Social conditions and motivations of Nat Turner's rebellion in Virginia

Nat Turner's Rebellion

It is impossible to completely understand Nat Turner's rebellion from a modern perspective. Even knowing that conditions were generally unfavorable to slaves, even in homes where their owners were considered kind or benevolent, one who has not lived in bondage cannot truly understand the living situations for slaves. In 1831, Southampton County, Virginia, was fairly representative of a normal slave-holding county. It was a collection of farms, plantations, and small villages, where people were relatively spread-out, but not disconnected from their neighbors. However, they were largely disconnected from the outside world; while whites in Southampton would gather to discuss local events, the county did not even have its own newspaper. Southampton was not considered a particularly affluent county, but it had a planter class, and even had some landowners with sufficient slaves to be considered aristocrats. However, Southampton was not considered an affluent area, and even its wealthier inhabitants were not considered to be among Virginia's elite. Two-thirds of the whites in the county were slave-owners, though the average number of slaves per slave owning family was 10 or 11 slaves; not the vast number of slaves many today traditionally associate with slavery. However, that pattern of slave ownership reflected reality much better than visions of Tara, with many small landowners working alongside their slaves. This is not to suggest that the slaves lived the same lifestyle as their masters, but to dispel the myth that most slaves lived on large plantations. Southampton also had one of the largest populations of free colored people in Virginia. White Virginians believed that they were benevolent to their slaves, and slaves in Southampton did have more freedoms than slaves further south. They could gather for religious and social purposes, and travel to see relatives or friends. Moreover, there had been very few incidents of rebellion among slaves, so that the whites could convince themselves that things were peaceful beneath the calm surface, as well as above it (See generally Oates, pp. 1-4).

Nat Turner was a product of Southampton, but he was not considered typical, either by other slaves or by whites in the area. That is not to suggest that Turner was seen as a threat, just an observation that he was viewed differently from other slaves. He was considered very intelligent, while most slaves were not considered intelligent, and he could read and write. What really set Turner apart from most slaves was his hyper-religiosity. Turner's first masters had been Methodists, who, like many Methodists in the south rejected the church's views that slavery was inappropriate and believed in giving slaves a Christian education to prepare them for their next life. They strongly encouraged Nat's religious leanings, as did his grandmother, who did most of his rearing. At a relatively young age, Nat began having religious visions, and, though he had successfully run away at one point in time, he actually had a vision that told him to return to his master, and he did so. It is also important to note that Nat's mother had not been raised in the institution of slavery, but was a first-generation slave, who had once known some type of freedom.

It is impossible to pinpoint the specific event that motivated Turner to rebellion. Much is made of his religious nature, and the fact is that he was raised a Methodist. Methodists were strongly in favor of abolition in most of the United States, and, though that message was watered down in the South, the fact is that the Turner was being taught the same religious doctrines that led white Methodists in the north to conclude it was not Christian to keep people in bondage. Turner was inspired by a religious vision in which he believed that Jesus was going to bring about judgment day. Turner believed he had a religious duty to fight against the oppression of slaves. However, the main precipitating event for his rebellions was when Turner witnessed a solar eclipse, which he believed was a sign from God that he was to rebel. The actual rebellion was triggered by a similar sign, when the atmosphere appeared an unusual color.

I think it is impossible for a free person to disapprove of the way that Turner conducted his rebellion. Yes, whites who had not personally participated in harming black slaves were hurt or killed in the rebellion. However, to label these whites innocent is to display tremendous ignorance. The whole system of slavery would have been unsuccessful without the legal ability to use tremendous force against slaves to keep them in bondage. The selling of family members, the consistent deprivation of liberty, the constant subtle threat of force, up to and including deadly force, means that slaves were akin to kidnapped persons. White people, even those who did not own slaves, profited from this system of racial oppression. Turner advocated indiscriminate slaughter of white people in order to be able to use fear as a tool in his rebellion; blacks outnumbered whites, and, if whites believed that blacks would use lethal force to fight for freedom, they might have a bargaining chip. However, Turner did not engage in indiscriminate slaughter; his troops spared members of some white households. This may have been a tremendous tactical error, because a white militia eventually defeated the rebels, and that may not have occurred if Turner had taken lots of white hostages. Despite that, I still think that in a country that advocates the premise of "live free or die," one can hardly take issue with how Turner mounted his rebellion.