HISTORY
Nat Turner and Others Had No Choice But to Use Violence
The system of chattel slavery was violent, and so was the resistance
Freedom is more precious than air because, without it, no breath is sweet. At least, that is what I imagine Nat Turner and other enslaved Africans who resisted their oppressors believed. How else could they muster the bravery to fight that which seemed inevitable to others, their eternal captivity? In America's schools, students rarely learn about Black historical figures, let alone those who don't fit the traditional script. We often learn about inventors, like George Washington Carver, an enslaved Black man who discovered at least three hundred uses for peanuts. However, when it comes to black liberation efforts, the curriculum shies away from any real discussion of their experiences or viewpoints. That is how we've come to the point where some would openly debate whether Nat Turner's 1831 rebellion was morally justifiable.
Over the weekend, a few people, when describing Black Americans' liberation efforts, suggested that Nat Turner's rebellion should have never happened, that he shouldn't have killed any White people in the process, and that his resistance only worsened conditions for Black people. Really, worse than slavery? From their perspective, being a quiet, well-behaved slave would have been preferable. This viewpoint, unfortunately, treats enslavers and their families as innocent civilians or senseless casualties of war, completely overlooking the perspective of the enslaved. Let us not forget that the entire system of chattel slavery throughout the United States was rooted in violence. Enslaving someone was not the byproduct of a peaceful agreement; it was a system of human trafficking, which was maintained through the constant threat of violence. Contrary to the wild ramblings of Kanye West, slavery wasn't a choice; it wasn't something most Black people could walk away from without risking their lives and limbs.
To make matters worse, slavery was a form of human trafficking authorized by the Roman Catholic church, various European-controlled colonies, states, and, at one point, the federal government. Nevertheless, despite its popularity amongst white-controlled governing bodies, chattel slavery has always been a dehumanizing enterprise. People who judge Nat Turner and other enslaved people's violent methods of pursuing liberation often ignore that other nonviolent methods failed. Whenever enslaved Africans attempted to petition a court to seek their freedom, they were routinely ignored and, in most parts of the country, weren't permitted to read, write, or dictate letters of resistance. What options are left for the oppressed when their begging and pleading land on deaf ears? Indeed, it was the callous cruelty of early White Americans who clung to the system of slavery until the last drop of profits could be squeezed out that fertilized the seeds of rebellion. Nat Turner and Charles Deslondes, two of the more well-known enslaved Black men to lead rebellions, were not alone. According to the Library of Congress, "at least 250 insurrections have been documented between 1780 and 1864."
While it's true that White people responded to enslaved people's uprisings, even Nat Turner's Rebellion, by engaging in more violence targeting Black people, this does not mean these Black men were wrong for pursuing their freedom. Fear of retaliation did not stop them because they had a noble goal, one that all human beings share. The idea that Nat Turner's Rebellion only made conditions worse for Black people conveniently ignores the fact that White people were the ones enacting harmful conditions and that Turner's resistance opposed their cruelty. Once again, it's illogical to blame Black people for White people’s actions. This is a blame-the-victim attitude, to be sure.
In a different world that respected Black people's lives and their right to be free, Nat Turner would be considered a hero, but sadly, many see him as a villain. In America, Black people's resistance is often described as violent, but doing so removes the context of their behaviors. Indeed, we may have never even heard of Nat Turner if it weren't for the conditions of his birth, being born an enslaved Black man in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1800. Had Turner been born free, there would be no reason for him to lead a rebellion. That's something that mustn't be forgotten. Resistance becomes necessary when one group of people keeps another group in inhumane conditions. Slavery was the cause of each and every one of these uprisings because resistance is a natural response to oppression.
Instead of judging the inhumanity of the chattel slavery system, some people want to blame Nat Turner for his behavior, as if killing White slaveowners and their families was a step too far. Claiming that Black people don't have the right to defend themselves is dehumanizing, a "turn the other cheek" perspective unsustainable in matters of oppression. Enslaving people has consequences, and depriving Black people of liberty is a crime against humanity. White Southerners literally turned their homes into plantations, forced labor camps where Black Americans were tortured at any hint of non-compliance. Yet, they expected to feel safe with their families in their homes, many of which doubled as a prison. That's absurd. White Southerners lived in fear because they created untenable conditions. That's like tying up a lion, starving, abusing, and calling him crazy for attacking you as you sleep. No, that's a sane lion. Nat Turner's actions make sense when you consider the conditions in which he and other enslaved people were forced to endure. And they only seem improper when context is removed.
More people need to learn about Black Americans' history. If they understood what enslaved Black Americans endured, the endless torture, humiliation, and degradation, they wouldn't try to portray Nat Turner as the bad guy in the scenario. They would praise him as a hero, someone brave enough to pursue freedom, no matter the cost. People often say that history is told by the winners, but it's also true that it doesn't have to be that way. White men executed Turner, but we don't have to condemn his actions in our modern society. Indeed, if it weren't for men and women like Turner, the liberation movement may have died long ago.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. noted in his Letter From Birmingham Jail some people will claim, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods," and "paternalistically" feel "he can set the timetable for another man's freedom." Such "lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection," he added. Perhaps that is why some of the same people willing to say "slavery was wrong," cannot grasp the reason why Nat Turner and many others resorted to violence. They have lukewarm acceptance of the fact that slavery is wrong, which explains why they quiver at the idea of violence, at times being necessary to challenge this injustice. As someone with enslaved ancestors and at least one who fought on the Union side of the Civil War, I can assure you that violence was necessary to destroy the chattel slavery system in America. History shows enslavers wouldn't get their foot off Black Americans' necks without a fight.
🌹Learn more about the author here.