We discussed Nat Turner in my history class last night, and I found myself somewhat at odds with the prevailing opinion in the class. There was some interesting discussion and plenty to mull over when we left.
Today I found much of what I was trying to expressed summed up in this paragraph from an article in Salon about Bush:
Equally operative in the Manichean worldview is the principle that those who are warriors for a universal Good cannot recognize that the particular means they employ in service of their mission may be immoral or even misguided. The very fact that the instruments they embrace are employed in service of their Manichean mission renders any such objections incoherent. How can an act undertaken in order to strengthen the side of Good, and to weaken the forces of Evil, ever be anything other than Good in itself? Thus, any act undertaken by a warrior of Good in service of the war against Evil is inherently moral for that reason alone.
I haven’t finished the article, and it’s been a while since I agreed with an article in Salon. Still, this paragraph exactly sums up what I think of Turner’s Rebellion. Much was made in class of what a Christian Turner was, and how his actions made sense to him in terms of his faith. I think the fact that he used his religious faith to exact literal Old Testament carnage on his enemies is the very definition of fanaticism. Of course it made sense to him- he clearly believed that any violence he inflicted against the Evil of slavery was justified. But when you use that kind of logic, you end up with a classroom of decapitated children. Or at least, Turner and his followers did.
Interesting.