Talk:Nat Turner's Rebellion

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)

Images and pro-slavery propaganda

These are the two pictures under discussion:

• Horrid Massacre in Virginia
• Nat Turner & the Conspirators in Conference (not "confidence"). Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rublamb: Since you are obviously putting a lot of work into improving the article, I'm a bit sorry to interfere. You added the image without mentioning it in the edit summary.[1] But that's not the real problem. The picture does not portray the rebellion. It portrays the attack on a mother with her little girls, an unarmed man "cruelly murdered by his own Slaves" (from the caption on the woodcut), a man defending his wife and baby, and the restoring of order by driving the criminals back into the wilderness. This is a representation of only one part of the rebellion, and also a distorted one. The other part is the enslavers' cruelty before, during and after the rebellion. I think the picture can be added to the body of the article, but giving it the correct context (pro-slavery propaganda). It should also be balanced with a corresponding picture depicting the cruel reality of slavery. The other picture you added shows the rebels with the faces of demons or maniacs - I think this is out of question. For the background of my reasoning see MOS:IMAGEREL and WP:DUE. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Usually when images are in dispute, they are left in place while being discussed, making it easier for others to find them and respond. As a historian who specializes in the intersection of history, myth, and propaganda, I understand your line of thought and, therefore, am going to fully discuss.

Image Horrid Massacre in Virginia: Based on the way the text is currently presented, I can understand why you think this image does not reflect the rebellion. Despite its B rating, I found this article to have unsourced and incorrect facts (Nat Turner acquired muskets--which he did not) and an amazing lack of detail. One item that is missing is the known facts of the rebellion--what took place, the sequence of events, etc. When this content is added, I believe you will understand that the period illustration does, in fact, very reflect incidents in the rebellion. These are the facts: Enslaved people took farm implements and went house to house, killing essentially every white man, woman, and child they came across, including an infant and students at school. At each location, the rebels' numbers grew as other enslaved people joined the rebellion. However, the rebellion ended when the men ran into the militia on road. As shown in the illustration, the rebels dispersed. There was never armed combat between the rebels and the militia. However, the militia and others did arrest or kill enslaved people they came across.

Historically, this illustration may have had a psychological impact, but its intention was to represent a current news event (it was an illustration in a small press pamphlet about the rebellion, not an illustration from newspapers). It refers to real people who were killed or attacked in the rebellion and accurately shows weapons used in the event. You are correct that this image does not portray slavery but that is fine because this article is not about slavery. (We do not need an illustration of slavery here because the article is linked to content on slavery). Although there is not an illustration of rebels being executed or hanged (thank goodness this was before the trophy photos of lynchings), this image does show enslaved people on foot, being chased by armed men on horses. This clearly depicts the imbalance of power and pairs with well the article's content that describes the aftermath of the rebellion and the killing of enslaved and freed blacks.

This image is considered a reliable source of the event. For example, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History (which has provided exhibits and educational resources on the topic of slavery in America) uses this image on their webpage about Nat Turner's Rebellion and does not refer to it as slave propaganda. Some information about the origin of the image is included in the Encyclopedia Virginia (and should be included in the article). This image is in the collection of the Library of Congress which catalogs it under five subject headings--none of which related to propaganda. This image is used to depict the event by the American Social History Project; again no mention of propaganda. Here it is being used in a 2013 article in The Atlantic, a left-leaning publication. It is used by the Museum of Antebellum Slavery in an article about the rebellion. Here it is being used by Juneteenth Virginia to promote their “12 Days of Nat Turner. It is also the background and opening illustration for The Nat Turner Archive. For what it is worth, this source says that the pamphlet that originally published this illustration was written and published in New York and "contained decidedly abolitionist sentiments," proving this illustration was not created as pro-slavery propaganda.

Quoting from WP:IMGCONTENT: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. ...Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose..." I believe my use of this image meets this guideline and that your removal of incorrect based on this policy. This image is not decorative but explains and depicts the event that the article is about and is the only visual representation of the rebellion made at the time of the rebellion. In terms of balance, there is another illustration in the article that is a Victorian romanticized depiction of Turner.

So, given my explanation, and your agreement that this illustration has a place in the body of the article, I would like to restore this image. Although I believe it is best as the introductory image in the infobox because it quickly summarizes the rebellion, but I can compromise on it being in the body of the article. Rublamb (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Image Nat Turner & the Conspirators in Confidence (1863): I zoomed in on the faces in the illustrations. Nat Turner has an intense look on his face and a goatee, but I would hardly describe him or the other men in this illustration as demonic or maniacs. I would maintain that it is more illustrative than the typical caricatures of African Americans of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This illustration is from the book History of American conspiracies: a record of treason, insurrection, rebellion & c., in the United States of America, from 1760 to 1860 which was published in New York City in 1863. Note that this was written by a Northern author and published by a Northern press during the American Civil War. That does not mean the text is not full of terms and themes offensive to modern readers, but I can say that Orville J. James was sympathetic to the enslaved, which he refers to as living in a "wretched condition" (page 396). The text proceeding the image is about Turner planning his rebellion. James notes that Tuner had "a face indicative of intelligence and resolution" (page 396) and lists the names of the other men at the meeting (p. 401). The text also quotes from an 1861 article about Turner in The Atlantic, an anti-slavery piece published early in the Civil War, and the first source to humanize Turner by mentioning his wife and children (page 396). In terms of use within this article, the image compliments the section of Nat Turner's slave rebellion#Prepartions. However, it would be reasonable to discuss if this illustration is informative (keep) or decorative (remove). However, whatever is decided for this illustration should also be applied to the illustration you left in the article, a later Victorian image of Turner.Rublamb (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to comment on the second picture first, hoping to find time for the first one soon. Judging from the book title, it has been written for sensation-seeking readers, not for those interested in serious history. Of course we don't expect pro-slavery propaganda in New York during the Civil War, and we can expect some sympathy for humble, patiently suffering slaves like the Uncle Tom character. But expecting sympathy for Black rebels would be expecting too much from an average White Northerner. Anyway, I don't see any information of value in the picture. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You objected to this illustration because you said it was pro-slavery propaganda. Thus, I responded to your challenge and have proven your beliefs to be untrue. The value of this image is to provide balance and contrast to the Horrid Massacre illustration. It depicts of Nat Turner as a commander planning a rebellion, as opposed to period sources that claimed the rebellion was spontaneous and not well-planned. In addition, the book that is the source for this illustration names the other men in the illustration, acknowledging them as individuals rather than generic slaves. (I think the caption of the photo should also name these men). As you probably know, the enslaved were rarely illustrated in the Antebellum era except in runaway posters. Thus, this illustration is unique because it depicts enslaved men as being in charge, making decisions, and not being under the thumb of their enslavers. It also provided balance to the Horrific Massacre illustration because it portrays the rebellion's planners as thoughtful men, not savage beasts with weapons. This illustration also matches the text in the article. Later, when I add more detail to the trial section, the men depicted in the illustration will be discussed, again connecting to the illustration. Rublamb (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't call this image (i.e. Nat Turner & the Conspirators) pro-slavery propaganda. It's the other one ("Horrid Massacre") that was and still is called pro-slavery propaganda by me. My interpretation of the "Conspirators" picture is very different from yours. Also: It is not from the Antebellum era ("ante bellum" means "before the war"), and we have a lot of pictures of enslaved people from the Antebellum era (photographs, portraits, book illustrations e.g. in abolitionist literature). Rsk6400 (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I was trying to say that illustrations of specific and named individuals are rare, especially in the 1830s when the rebellion took place. Early abolitionist propaganda tended to show generic illustrations of slave auctions or slaves working, etc. The earliest known photographs of enslaved people are from either 1849 or 1850 and the individuals are not named. The earliest named images that I recall are portraits of Frederick Douglas, Dred Scott (and wife), and Anthony Burns. I know there are others--just not many that are truly antebellum. I realize it is fudging to say this illustration is antebellum. Regardless, after a couple of years, it is still unique in that it depicts the enslaved not in a portrait and not was workers or as the powerless being auctioned, but as men in control. Could there be a racist element to the drawing? Probably, given the era it came from. But it is not obviously racist and is certainly more neutral in its depiction of the rebellion. Whether or not it adds to the article or falls under decorative is another matter. Despite our lengthy discussion on this matter, I really do not feel strongly one way or the other about its inclusion--I just think it and the illustration that remains fall under the same category of fantasy depictions years after the fact that mostly serve a decorative purpose to a long article (that will be getting longer). Rublamb (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The image "Horric Massacre" is far from neutral. The only atrocities depicted are those committed by the rebels, and even these are selected with the intention of shedding a bad light on them: I can see at least three girls among the White victims, but there are only two men. The other atrocities (e.g. the flaying of Turner's dead body, the killing of totally innocent Black people) are not shown. For the publisher of the picture, Black lives didn't matter. That the picture is used by respected publications is not of interest here, since those publications follow their own rules, e.g. they have to attract readers. Yes, we can use the picture, but we have to explain its historical context and we have to add at least one other picture to create a certain balance. Rsk6400 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that black lives did not matter to most people in antebellum America. Even the abolitionists did not necessarily believe in racial equality. But the very heart of a slave rebellion is racial, so it would be impossible and inappropriate to cover this topic in a way that overlooks racial imbalance. In addition, Nat Turner tends to polarize people to one side or the other--hero or villain--making it almost impossible to find sources that are neutral. But by depicting both sides of the argument, there is balance. You cannot exclude all negative opinions and leave only positive ones as that is also a lack of neutrality. Nor can you just include contemporary opinions as that removes an understanding of how deeply this rebellion entered the white psyche and why it had such a major impact on legislation and liberties of the enslaved. How people depicted the rebellion at the time it happened it is vital to our understanding of its psychological and historic impact. Certainly, the text could be stronger in relationship to this topic and this specific illustration.

I am not sure why the genders of the white victims in the illustration matter unless you have a specific goal of obscuring the killing of women and children to make the rebels appear less ruthless. For example, I recently saw an interview where a person said no children were hurt in the rebellion as Turner would not harm children. Of course, this is factually untrue. I went through the list of white people killed during the rebellion. The list includes 10 adult males, 14 adult females, and 31 children (5 boys, 4 girls, and 22 gender unknown). In one household, Catherine Whitehead, her four children, and a grandchild were killed as shown in illustration #1 of Horrid Massacre. Travers (misspelled as Travis in the illustration) was killed as shown in illustration #2, along with his wife and three children who are not depicted. Barrows was killed and his wife and child were not, as depicted in illustration #3. In total, Horrid Massacre depicts the following white people: 2 adult males, 2 adult females, 5 children (3 might be female, but hard to tell because all children wore dresses). In context the actual numbers killed, these illustrations represent a historically accurate balance by age and gender. The artwork also represents actual incidents, not something fabricated. Furthermore, the illustration shows the militia chasing the rebels, clearly illustrating the imbalance of power and weapons between the whites and the enslaved. This does not include any illustrations of the rebels being killed or hung. And a modern illustration of those scenes would be conjecture. However, it does not mean that there is no value to the illustration in relationship to the article. As mentioned above, some balance is achieved by the inclusion of another antebellum illustration that depicts Turner and his team as rational, calm men. It is not perfect, but we are limited by the range of materials available from the era. Also, I believe the illustrations use by other reliable and respected sources do matter--it shows that this illustration is considered important in the discussion of Nat Turner's rebellion and that is generally not considered to be offensive--in contrast to your claims.Rublamb (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The Horrid Massacre image is simply unacceptable unless reliable sources have critiqued it and discussed it in its historical context. Without that it comes across as racist. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It is racist - it's a contemporary depiction of the events in 1831, which was obviously a deeply racist time. For me, it illustrates how some people viewed the events in a way that words alone can't convey. As such, it clearly adds value to the article. If you want to also add some reliably sourced critique of the image, that would be great.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not so important: Even the first half of the 19th century was not a "deeply racist time". E.g. Black travellers to the UK like Harriet Jacobs or Frederick Douglass noted the absence of racism there. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for concisely saying what I have been trying to explain. And I do think context is important to add. The role of the media and expanding regional panic is important to understanding the impact of this rebellion. Rublamb (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken so long, but I did find a source to go with the 1831 Horrid Massacre in Virginia image and have added text to provide context for the now adjacent image. In the meantime, someone had restored the image to the Infobox. I removed it from the Infobox for the reasons discussed above. Both 19th-century images in the article now have correct info about their origin in their captions. Rublamb (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2024 (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)

Weird capitalisation

Why are "White" and "Black" capitalised throughout this document. This extends to within quotes, which is just wrong... 2001:861:E385:7F80:7C09:8EF3:3389:9111 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that quotes should reflect the source but the use of capitalization elsewhere in this article was decided on a long time ago by agreement of its editors. Although Wikipedians frown on capitalizations in general, MOS gives editors latitude to use mainstream, general-style references. The trend in most is to capitalize races. For example, APA says "racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized." The Chicago Manual of Style agrees, while the AP Stylebook capitalizes Black but not white. However, we can always revisit the prior decision. I like it as is. What do others think? Rublamb (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Legislative response -- abbreviations

Small usage point: this article seems to have invented a new acronym/abbreviation for the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia General Assembly -- "VGA." I formerly worked for a member of the Virginia House of Delegates (lower house of the legislature) for several years, and the abbreviation "VGA" was not only not in common use, I cannot recall it ever being used. The commonly used short forms were "General Assembly," "Assembly" or "legislature." I would also refer you to Wikipedia's own articles on the Virginia General Assembly, Virginia Senate and Virginia House of Delegates, which do not use this acronym. For further reference, you may also examine the General Assembly's official website [2]; again, this abbreviation is not used, but the other short forms are. Thanks. 2605:A601:A091:6400:3CF7:260:500:A132 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have replaced "VGA" with "General Assembly" per your comments. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)