Did Nat Turner kill white slaves too?
Pretty much the title.
sharehe left poor white people alone.
shareAh ok, thanks. I was wondering if he chose to go after perpetrators (and their kin) or just anyone white. Definitely seems like he was a man with set goals and not just going at it indiscriminately.
shareAccording to his writings, he made a purposeful decision to ignore poor white families, as he empathized with them. He didn't hate white people, he hated slavery and the social hierarchy of the times, add to that he was quite literally insane. As another user pointed out, he did indeed kill children (well his faction did). He wrote about how after he killed his master; they forgot about his masters child, and one of his soldiers went back.
I do have to point out though, and I don't mean this to come off as stand off-ish, there is not a history of white slaves in America. Indentured servants, yes, but they are two completely different things (considering what it meant to be a slave vs. working off a personal debt that could not be inherited).
...or so he said.
I've never seen a list of his victims and whether they were rich or owned slaves or not. He did go to a school and slaughter all the children at the place. Did he know all their parents and know whether they were rich? I sorta doubt it.
If I had to guess, I'd say only folks who could afford it at that time sent their kids to school and that was most likely slave owners. But going to a school specifically? Wow, I'm ready to be a little understanding but even that's a little much for me.
shareHe never targeted a school
share"He never targeted a school"
"The escape of a little girl who went to school at Mr. Waller's, and where the children were collecting for that purpose, excited general sympathy. As their teacher had not arrived, they were at play in the yard, and seeing the negroes approach, she ran up on a dirt chimney, (such as are common to log houses,) and remained there unnoticed during the massacre of the eleven that were killed at this place."
-from the Confessions of Nat Turner by Thomas R. Gray, p.19
And how exactly would Mr Turner have had the capacity to describe such a narrative to Mr Gray in his so-called personal "Confession"?
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
"...in the prison where he was confined, and acknowledged by him to be such when read before the Court of Southampton." (front cover page)
Turner: "Having murdered Mrs. Waller and ten children" (page 14)
*
If this isn't true then what is true? Does the court record say something different? Tell us if you know.
Hmmmm.
Let's see.
Black African "n----r" (and everything ugly that, that would have implied in 1831). As such, with absolutely no legal rights whatsoever as a citizen (or a human being, for that matter). Accused of the two sickeningly heinous crimes (for that time) of knowing how to read, and the "merciless and brutal" mass murders and rapes of 50 poor, sweet, innocent, and virtuous Southern white women and children.
Yet, we're somehow supposed to believe that despite the inconceivable heinousness of the crimes from an 1830's Southern perspective, (AND his legal status as completely nonhuman to begin with) every possible safeguard was still taken to insure the letter of the law was followed every step of the way. From his capture, to his "confession", to his prosecution and execution. That we can nonetheless reliably say that in that type of mindlessly revenge obsessed environment there would have been no assault on his person, no chance of impropriety in getting his "confession", no embellishment or exaggeration of his crimes, and no "sending a message to similar minded n----rs". (And my personal favorite: No capitalizing off of a person with no recourse, by a greedy, ambulance chasing lawyer, on such a lurid story by writing a supposed first-person book.) And thus, the court records from one of the most emotional and shocking events of that time period should be considered the absolute unquestionable, unaltered and unbiased truth in every way?
Riiiiight.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
Of course you want to discredit the Confessions. It gives you (and others) free reign to make up whatever you want...
I wouldn't be so naïve to claim that all blacks (free and slave) received a fair trial during those times...but this case was cut and dried. Somebody killed those 55 white people. No one was wondering who it was.
but this case was cut and dried.
Yep. So cut and dried that they dismembered him and sold little pieces of him for souvenirs immediately after he was executed. But during his time in captivity (and before he was dismembered and had the pieces placed in storefront windows as reminders of his crimes) there was probably none of that type of cruelty or legal impropriety, fueled by that same type of blood lust, whatsoever. In either the courts or the jails.
Riiight.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant. share