(no subject)

[lizzybennet]

Type your cut contents here.

Nat Turner: Reflections in History

 

            In August of1831, the slave Nat Turner led a short-lived but bloody rebellion against the white population of Southampton County, Virginia. The insurrection began in the early morning hours with only a handful of men. Two days later, by the time the rebellion had been quashed, approximately 55 whites had been slaughtered and the rebels had grown to an estimated 40 men strong. Nat Turner eluded capture for several weeks, leading to public anxiety that more rebellions were on the horizon. When Nat Turner was finally captured, he was tried, convicted and executed within a very short amount of time. However, before he was executed his story was recorded by Thomas Gray in The Confessions of Nat Turner. Thomas Gray’s work is very controversial in and of itself because there is no way to know how much of the words are actually Nat Turner’s, and how much is due to Grey’s artistic license. Regardless of this complication, The Confessions is the only primary source available that records Nat Turner’s story in full. Therefore, historians have been forced to rely on The Confessions in any attempt they may undertake to study Nat Turner and the Southampton rebellion. Some historians have looked to other sources, such as contemporary newspaper articles, eye witness accounts, or oral and folk histories; however The Confessions still remains critical when attempting to study Nat Turner and the Southampton rebellion.

            Despite this limitation in primary sources, there has still been a vast array of opinions regarding Nat Turner and his rebellion. Part of the reasoning for this lies in the fact that Nat Turner’s memory is often invoked by writers in support of various causes. I find it fascinating that even with the limited number of primary sources Nat Turner’s character has been interpreted in so many different ways.

            One of the first historical accounts of the Southampton Rebellion is generally considered to be Thomas Wentworth Higginson’s article for the Atlantic Monthly. Higginson wrote his article in 1861, only 30 years after the Rebellion and in the midst of the South’s secession. It is worth noting that Higginson was a fervent abolitionist, as well as a minister. For his sources, he depended on oral accounts, The Confessions, and contemporary accounts.

            Higginson portrayed Nat Turner as an intelligent, religious man who had been brutalized by the institution of slavery. He dismissed the claim that Nat Turner’s master was kind, and instead chose to speculate about the causes of the scars on his body. He also discussed the fact that Nat Turner’s wife belonged to a different master. Although he admitted that we have no way of knowing how Nat Turner felt about this, he indulged in speculation that “by day or night [Nat Turner] had no …power to protect her. She may be reverenced, she may be outraged; it is in the powerlessness that the agony lies.”[1] As for Nat Turner’s visions and prophecies, Higginson declared that they are “genuine as the average of such things and very well expressed.”[2] Through Higginson’s depiction, Nat Turner becomes a righteous—yet not fanatical—warrior against the injustice of slavery. Higginsworth also believed that Nat Turner’s plans were well laid out and that his rebellion would, and perhaps should, have been successful if not for the fateful stop at the Parker plantation. To Higginson, Nat Turner had “devoted himself soul and body to the cause of his race, without a trace of personal hope or fear.”[3] Higginson felt that Nat Turner had been engaged in a righteous fight against the evils of slavery.  His abolitionist views clearly shine through in his account of the rebellion.

            Forty years later, in 1900, William Drewry published his book The Southampton Insurrection. Drewry was a native of Southampton County and his family had lived there for several generations. His book is controversial for several reasons. First, he interviewed over 80 witnesses. Some of these witnesses had been living during the rebellion and others were descendents of those who had lived through it. His dependency on oral history has been highly criticized. Not only did he utilize these oral histories extensively throughout his book, but he failed to document them very well. Therefore, often the reader has no way to know where he got his facts from. Also, he concluded his book with the proclamation that slavery was a benign institution that benefited the Negro population. His strong opinions have generally caused his work to be dismissed by many scholars as too prejudice to be taken seriously.

            The Nat Turner depicted in Drewry’s book stands in bold contrast to Higginson’s portrayal. No longer is he a brave, righteous warrior. In Drewry’s hands, Nat Turner becomes a brilliant lunatic who was spoiled by indulgent masters. Drewry supported his claim of Nat Turner’s insanity by hinting that psychosis ran in his family.[4] He asserted that at the time of the rebellion, Nat Turner had “been faithful and highly trusted…In fact, he was quite unrestricted, and, being a preacher, was allowed many privileges.”[5] This relative amount of freedom allowed Nat Turner to plan and instigate the insurrection. Drewry also focused on Nat Turner’s childhood and discussed in depth the fact that his parents and grandparents taught him that he had a great purpose in life. He was also taught that he was a prophet. This encouragement, combined with his mind’s attempt “to grapple with things beyond its reach” led him to become “bewildered, confused and …finally deluded.”[6] By devoting so much time and attention to Nat Turner’s mental health, Drewry sought to establish that Nat Turner’s actions were no more than those of a lunatic. According to Drewry’s conclusions, there was no innate desire for freedom, he was not mistreated, nor was he seeking to right the wrongs against his race. Nat Turner was a simple minded negro who drove himself mad by trying to understand issues which were impossible for his mind to comprehend.

            Drewry’s principal critic was Herbert Aptheker.[7] Aptheker was a Marxist historian who took a revisionist point of view towards the stereotype of the complacent slave. In 1943, Aptheker published his book American Negro Slave Rebellions. In it, Aptheker presented his argument that Nat Turner’s rebellion was not a unique phenomenon. He argued that the idea that Negros had accepted slavery was absurd. He believed that American slaves had been in almost a constant state of rebellion since the beginning of the practice. According to Aptheker, Nat Turner was just one in a long line of rebels seeking to obtain his freedom.

            Aptheker argued that Nat Turner was not out for personal revenge. Nat felt he was called by God for a great purpose – to lead his people to freedom. He contended that Nat Turner was “a highly intelligent man who finds it impossible to accept the status quo and discovers his rationalization for his rebellious feelings in religion.”[8] Aptheker’s Marxist thought also surfaced in his portrayal of Nat Turner. He believed that the rebellion was not merely a coincidence. Instead, Nat Turner had been influenced by “economic depression, sociological maladjustment, uncertainty, [and] fast and vast changes.”[9] In other words, Nat Turner’s rebellion was a manifestation of the social ills and suppression that his people had been under for so many generations. He “sought the liberation of the Negro people”[10] out from under the oppressive reign of their white masters.

            Forty years later, in 1981, Vincent Harding published an essay that agreed with Aptheker’s theoy of social unrest. He asserted that there had been a “river of struggle…slowly, steadily developing its black power beneath the rough surfaces of the new nation.”[11] As an scholar of African American studies, Professor Harding has written many books and essays regarding black Americans and their struggle for freedom. However, Harding also believed that Nat Turner’s deep religious convictions allowed him to amass a following among the slave population, as well as earn the respect of the white community. He asserted that Nat Turner strongly felt the righteousness of his cause. He also discussed the idea that Nat Turner probably shared the popular nineteenth-century belief of Christ’s second coming to earth. He may have felt he had a role in ushering in the new millennium by ridding the world of evil. After Nat Turner had his vision of black and white spirits fighting in the heavens, “he was clear about who the enemy of righteousness was and who were the servants of the devil.”[12] Harding feels strongly about the freedom and civil rights of African Americans; this is clear in the amount of literature he has produced on the subject. In writing the history of Nat Turner, Harding has almost projected the modern African Americans’ struggle into the story. There is no discussion of possible complacency in the institution of slavery—that isn’t even considered an option. Nat Turner was a righteous warrior, leading his people in a battle against evil.

            Historian Patrick Breen also writes about the importance of religion in Nat Turner’s life, but not necessarily to the rebellion. In his essay “A Prophet in His Own Land”, Breen argues that Turner’s life was focused on his religious devotion and his belief that he was a prophet. He asserts that from a very early age, Nat Turner was expected by both his family and the black community to be a great spiritual leader. In turn, Breen contends that Nat Turner felt a great pressure to live up to this expectation. Not only did he devote himself to fervent prayer, but he also felt he must avoid mixed society and wrap himself in mystery. After he heard the voice of the Lord speak to him, he himself finally became convinced of what the black community had long believed: he was a prophet. He continued to build up a following in the community until an event occurred that undermined his reputation in the eyes of his fellow slaves. He ran away and thirty days later he voluntarily returned to his master. According to Breen, the slave community could not believe that God would command a slave to return to his master, as Nat Turner claimed He had done. His status as prophet was irreparably damaged.         Another example that Breen sites to back up his idea that Nat Turner no longer had any disciples was his baptism of a white man named Brantley. According to The Confessions, Nat Turner related that there was a large crowd of both blacks and white who were “reviling” the baptism.[13] Breen argues that by baptizing a white man, Nat Turner further undermined his authority in the eyes of the black community, as well as damaged his credibility with the white community. Once Turner received his vision of the black and white spirits battling in heaven, his focus suddenly shifted to fighting the evils of slavery. It was after this vision, when he began preaching against slavery, that the black community began to take interest in his teachings again. However, while his followers were preparing for a fight against the institution of slavery, Nat Turner was preparing to fight a religious war. The men who followed him into battle were not his religious disciples; they were fighting against slavery. Breen sums up his argument by stating that “the slaves of Southampton did not follow Nat Turner because they thought he was a prophet…they wanted to fight against slavery.”[14]         By Breen’s account, Nat Turner was a prophet who became a general.

            Rudolph Lewis is the founder of www.nathanialturner.com, a website which explores black culture and seeks to uplift and educate the general public. The website is a myriad of information regarding the literature and history of African Americans. Professor Lewis also taught English and Literature before his retirement. His essay, “Nathanial Turner: The Bible and The Sword”, challenges historians to take a closer look at Nat Turner’s religious convictions. He argues that due to their own Christian convictions (or lack of), historians chose to ignore the sincerity of Nat Turner’s Christianity. He states that “Ignoring Turner’s emphases on his religious experience, abolitionists, nationalists, and socialists have claimed Turner as their very own.”[15] He believes that as historians have sought to mold Nat Turner’s memory to their own ideas of what he was, they have ignored the truth of who he really was. Lewis contends that Nat Turner was a true Christian, who “attempted to imitate the life of Christ, to take up the yoke required of every apostle.”[16] Lewis contends that The Confessions is not an anti-slavery document. He does not hesitate to clearly state how he feels about the treatment of Nat Turner’s memory. He boldly declares that “much of what has been written about Nat Turner is thus fictional nonsense, an opportunity to fudge historical data and manipulate folklore for ideological purposes disconnected from Turner’s own reality.”[17] By Lewis’ account, Nat Turner was a sincere follower of Christ who was not fighting against slavery, but instead was fighting against immoral conduct among Christians.

            As I was researching this topic, I found it very interesting to read that these historians often argue against each other. It was quite common for me to read one scholar’s work and find him criticizing the research methodology of another historian. This should not be surprising, considering how differing all their opinions are concerning Nat Turner. However, considering that The Confessions was virtually the only primary source for all these historians, it is quite intriguing to see how they each develop their own ideas and interpretations of the exact same document. As for me, I feel Nat Turner was a little bit of all the above descriptions: freedom fighter, slightly mad, product of his oppressive environment, righteous warrior, prophet turned general, and true Christian believer.

 

Bibliography

 

Aptheker, Herbert. American Negro Slave Revolts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943. Reprint, New York: International Publishers, 1967.

 

Aptheker, Herbert. "The Event." In Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, ed. Kenneth S. Greenberg, 45-57. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

 

Breen, Patrick H. “A Prophet in His Own Land: Support for Nat Turner and His Rebellion within Southampton’s Black Community.” In Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, ed. Kenneth S. Greenberg, 103-118. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

 

Drewry, William Sidney. The Southampton Insurrection. Washington D.C.: The Neale Company, 1900. Reprint, Murfreesboro, N.C.: Johnson Publishing Company, 1968.

 

Harding, Vincent. “Symptoms of Liberty and Blackhead Signposts: David Walker and Nat Turner.” In Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, ed. Kenneth S. Greenberg, 79-102. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

 

Higginson, Thomas Wentworth. "Nat Turner's Insurrection." In The Nat Turner Rebellion: The Historical Event and the Modern Controversy, ed. John B. Duff and Peter M. Mitchell, 52-65. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

 

Lewis, Rudolph. "Nathaniel Turner, the Bible, & the Sword: A reconsideration of the 1831 Confessions ." ChickenBones: A Journal for Literary and Artistic African-American Themes. Accessed 03 May 2006 http://www.nathanielturner.com/bibleandsword.htm .

 

 

                                                                                   

---

                [1]  Thomas Wentworth Higginson, “Nat Turner’s Insurrection,” in The Nat Turner Rebellion: The Historical Event and the Modern Controversy, ed. John B. Duff and Peter M. Mitchell (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 54.

                [2] Ibid, 55.

                [3] Ibid, 65.

                [4] Drewry tells how Nat Turner’s mother had to be restrained at the time of his birth because she was “so wild” that she would have tried to murder him. He also stated that one of Nat Turner’s descendents was at that time in a lunatic asylum in Virginia. (27-28).

                [5] William Sidney Drewry, The Southampton Insurrection (Washington D.C.: The Neale Company, 1900; reprint, Murfreesboro, N.C.: Johnson Publishing Company, 1968), 28 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

                [6]Ibid, 28-29.

                [7] John B. Duff and Peter M. Mitchell, eds., The Nat Turner Rebellion: The Historical Event and the Modern Controversy (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 49.       

                [8] Herbert Aptheker, “The Event,” in Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, ed. Kenneth S. Greenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 46.

                [9] Ibid, 48. 

                [10] Ibid, 46.

                [11] Vincent Harding, “Symptoms of Liberty and Blackhead Signposts: David Walker and Nat Turner”, ed. Kenneth S. Greenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 79.

                [12] Ibid, 84.

                [13] Patrick H. Breen, “A Prophet in His Own Land: Support for Nat Turner and His Rebellion within Southampton’s Black Community,” in Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, ed. Kenneth S. Greenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 113.

                [14] Ibid, 118.

                [15] Rudolph Lewis, “Nathanial Turner, the Bible and the Sword: A reconsideration of the 1831 Confessions”, ChickenBones: A Journal for Literary and Artistic African-American Themes. http://www.nathanielturner.com/bibleandsword.htm

                [16] Ibid.

                [17] Ibid.

I finished my history essay two days early. This is the first time this semester that I finished a paper early. Ha, and it's only the last week of classes! Tomorrow, my awesome friend Steph volunteered to watch Connor so that I could have some quiet time to work on my other paper (Political blogging). I love friends. 

Chris downloaded the Grey's Anatomy Soundtrack. Oh my. I love it!!!

Did I mention that my Nat Turner paper is 3 pages longer than is required? I'm such a nerd : )