This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Caitlin's Praxis Journal

Praxis Journal Entry 7 -- 10/17/16

This week's reading: The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents, edited with an introduction by Kenneth S. Greenberg.

I think what I found the most remarkable (and at the same time the least remarkable) about the Confessions was how Gray and other white Southerners immediately pointed to, as we probably would today, mental illness or religious fanaticism as the cause of Turner’s insurrection. Gray calls Turner a “gloomy fanatic” (p.41) in the introduction and hopes the Confessions will be a “useful lesson, as to the operations of a mind like his [Turner’s], endeavoring to grapple with things beyond its reach” (p.41). Gray later makes mention of Turner’s fanaticism near the end of the book:

“He is a complete fanatic, or plays his part most admirably. On other subjects he possesses an uncommon share of intelligence, with a mind capable of attaining any thing; but warped and perverted by the influence of early impressions” (p.54).

The idea that slavery and all its brutality could be a motivation for a slave insurrection seemed never to have occurred to Gray or any of the other commentators in the accompanying documents (if it did, it wasn't mentioned). It sounds incredulous to the contemporary reader, but antebellum Southern whites did truly believe that African slaves didn’t mind—and may have even enjoyed—slavery. Cruelty was often necessary to control “uncivilized” people. If a slave was depressed, insubordinate, or acted out it was the fault of the slave, not the system. It is possible that Gray and others attributed the insurrection to Turner’s mental illness or religious fervor because they genuinely believed African chattel slavery was a benevolent, civilizing institution or at the very least a necessary evil. That’s what I found the most and least remarkable about the confessions: how for long we (white people) were perfectly willing to both overlook and encourage unimaginable cruelty towards fellow human beings. It’s horrible to a 21^st century reader like myself, but considering the attitudes of antebellum white Americans this indifference is expected.

Something else I found remarkable about the reading was the quote I included in the first paragraph, when Gray says Turner’s mind was “endeavoring to grapple with things beyond its reach” (p.41). It’s interesting that Gray doesn’t mention what these “things” are, considering his animosity towards Turner and his condemnation of the insurrection. I think the “things” mentioned in the introduction are interpretation of the Bible and/or Turner’s leadership in the rebellion. Unintelligence went hand-in-hand with Africans’ lack of civilization; white people assumed that Africans were less intelligent, less empathetic than white people. Again, it is possible that Gray thought Turner was naturally unintelligent and incapable of “properly” interpreting the Bible or holding any kind of leadership position, and that Turner’s insurrection was an example of African Americans’ intellectual deficiencies.

This page has paths:

Contents of this path:

This page has tags:

Contents of this tag:

This page has replies:

This point is pretty crucial, I think, to any meaningful understanding of how slavery worked and of the motivations behind what truly was a very brutal insurrection. The point you make here is a subtle and thoughtful one -- for whites, if Turner is a "fanatic," then his mind is distorted and his actions are not a reflection of slavery. This helps to suppress the realization of the brutality that is not just a byproduct but actually integral to slavery. A subjugated person who refuses to comply must be internally flawed because to recognize that slavery might engender this reaction (and out of rational, careful consideration rather than irrational insubordination) would mean acknowledging the depth of slavery's cruelty. Baker's version of the "Confessions" really makes this point and Jacobs's narrative explores the inner workings of the psychology within relationships between masters and slaves.
Contents of this reply:
1. Praxis Journal Entry 7 -- 10/17/16 This week's reading: The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents, edited with an introduction by Kenneth S. Greenberg.
  
  I think what I found the most remarkable (and at the same time the least remarkable) about the Confessions was how Gray and other white Southerners immediately pointed to, as we probably would today, mental illness or religious fanaticism as the cause of Turner’s insurrection. Gray calls Turner a “gloomy fanatic” (p.41) in the introduction and hopes the Confessions will be a “useful lesson, as to the operations of a mind like his [Turner’s], endeavoring to grapple with things beyond its reach” (p.41). Gray later makes mention of Turner’s fanaticism near the end of the book:
  
  “He is a complete fanatic, or plays his part most admirably. On other subjects he possesses an uncommon share of intelligence, with a mind capable of attaining any thing; but warped and perverted by the influence of early impressions” (p.54).
  
  The idea that slavery and all its brutality could be a motivation for a slave insurrection seemed never to have occurred to Gray or any of the other commentators in the accompanying documents (if it did, it wasn't mentioned). It sounds incredulous to the contemporary reader, but antebellum Southern whites did truly believe that African slaves didn’t mind—and may have even enjoyed—slavery. Cruelty was often necessary to control “uncivilized” people. If a slave was depressed, insubordinate, or acted out it was the fault of the slave, not the system. It is possible that Gray and others attributed the insurrection to Turner’s mental illness or religious fervor because they genuinely believed African chattel slavery was a benevolent, civilizing institution or at the very least a necessary evil. That’s what I found the most and least remarkable about the confessions: how for long we (white people) were perfectly willing to both overlook and encourage unimaginable cruelty towards fellow human beings. It’s horrible to a 21^st century reader like myself, but considering the attitudes of antebellum white Americans this indifference is expected.
  
  Something else I found remarkable about the reading was the quote I included in the first paragraph, when Gray says Turner’s mind was “endeavoring to grapple with things beyond its reach” (p.41). It’s interesting that Gray doesn’t mention what these “things” are, considering his animosity towards Turner and his condemnation of the insurrection. I think the “things” mentioned in the introduction are interpretation of the Bible and/or Turner’s leadership in the rebellion. Unintelligence went hand-in-hand with Africans’ lack of civilization; white people assumed that Africans were less intelligent, less empathetic than white people. Again, it is possible that Gray thought Turner was naturally unintelligent and incapable of “properly” interpreting the Bible or holding any kind of leadership position, and that Turner’s insurrection was an example of African Americans’ intellectual deficiencies.

This page references:

Runaway Slave Notice