David,

I may change that sentence since it is inconsistent with the rest of what I 
write. I generally do not presume that God speaks to man, even tho I realize 
that many who read this will believe that such is the case. If you believe 
that God speaks to man through prayer and other signs, then it would follow 
that God spoke to Nat Turner. If you do not believe that God speaks to man, 
then you would believe that Nat Turner was under a delusion. If you believe 
that God only speaks to some people, then you have a problem. You have to 
decide if God spoke to Nat Turner or not. Evidence that something was going 
on include some "faith healings" that Nat Turner accomplished, and his 
popularity in the pulpit around Southampton county. We do not know what it 
is that he preached since so little was thought of slaves doing anything 
intelligent, that no record was made of it. Perhaps had his sermons been 
collected, we would have a better means of assessing his character. As it 
is, we have little to go on other than his rampage against the his white 
neighbors in an effort to end slavery.

Which brings us to the final judgement? Do we judge him on his reasons? Or 
do we judge him solely on his actions? Do we consider the merits of his 
intents? Or do we just measure the blood spilled?

If we judge Nat Turner harshly for his actions, how should we judge those 
who murdered the 200+ slaves without trial, as revenge for his action? 
Should they who are nameless be judged with the same harshness as we apply 
to Turner? What about the legislators who took their revenge on harsher 
slave laws? Were they right in so acting? Or do we have a harsh indictment 
for their vengeful response to a valid bid for freedom?

Anne

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org 

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html