Talk:Nat Turner/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The page linked to by the "The Confessions of Nat Turner" reference is the wrong one, but I'm not sure what the right one should be. 83.67.201.204 12:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks right to me. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Nat Turner is regarded as a hero by large numbers of African Americans... Whaaat? I'd wager that the vast majority of African Americans have never even heard of Nat Turner, much less regard him as a hero. Kwertii 01:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Remove a vast majority from a large population - what remains can still be a large number - hundreds of thousands, depending upon the numbers. Leonard G. 03:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This cannot be right: "Nat Turner and his fighters traveled from slave plantation to slave plantation, freeing slave owners and their families."

Bartosz 18:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would free blacks be part of a slave rebellion?

While free blacks were in a better legal position than slaves, they were not equal to whites legally or socially in the antebellum south. Most whites viewed all blacks, free and slave, as a single (inferior) category, and many of the legal and social disabilities that applied to slaves also applied to free blacks, either de jure or de facto. In addition, most free blacks were former slaves themselves, and had friends and family still in bondage. They would have been intimately acquainted with the system and injustices. --Jfruh (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It said they hanged him AND they skinned him.... isnt the later a bit unnecessary?

If they skinned him it should be in there.. slavery was and is not a pretty thing, the brutality of skinning some one says alot about the people of the time

Contents

Nat Turner

Nat Turner is well known by many blacks, and is considered a hero,

Naming Conventions

Concerning the naming, nis name wasn't Nathaniel Turner, with nickname Nat. His name was Nat, slaves were given shortened nicknames like that and weren't allowed last names. That could be considered a way of dehumanizing them. I appreciate calling him Nathaniel if you want to undo that dehumanization, but it's inaccurate, no one ever called him that in any documents. I think it's more humanizing to give his name as it was and to keep in mind the indignity of not even being allowed a full name. As far as the last name it was exceptional that he was often recognized by the last name of his first master 'Turner' Oates suggests that this was because of his precocity as a child, he was know as 'Turner's smart little slave Nat' and it stuck. On trial documents he was recognized as "Nat alias 'Nat Turner'" I'm going to change it to that. If someone else has different ideas on this or if I don't know what I'm talking about I welcome you to argue the point. Erik Herron 2:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) :)

"POV"

Someone keeps RVing my edits saying that they're "POV." My edits are:

1) I state that if Turner's rebellion occurred in modern America, it would be probably be labeled a mass murder

2) I state that because the slaves did not want to alert whites to their presence, they killed with blunt objects, axes, and knives. This is a matter of historical fact

3) I state that among the victims of the rebellion were several women and children; that one mother was hacked into pieces with an axe before her child, and that the child was decapitated before his mother; and that slaves attempted to slice apart an eight-months pregnant woman, but that a slave loyal to that woman's family saved here. These, too, are matters of historical fact; information on points 2 and three are derived from "The Fires of Jubilee" by Stephen Oates, which documents in great detail the murders and victims. Point one is culled from the FBI Crime Classification Manual's section on mass murder. Arguably, it could also be called a spree killing. 69.154.189.137 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. You say "The rebellion is not only notable for the above stated reasons, but also for its gristliness". You may find it notable for that reason, but unless you can find a source that finds the event notable for that reason, then it's just your opinion. Phrases like "hacked to bits" are obviously unencyclopedic and POV. Saying the precise way each victim died ("a teenage girl who was stabbed to death, a small boy who was decapitated, and the boy's mother, who was chopped into pieces with an axe in front of her son") doesn't give the reader any useful information about Nat Turner, but only serves to be sensationalistic. Remember: the goal here is to make an article about Nat Turner, not to get a reaction out of people. – Quadell (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to observations about naming

Actually there was no universal system governing the question of whether slaves had surnames or not. It depended on local usage and the whims of a number of individuals, including the master and whatever clerk, secretary or clergyman was deputed to record the names of newborns. Many slaves were automatically assigned the surname of their master. Others had a surname arbitrarily assigned to them or one that originated from a nickname. Those who did have a surname assigned to them would more commonly than not retain the same surname when and if they acquired a new master. Some were assigned a surname at birth but never or seldom used it. Still others were known simply by a given name; as has been pointed out on this site, sme masters didn't want their slaves to have surnames because they thought it conferred too much dignity on the slave and might make the slave insubordinate. There was no unformity. We have to remember that under slavery, the master and people who worked for the master, had an authority to decide all kinds of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.29.149 (talk) 04:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

inspecific content

"In the end, no slave uprising before or after inflicted such a severe blow to the ranks of slave owners in the United States. Nat Turner is regarded as a hero by large numbers of African Americans and pan-Africanists worldwide."

I'm not sure what the first sentence means by "severe blow to the ranks of slave owners" - looks to me from the article that the rebellion actually entrenched the legal status of slavery. Also, who exactly are the large numbers of African Americans who regard him as a hero? It would do better to say "Some African Americans, such as Professor So-and-So regard him as a hero." Shuageo 03:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Good questions. It was a severe blow in that it scared slave owners across the state and beyond, and the state even considered outlawing slavery (and all black people) as a result. It ended up rigidifying the institution of slavery, but it was a severe blow to slave owners. Maybe the sentence could be reworded, I dunno.
As for being a hero, here are some sources: In the documentary "Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property", Alvin Poussaint and Ossie Davis recall how Nat Turner became a hero in the Black community, according to [1]. A New York Times article[2] begins "Hero or villain? In 1831 Nat Turner led the bloodiest slave revolt in American history. He has variously been viewed as a religious visionary fighting a terrible evil, as a figure of liberation or as a murderous fanatic." Maxine Jones of Florida State University wrote "Turner emerges as an inspiring hero and revolutionary to some, and as a villain and cold-blooded murderer of women and children to others." NPR reported "For [documentary film-maker] Burnett, Turner is a heroic American figure." – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 04:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, isn't someone who liberates you a hero. A hero often is one who saves another. Either saving them from a room being engulfed by fires or drowning or something. For him not to be a Hero would have to stem from white bias minds that believe that white people shouldn't have been harmed to free the slaves. Arn't civil rights leaders heros? The ones that fought, arn't they heros? They killed white people, so why is it different when a black man does it? It basically proves the point of America believing that whit is right, even when a black person did it first he was wrong but when white people they're right. Quit tryna look like a damn god and a liberater because every the white family has gone there has been massive bloodshed, pillaging, and diseases spread. Greedy ass bastards. I got bias, but I also distributed facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.244.36 (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations and rewrite discussion

This article needs to be extensively re-written, as it currently copies extensively from Turner's biography at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3p1518.html and violates their copyright. I am loathe to remove the obvious violations, though, as they're the "meat" of the article.--Chuckhoffmann 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

don't wager a lot

I'm an African American and I have heard of Nat Turner. The subject is assessed in introductory U.S. history in the state of VA, so I'm sure that many other's have been exposed to the information. And yes, he is somewhat of a hero. Slavery was war, and in war the commanders are heroes. Remember Haiti? Southeners veiwed Stonewall Jackson as a hero. He was a racist and a murderer. Im not advocating the violence; I'm just placing it in a different perspective. Nat Turner killed for the abolitionist cause, Harriet Tubman was more peace full in the escape. Nat Turner had a birst of frustration that day, set out to kill 8 whites, and was then hanged. His death left people sad. By Bailey Herbert

You asked "Remember Haiti?" Well, no, sadly, most Americans don't. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Side Note; Someone left a comment on this page that was blatantly racist and not in any way constructive, for this reason I deleted it.

Slaves produced slavery

Former Russian leader Khruschev expressed the notion that ending slavery would be a good way to employ nuclear weapons. Slavery will never end in the United States as long as powerful people employ their military power to keep Negroes here. Slaves were so weak that they could never stage a real fight. They needed weapons other than some axes and some knives. Since nuclear weapons were invented, Europe has been without a major war. People are afraid of Russia and the Hydrogen bombs that Russia possesses. Lebensraum is now being pursued in Africa where the weaklings exist. Slaves have produced slavery throughout history by being weaker than other stronger people who were seeking to enslave them. Nat Turner was a mentally-unbalanced slave, he was not powerful leader like Napoleon Bonaparte had been. The article is too lengthy. People are making a mountain out of a molehill. The article should not exceed one paragraph in length. There is no need to delve into the passing event, inasmuch as it accomplished nothing. The article resembles an April Fool's joke. 71.240.30.93 16:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of nuclear weapons would be foolish on the count that it would destroy the slave and the slave master. Also the slave, from the Atlantic Slave Trade, was tricked into being a slave. He thought that he would live better then the king in his native land did, if he came with John Hawkins. Then they were put in camps to where their minds were affected and made useless to think for themselves and made them dependable. How can someone weak build America as strong as it is. That means that all other nations are truly weak then sense America is the Strongest built on the back of a weak slave. Also are the pyramids weak? Slaves ancestors built that. As the evolution theory proves generations get stronger, not weaker. Please respond.

It would seem the first paragraph is a racial comment really. Slave revolts were part of history, regardless of what caused them. The first paragraph could be included as an OPINION, but not something as fact. Why "Slavery will never end in the United States..." Slavery no longer exists. There may be racial differences but there is no more slavery in the U.S. I really don't get what you (in first paragraph) are trying to say.

(Third paragraph) Slavery does exist in America. In order for one to be a slave they must be dominated by an influence or person. The poor are dominated by the rich. The rich are in high places so they give decisions in order for them to stay rich while they give decisions for the poor to stay poor. The majority of the poor will grow up and still be poor. That's domination by the rich because the rich don't work, or seldomly do. The poor works for the rich man which makes the rich man richer. A poor man can't work for another poor man, they're too poor to have anything to market.

Nat Turner's Education

According to the 2001 edition of World Book, Nat Turner was taught to read and write by the son of one of his masters. In this Wikipedia article, it is stated, "picking up the ability to read without being taught". Which account of his education is correct?

No one knows. According to Stephen Oates Fires of Jubilee, it remains unknown how Turner learned to read; speculation points to his childhood friend, who was indeed one of the master's sons, but this remains nothing more than speculation, and could be a revisionist attempt to downplay what seemed to be Turner's preternatural intelligence.209.169.114.213 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nobody, no matter how intelligent, just spontaneously learns how to read unless someone literate teaches them. That teaching may be in an informal way, but you don't just magically become literate by being smart and staring at words on a page. Since (I believe) it was illegal to teach slaves how to read, his master's son is a good bed as to his teacher, though of course it's fully possible that there were other illegallyl literate slaves or free blacks who may have taught him as well. --Jfruh (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An Article on Nat Turner

I'm considering on creating an article (from scratch) on Nat Turner. Sr13 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just edit this one? Some re-wording to deal with the copyright, clear up the points discussed above, and Bob's your uncle. Totnesmartin 12:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This article does need a complete rewrite. The fact is that there is no piece of documented evidence for which contradictions cannot be found regarding the life of Nat Turner. As Herbert Aptheker says in his book “Concerning the Turner Revolt there is unanimity on two things, and only on two things. First, all agree it took place, or, at least, started in Southampton County and, second, that the leader was Nat Turner”. Because of the ambiguity and the drama of his actions various different groups have used him to justify their views and have added to the narrative of his life in order to do so. For instance there are reports of him learning to read spontaneously, being taught by his parents, and by his master's family. Regardless of likelihood, each serves a particular bias and none could be ducumented as correct.

The article name can remain the same, but a better way of thinking of the article might be, 'the legacy of Nat Turner.' I'd like to work on it, but am in the middle of finals now (writing a paper on Nat Turner incodentally). But I think doing justice to a man whose meaning-of-life has been hijacked by so many others is important and can be accomplished by an unbiased and informative article. Erik Herron 5:59, 03 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This article definitely has issues with items that are either original research or are from sources uncited. The "Consequences" sections seems especially problematic in that realm. Mwelch 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Turner Descendant

I am a descendant of Nat Turner's family in Southhampton County, specifically Branchville, and am looking for other relatives. Any other family members, please email me at Newsmania2002@yahoo.com 68.99.251.133 07:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits on March 13, 2007

Today another editor decided to revert several recent edits without any explanation. I reverted those edits, and here's why:

  • Lede - I think the earlier change by the anonymous editor ("His methodical slaughter ... makes his legacy controversial" rather than " His methodical slaughter .. made him a controversial figure") is an improvement, especially since the second half of the sentence also discusses his modern legacy: "but he is still considered by many to be a heroic figure of black resistance to oppression." That's why I restored the language.
  • Further reading - I think that The Confessions of Nat Turner should be appropriately attributed to Thomas Gray, who wrote the book, and not to Nat. The book begins and ends with material by Gray, and the confession is clearly not written in Nat's language (e.g., "we found no more victims to gratify our thirst for blood"). Gray may have started with Nat's language, but the final product is clearly Gray's. The fact that Gutenberg calls it a work by Nat Turner is bad, but Wikipedia shouldn't make the same mistake. That's why I put it back in "Further reading" with Gray as the author.
  • Further reading - I think that the book by Oates should be included with all the other books cited as "Further reading." I don't think the fact that one editor found it in Google Books shouldn privilege it above the other books to be listed alone as an "External link." Furthermore, I don't know whether Google Books is considered WP:COPYVIO. That's why I put Oates back in "Further reading" without the link to Google Books. If Google Books isn't WP:COPYVIO, we can put back the link, but I think it should stay in "Further reading" along with all the other books, not in "External links" with shorter articles.
  • External links - There were two external links, to About.com and PBS.org, that I restored.

Rather than start an edit war, I wanted to lay out an explanation of why I reverted another editor's changes, although I still wonder why he reverted two other editors' changes without any explanation or edit summary. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, sorry. The only thing I meant to do was restore the Gutenberg link. I must have hit edit while viewing in an old edit version. Sorry. -- Stbalbach 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I over-reacted, but many editors have very strong feelings about this article and Nat Turner's slave rebellion and I wanted to discuss the changes we both made rather than start an edit war. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted edits on April 17

I deleted the following contribution by MZZ DEB from the article today:

It was at a ‘tender’ age that Nat began to have visions and although it was not legal for African Americans to read or write, he performed this feat on his own. It was divine inspiration that led him to his purpose in life which began by preaching and teaching his fellow slaves. His “Black” brethren lauded him to be a prophet, and yet his white counterparts thought him to be nothing more than a mere “heathen.”
Through his confessions, Nat recanted that those persons responsible for teaching him to pray, saw that this young man, although quite “gifted” would not make a good slave. Nat tried his hand at the art of taking clay and molding it into various works. He was, simply stated, not very good at this undertaking, but he could make a fair wage out of these art forms if it were needed.
Nat fully believed that he was put on this earth for a special assignment from God. Once while attending to the crops Nat saw “great” drops of blood on the corn, He saw hieroglyphic symbols and numbers. He saw “men in different attitudes” and other impressions which represented the things of heaven. His discoveries only strengthened his convictions and his belief that he was placed here to do God’s will. So Nat began his mission by the enlistment of a few choice men. This too, he claimed was revealed to him by the “Holy Spirit”.
His fellow servants had reservations about his “visions,” from God but through his communications with the Holy Spirit they soon saw the wisdom in his wise sayings. After being placed with an overseer, Nat ran away for the span of 30 days and surreptitiously remained in the woods the whole duration of that time. Nat believed himself to be in another part of the country, but was led by the Holy Spirit to return to the overseer. Regardless of his circumstances, he fully believed it to be “The Almighty” himself who led “ordered” his steps.
References
http://www.pbs.org/wghh/aia/part3/3hfoot.html. “The Confessions of Nat Turner”
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1826-1850/slavery/confesxx.htm. The Confessions of Nat Turner (1 Index (7).
http://www.melannt.com. Confessions of Nat Turner.
http://www.spartacus.schhlnet.co.uk/USASturner.htm. Nat Turner.

The material was inserted after the William Styron Confessions, which was the wrong place for it. I also think its tone sounds like it was copied and pasted from another source. If the material is retained, the references need to be placed in the appropriate place.

There may be some valuable material here, but I don't have the time to go through it all now. (I did notice that some it is already in the article.) Maybe somebody else can review it and add it to the appropriate places. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Verification of sources

A query on the figure cited for the number of victims murdered during the rebellion; 57 is quoted, with the reference being Oates, Stephen B. (1990 [1975]) The fires of jubilee : Nat Turner's fierce rebellion. New York: HarperPerennial ISBN 0-06-091670-2. However, if one consults Thomas R. Gray 'The Confessions of Nat Turner' (Baltimre, 1831), the section which contains his trial record, 'The Commonwealth, vs. Nat Turner', states under the list of persons murdered the total to be 55. Which is the correct figure? (Pienienkeli 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Comment: While I appreciate the discussion (within the section of the article on capture) of the questions surrounding the veracity of the 1831 "Confessions of Nat Turner" as published in pamphlet form by Thomas Gray, there are also earlier citations to that text within the article. Would it be possible to direct attention to these concerns earlier in the article, perhaps with the first such citation? Also, where citations are noted as still needed for the discussion of accuracy/POV in Gray's "Confessions," David Allmendinger's piece in the Greenberg anthology could prove apt. --Historytrain 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


plagiarism

Hmmm... I'm sorry to say this but, this has the same exact info as another site. Was this just a coincidence? I don't think so. Here is the site if you don't believe me. Nat Turner Okay. Thanks. I hope this helps.

Actually, I see that there is a citation to wikipedia. This means someone over there is plagiarising this site. WikiDelete 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)WikiDelete, Instant deletion!

Mulatto?

There is speculation that Nat Turner was a mulatto fathered by his slave master 74.185.0.47 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brantley

Turner not only influenced Brantley to change his ways but also was baptized together with Nat. They submerged themselves in a pond at the same time in fornt of an audience. This was unthinkable in those times of inequality where baptism occurred seperately by race. The community made them social pariahs and Brantley would have to move away. This was not only significant in that a white and black were baptized at the same time and in the same water but Brantley was an overseer whoom was supposed to look upon slaves as inferior, not as equals. "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" pages 59-9. 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

Abuse

Also not mentioned in this history is the question of abuse. Nat had scars on temple and back. In addiiton to a large knot on his right arm near his wrist. While the "Richmond Enquirer" dismissed them as injuries from fights, Wiliam Lloyd Garrison made the case they were clearly signs of abuse by his slavemaster. One should examine the argument of Garrison to decide which is likely. "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" F. ROy Johnson Page 52. 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)130.127.108.56 (talk)Collective Conscious

"singular"

I wouldnt say Nat's intelligence is singular. John Clark Turner, son of Sam Turner Nat's master was Nat's age at the time. During this time, it was normal for the youth of salves to be the play friends of the master's son. So tey probably hung out together. In fact William S. Dewey stated "it is well known that Mr. J.C. Turner, his (Nat's) young master, gave him instruction, assisted by Nat's parents." "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" F. Roy Johnson Page 18 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)130.127.108.56 (talk)Collective Conscious

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.108.56 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in indiscriminate killings

Nat did let a white family live at Lehi Waller's house. A slave named Davy stated that he witnessed Nat did not kill one white family. Nat stated to Davy as his reason, "they thought no better of themselves than they did of the negroes." F. Roy johnson "The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion" Page 98 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious