis P. Masur, ‘Nat Turner and Sectional Crisis’ in Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, eds. Kenneth S. Greenberg, (Oxford University Press USA, 2003). [50] The Diary of Virginia Governor John Floyd, December 1831, p.106. [51] Joseph C. Robert, The Road from Monticello: A Study of the Virginia Slavery Debate of 1832, (Kessinger Publishing, 2010). [52] David Smith, ‘He is a destroyer’, (The Guardian, June 2020). Bibliography: Primary Sources: Kenneth S. Greenberg, The Confessions of Nat Turner: And Other Related Documents, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996: · John Floyd, Letter from Virginia Governor to South Carolina Governor James Hamilton Jr., November 19, 1831. · The Constitutional Whig, August 29, 1831. · The Constitutional Whig, September 26, 1831. · The Constitutional Whig, September 3, 1831. · The Diary of Virginia Governor John Floyd, December 1831. · The Liberator, September 3, 1831. · The Norfolk Herald, November 4, 1831 · The Richmond Compiler, August 24, 1831. · The Richmond Enquirer, August 30, 1831. · Thomas R. Gray, The Confessions of Nat Turner, (Baltimore: Lucas and Dearer Print, 1831). Bobby Seale, Chip Faces Death in Fascist Trial, Black Panther Community Newsletter, March 11, 1970 in Jakobi Williams, From the Bullet to the Ballot, University of North Carolina press, 2013. Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Nat Turner Insurrection, Atlantic Monthly, 1861 in The Nat Turner Rebellion: The Historical Event and the Modern Controversy’, eds. John B. Duff and Peter M. Mitchell, New York: Harper and Row, 1971. Secondary Sources: Aptheker Herbert, Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion: Including the 1831 Confessions, Mineola New York: Dover Publications, 2006. Clarke John Henrik, The Second Crucifixion of Nat Turner, Black Classic Press, 1997. Colaiaco James A., Fredrick Douglass and the Fourth of July, St Martin’s Publishing Group, 2015. Drewry William Sidney, The Southampton Insurrection, Washington, The Neal Company, 1900. Duff John B. and Mitchell Peter M., The Nat Turner Rebellion: the historical event and the modern controversy, Harper & Row, 1971. French Scot, ‘The Rebellious Slave: Nat Turner in American Memory’, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004. Gabrial Brian, From Haiti to Nat Turner: Racial Panic Discourse during the Nineteenth Century Partisan Press Era, American Journalism, 30:3, 2013. Genovese Eugene, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made, New York: Pantheon Books, 1974. Henderson Errol A., The Revolution Will Not Be Theorised: Cultural Revolution in the Black Power Era, SUNY Press, 2019. Johnson Walter, Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market, Harvard University Press, 1999. Masur Louis P., Nat Turner and Sectional Crisis in Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, eds. Kenneth S. Greenberg, Oxford University Press USA, 2003. Robert Joseph C., The Road from Monticello: A Study of the Virginia Slavery Debate of 1832, Kessinger Publishing, 2010. Scully Randolph Ferguson, ‘I Come Here Before You Did and I Shall Not Go Away’: Race, Gender and Evangelical Community on the Eve of the Nat Turner Rebellion, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol.7, No.4, 2007. Smith David, He is a destroyer, The Guardian, June 2020. Styron William, The Confessions of Nat Turner, Random House, 1967. Tomlins Christopher, In the Matter of Nat Turner: A Speculative History, Princeton University Press, 2020.
留言