> From the Associated Press:
>
> "Virginia governor 'pardons' slave who led 'Gabriel's Rebellion'
> The Associated Press
> August 31, 2007
Where in all this does a comparison of nobility of purpose meet means
and methods?
Rebellion to become free will justifiably be seen as serving the
nobility of purpose end of the argument. On that, both the Am Rev and
Gabriel's Rebellion are equal, albeit at vastly different scales.
At the pointy end of the stick, wherein after the Dec. of Ind. was
read, measures of a more physical nature were taken. Knowing full
well what would happen once it was read, one can argue that the Am
Rev leaders only had to wait for action to develop as the authorities
moved to put down the venture. Conflict/Civil War then ensued with
the colonials coming out on top.
In contrast, Turner's higher ideal was simply genocide.
Indiscriminate killing of men, women and children is murder, however
draped in the verbiage of freedom.
What separates the Am Rev and possibly Gabriel, from Turner certainly
is the means and methods by which the ideals may be achieved. The
Haitian Revolution was at first a bloodbath that has been later
sanctified by those at several removes from it into a glorious
expression of freedom. That would appear to lessen the value of the
lives lost so long as freedom rings. That kind of specious reasoning
was also inherent in Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, to name but a few whose
results justified those means. Haitians ended up switching the color
of master, but little of substance is now discernible, apart from the
historiography of the event.
Gabriel's aim, according to Edgerton, was not genocide, but rather a
negotiated settlement ending slavery. However, what muddies the
waters is the issue of statements made concerning the conduct of the
rebellion. Basically, join or die seems to have been the directive,
apart from Methodists, Quakers and Frenchmen. Is Edgerton generally
viewed as reading the documents correctly or has he ventured rather
far out onto the revisionist limb?
For those of you who will undoubtedly jump into the fray, I am well
aware that in the Am Rev, there were quasi-institutionalized
incidents of brutal behavior on both Colonial and Tory sides, similar
probably to the Border Wars in the 1850's onward.
State to state relations were the ideal and the practice during the
Am Rev, not using genocide as a means of igniting conflict. The
questions are: Did Gabriel advocate genocide, was he unable to
control more volatile elements in his group, was genocidal advocacy
legitimately placed at his door?
Lyle Browning
|