Charles L. Dibble writes that "factual history - is fixed." Yes and no. Nat
Turner provides an excellent example. We know some of the basic facts of his
uprising, but not all of them; and when we learn new facts, the meaning of
the event changes.  Lyle writes that the Turner uprising provides "an
amazingly good definition of futility. . . . No real plan, just a sort of
generalized instruction to slaughter."  But I recently heard a fascinating
lecture by a historian who is finding convincing evidence that Turner was
not a lone nut, as many have thought, but part of a network of conspirators
across the South planning to rise up in a very well planned, coordinated
assault against the slave power. Turner jumped the gun, fouled up the whole
plan, and everybody else ran for cover.  No general uprising took place.  We
will have to await publication of the research to judge its accuracy, but if
this historian is right, we get a whole new view of what happened, and the
event changes. 

Henry Wiencek
Charlottesville