Talk:Nat Turner

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)

---

An event mentioned in this article is an August 21 selected anniversary.

---

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

Nat Turner

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

"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)

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)

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 Afrivan 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 commander's 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 slavery harriet tumban was more peace full in the escape. nat Turner that day had birst of fustrutian and went to kill 8 whites then got hunged. The death of him let people sad. By bailey herbert

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)

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)