Talk:Nat Turner's Rebellion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Trinuser006.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Combatants? and Infobox

The infobox trying to identify this as a "battle" is absurd. The 200+ black "casualties" (once again, and odd term) were spread out amongst a long period of time and the vast majority were innocent civilians not connected to Turner's rebellion, which makes listing them as combatants bizarre. The "opposing" infobox is even stranger. It lists the other side as "Southampton County" with a strength of 15,000 and lists 57 dead as "casualties". Once again, the 57 dead were not "combatants" killed in battle, but murdered civilians, mostly children.

This article would be 100% better if it weren't presented as a "battle", but the infobox needs to be changed either way. It makes it seem as though all the unrelated black & white civilians that were murdered were somehow either soldiers (for the whites) or rebels (for the blacks). Childe Roland of Gilead 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree about the infobox - it struck me as odd at once. I looked to find a better infobox, and the best I could find was Template:Infobox historical event. Any objections to using this infobox instead?--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I made the change. I have to say that it's a slightly less impressive infobox, albeit more appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the term "battle" is misrepresented here, however, not for the reasons presented. "....The infobox trying to identify this as a "battle" is absurd. The 200+ black "casualties" (once again, and odd term) were spread out amongst a long period of time and the vast majority were innocent civilians not connected to Turner's rebellion, which makes listing them as combatants bizarre..."

The period of time of the rebellion was not long at all; the reason for the term "rebellion" does not infer how long or short an incident occurred. Term also can be changed or altered to mirror the meaning of "revolt".

I am not sure when, but someone has changed the infobox back to a military conflict. I totally agree with the discussion above that this is not a correct summation of this event. In fact, the rebelling enslaved people and the militia did not engage in combat at all. Rather, the militia helped find individuals after the rebellion ended. But before I change it back to the historical event infobox, I wanted to give others a chance to share their thoughts. Rublamb (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Lacking any objections, I have restored the infobox to historical event. Rublamb (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Contradiction

I see a contradiction. In Aftermath: The state reimbursed the slaveholders for their slaves. In Legal response: Moreover, some owners of slaves who were killed during the rebellion or its immediate aftermath sought compensation from the legislature; all their petitions were rejected. I don't know which one is correct, just that they appear contradictory. Totensiebush (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Totensiebush. It's taken me a while, but I finally had a chance to look at the sources cited for the two apparently contradictory claims. It turns out that they're not contradictory. If a court tried and executed a slave, the owner was entitled to compensation from the state. However, the owners of nine slaves who were killed (without trial) during the suppression of the rebellion sued for compensation and their claim was rejected.[1] I will try to improve the language in the article to reflect this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For decades, I had puzzled over the trials of Nat Turner and the other rebels who were arrested. Afterall, they had no rights under the law and, therefore, no need of a jury trial, especially with a jury of some of the most important men of the county. Some authors speculated that this was the slave owners' way of figuring out what happened (why the "content" slave rebelled and how they were able to plan the rebellion). Other authors noted how this shows the control and civility of the white society. But I believe the the above fact solves my question. According to Henry Louis Gates Jr., state law specified that enslavers would be reimbursed for slaves that were executed or sold by the government. If the same individuals were execute by vigilantes, the owner received no compensation. Applying this policy to the Nat Turner Rebellion, it seems that the trials were more about money and the disposition of property than sense of justice (although not all of the tried individuals were executed). Rublamb (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought that these were show trials, intended as a warning to other would-be dissidents. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

With Turner, definitely. But the fact that the sentences varied (executed, sold out of the area, freed) for the others indicates that these were not show trials, but hearings where the jury made a ruling based on the facts. (Although I want to go back and see what court records reveal about each individual's trial because I assume the owner's testimony weighed heavily on the outcome). Certainly, the official hangings/executions were a warning, but I suspect Black Head Sign Post, the place where vigilantes left the decapitated heads of rebels on posts, was probably a stronger warning than these trials. In fact, execution by vigilantes without a trial should have stirred more fear as the innocent were killed along with the rebels. This gets into my former puzzlement over the trials. Rublamb (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

White death count?

Why is there barely a mention of the death count of the whites? The only mention in this entire article seems to be a single sentence stating that "The rebellion did not discriminate by age or sex and the rebels killed White men, women, and children" and that "55-65 white people were killed" - Really? That's it? No mention of the fact that almost half of all the deaths were children, and among those killed were a school class of 10 and their teacher?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/09/22/nat-turner-no-hero/b219b4cf-541d-4053-b19c-a0b2f3095521/

This article is disgusting and seems to promote him as some sort of folk hero, when he is a self-admitted terrorist.LuckyLopp (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In going through the archive of discussions about this article, at one point there was a list of the names of the whites who were killed in the rebellion. In that discussion, the consensus was that this list resulted in a lack of balance in the article because we know that there were double or triple the number of enslaved and free blacks killed, including many who were not involved in the rebellion. We don't know their names to include in the article because of bias in documentation at the time of the event. Thus, it becomes difficult to achieve balance in this article if we only provide a list from one side.

I have been trying to think of a way to expand the scope of the article while also maintaining balance. Prior cuts may have gone too deep in removing some of the known details of the rebellion, such as the sequence of houses/schools that were attacked during the rebellion. So that section could be revisited. I have also thought that there could be a related stand-alone list article about those killed during or as a result of the rebellion. I have found the records of the men who were tried and executed after the rebellion--their details are also lacking in this article and would provide some balance to a list of the whites killed. Both an expansion to this article and a related article is on my list of topics to explore (at some point) but you are always welcome to start these projects.

You refer to what Nat Turner confessed to. In the early 1980s, I looked extensively at Grey's account of the rebellion and period newspapers. I urge caution when discussing the spoken words of Turner. It is important to understand that anything attributed to Turner was filtered through whites who were trying to make sense of something that was an enigma to them. As a historian, my focus is the intersection of myth and history--Nat Turner's rebellion is a prime example of this intersection. As a result, people with many perspectives feel strongly about this topic. As editors for Wikipedia, our goal is to set aside personal beliefs and create the most neutral article possible. I applaud your interest in wanting to improve this article. However, note that I made an edit to your question so that I could leave it on the talk page and respond to it. In the future, please consider that certain types of comments do not belong here and will not result in change. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Rublamb, thanks for your thoughtful assessment of the problem. I restored the original comment by LuckyLopp because I could not find a justification for your change in talk page guidelines. @LuckyLopp: Your source seems to be a letter to the editor and therefore doesn't qualify as RS (see WP:Reliable sources for an exhaustive (and maybe exhausting) explanation of that term that is absolutely central for Wikipedia). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400. That is fine. It was my attempt at a compromise between my opinion that this post should have remained and the actions of another editor who had deleted the entire post. Rublamb (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Article Name

Historically, this event was called the Southampton Insurrection. When a state historic marker of that name was replaced, the event's name was discussed at great detail, with one side wanting to reuse the old name and the other side wanting to change it to Nat Turner's Rebellion to recognize the important role of Turner. Their compromise was to call the marker Nat Turner's Insurrection; however, that name has not gone into wide use. Rather, the phrase Nat Turner's Rebellion is most commonly used. That is the name used by the National Museum of Africa Amerian Cultura and History here and the Gilden Lehrman Institue of American History here. A Google search for "Nat Turner's rebellion" yields 115,000 responses. The Encyclopedia of Virginia/Virginia Humanities calls the event "Nat Turner's Revolt" here but that name only yields 17,600 hits. In contrast, "Nat Turner's slave rebellion" yields 26,200 hits, "Nat Turner's Insurrection" has 12,300 hits, and "Southampton Insurrection" yields 15,400. To me, it is obvious that the correct name for this article should be "Nat Turner's Rebellion". Any objections to this move? Rublamb (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No objection here. Based on the given data, it would be the right move per WP:COMMONNAME. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Move is completed. I believe I have updated existing templates, as well as links in articles. If you find something that needs fixing, please edit or let me know. Rublamb (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)