Danver Steven L. (Edited). Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
turns the previously dominant interpretation of the nature of the sl ave experience
on its head. Whereas earlier generations of historians tended to depict slaves as
helpless cogs in an institutional machine, recent scholarship reveals that slaves
were far from an “inferior race” in need of c ivilization, as many historians sug-
gested until the 1960s, and were instead remarkably resilient, creative, and deter-
mined to access freedom while they were still alive.
Much of the credit for the development of such attitudes toward freedom may
be ascribed to the preachers who brought religion to slaves on plantations and else-
where. The religion these ministers preached was an amalgamation of Western
Christianity enforced by slaveholders and African traditions that lived in the cul-
tural values and relationships forged by slaves amongst themselves. Generally
speaking, most slave preachers were itinerant and illiterate, and many were given
to sharing vivid images and subversive ideas in their powerful sermons. The most
subversive ideas, of cours e, were those that challe nged the conditi ons of slavery
and suggested to slaves that there might be opportunities for freedom within their
lifetimes. Significantly, many slave preachers turned the theology of white Protes-
tantism upside down. Whereas slaveholders preferred that their slaves be imbued
with the sense that their toil on ear th mi ght be rewarded in heaven—a view th at
doubled as a psychological mechanism protecting some slaveholders from guilt
and as a convenient social control device at the same time—many slave preachers
encouraged slaves to see themselves as a people chosen by God to bring the light
of freedom to themselves and future generations. Rejecting the idea that they
should be humble, obedient, and patient, these slave preachers instead presented
the biblical tales of Moses and the Israelites, Daniel in the lion’s den, and the story
of David and Goliath to show their brethren that the interpretation of God’s will
promoted by their masters was not necessarily the only one.
Of course, many slave preachers had to cloak their sermons in secrecy to avoid
being pe rsecuted by the slaveholders for whom they presumab ly worked (though
it should be noted that in many instances, slaves chose their own preachers in a cul-
turally organic way). Because they walked on such a tightrope, a lingering ques-
tion, as n oted by religious hist orian Albert J. Raboteau, has been whether slave
preachers were instruments of the status quo or purveyors of revolutionary thought
amongst the slaves to whom they preached. Like many historians of his generation,
Raboteau concludes that the weight of historical evidence suggests that slaves rec-
ognized the limits un der which their preachers worked, lend ing credence to the
argument among many historians that slaves were very much aware of their condi-
tion and eager to resist it as much as possible. In this sense, the role of slave preach-
ers in helping to bring a bout emancipation and in shaping A frican American
culture cannot be overstated.
—Dave Powell
284 Nat Turner ’s Rebellion (1831)
Further Reading
Genovese, Eugene D. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1974.
Raboteau, Albert J. Canaan Land: A Religious History of African Americans. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001.
Raboteau, Albert J. Slave Religion: The “Invisible Institution” in the Antebellum South.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Wilmore, Gayraud S. Black Religion and Black Radicalism. New York: Doubleday, 1972.
Turner, Nat (1800–1831)
Nat Turner led the most infamous slave uprising in the history of the United States
in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. The story of Turner’s life is cloaked in
mystery, clouded by a multitude of competing accounts written by historians and
contemporaries, and—in one famous and, to some, notorious case—a white author
of a fictional account of his life published over a hundred years after Turner’s
death. The particulars of Turner’s life have been sensationalized by some and
downplayed by others as he has become for many a larger-than-life representation
of the battle to end slavery in the United States prior to the Civil War.
Born on October 2, 1800, Turner was seen by those who knew him as an excep-
tional child and as someone marked for greatness. He surprised even his masters
with his precocious ability to read and write. Turner was also heavily influenced
by his maternal grandmother, who was a member of a Methodist church called
Turner’s Meeting House. The church was a place of worship for slaves on the
Turner plantation and was the birthplace of much of Nat Turner’s knowledge of
biblical passages and his abiding faith in religion as a source of inspiration and
emancipation. I ndeed, as historian Gayraud Wilmore has argued, Turner’s deep
understanding of his master’s religion led him to discover something that white
Christians had attempted to conceal from their slaves: the idea that the God
described in the Bible (particularly in the Old Testament) was a God who
demanded justice and had the power to liberate people from captivity. Turner also
realized that this God acted through prophets sent to earth to help subjugated peo-
ples escape the bonds of their captivity.
Armed with this faith, and galvanized by visions that he later described seeing
over a period of several years, Turner t raveled th ro ughout southern Virginia and
perhaps even North Carolina, sharing his vision with the fellow slaves he came
into contact with. Finally, a series of unexplained events culminated in
Nat Turner’s Rebellion (1831) 285
August 1831 in an unusual atmospheric phenomenon known as the “Th ree Blue
Days,” leading Turner to believe that the time had come for him to execute a
planned insurrection against slavery. Turner’s rebellion was suppressed within
48 hours, but not until as ma ny as 60 white men, women, and children had been
killed. A subsequent interview at the Southampton County Jail established Turn-
er’s reputation as a wild-eyed religious radical, a depiction that suited the develop-
ingnarrativeoftherebellionasanaberrationmastermindedbyasingleman.It
also helped assuage the fears of whites worried that Nat Turner represented a
movement of slaves intent on ending their captivity through violence, if necessary.
Ironically, Turner’s characterization by his interviewer, Thomas Gray, also
solidified Turner’s reputation as a highly intelligent individual—a fact that under-
mined the slaveholding elite’s conceptualization of slaves as practically inhuman
and thus i ncapable of rational and intelligent though t, let alone rebellion against
slavery. Turner was hanged for his crimes on November 11, 1831.
Nat Turner lives on in historical memory as a hero, a villain, a murderer, a lib-
erator, and as a rebe llious mastermind. He also, in many ways, serves as a prism
through which our own interpretations of historical events can be filtered and as
a reminder that the business of historical interpretation is shaped as much by our
present circumstances as by the circumstances of the past.
—Dave Powell
Further Reading
French , Scot. The Rebellious Slave: Nat Turner in Am erican Memory. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 2004.
Greenberg, Kenneth S. ed. Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory.New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Wilmore, Gayraud S. Black Religion and Black Radicalism: An Interpretation of the
Religious History of Afro-American People. 2nd ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
1983.
A Contemporary Account of Nat Turner’s Revolt (1831)
Nat Turner (1800–1831) was the leader of a bloody slave rebellion that erupted in Southamp-
ton County, Virginia, on August 21, 1831. A slave of Samuel Turner, Nat was a literate and reli-
gious man who came to believe that God had chosen him t o carry out some great task. In
August 1831, Nat Turner viewed a solar eclipse as the signal for him and his band of followers
to rise up against the whites who enslaved them. Moving from plantation to plantation, the reb-
els freed all slaves and killed all whites whom they encountered. The 55 deaths caused by Turner
and his followers was the largest number of fatalities in any antebellum slave insurr ection. The
rebellion was quickly suppressed, but Turner remained at large for two months. After his capture,
286 Nat Turner ’s Rebellion (1831)
he was swiftly convicted of murder and executed. Reproduced her is an account of the uprising
that appeared in the (Richmond) Enquirer in late August 1831.
The Banditti
A fanatic preacher by the name of Nat Turner (Gen. Nat Turner) who had been taught
to read and write, and permitted to go about preaching in the country, was at the bottom
of this infernal brigandage. He was artful, impudent and vindictive, without any cause or
provocation, that could be assigned. He was the slave of Mr. Travis. He and another slave
of Mr. T. a young fellow, by the name of Moore, were two of the leaders. Three or four
others were first concerned and most active.
They had 15 others to join them. And by importunity or threats they prevailed upon
about 20 others to cooperate in the scheme of massacre. We cannot say how long they
were organizing themselves—but they turned out on last Monday early (the 22d) upon
their nefarious expedition. ...They were mounted to the number of 40 or 50; and with
knives and axes—knocking on the head, or cutting the throats of their victims. They had
few firearms among them—and scarcely one, if one, was fit for use. ...But as they went
from house to house, they drank ardent spirits—and it is supposed, that in consequence
of their being intoxicated,or from mere fa tigue, the y paused in their murdero us career
about 12 o’clock on Monday.
A fact or two, before we continue our narrative. These wretches are now estimated
to have committed sixty-one murders! Not a white person escaped at all the houses they
visited except two. One was a little child at Mrs. Waller’s, about 7 or 8 years of age, who
had sagacity enough to Creep up a chimney; and the other was Mrs. Barrow, whose hus-
band was murdered in his cot ton patch, t hough he ha d received some notice in the
course of the morning of the murderous deeds that were going on; but placed no confi-
dence in the story and fell victim to his incredulty. His wife bid herself between weather-
boarding, and the unplastered lathing, and escaped, the wretches not taking time to hunt
her out. It was believed that one of the brigands had taken up a spit against Mr. Barrow,
because he had refused him one of his female slaves for a wife.
Early on Tuesday morning, they attempted to renew their bloody work. They made
an attack upon Mr. Blunt, a gentleman who was very unwell with the gout, and who
instead of flying determined to brave them out. He had several pieces of firearms, per-
haps seven or eight, and he put them into the hands of his own slaves, who nobly and gal-
lantly stood by him. They repelled the brigands—killed one, wounded and took prisoner
(Gen. Moore), and we believe took a third who was not wounded at all. ...
The militia of Southampton had been most active in ferreting out the fugitives from
their hiding places. ...But it deserves to be said to the credit of many of the slaves whom
gratitude had bound to their masters, that they had manifested the greatest a lacrity in
detecting and apprehending many of the brigands. They had brought in several and a fine
spirit had been shown in many of the plantations of confidence on the part of the masters,
and gratitude on that of the slaves. It is said that from 40 to 50 blacks were in jail—some of
whom were known to be concerned with the murders, and others suspected. The courts
will discriminate the innocent from the guilty.
Nat Turner’s Rebellion (1831) 287
It is believed that all the brigands were slaves—and most, if not all these, the property
of kind and indulgent masters. It is not known that any of them had been the runaways of
the swamps and only one of them was a free man of color. He had afterwards returned
to his own house, and a party sent there to apprehend him. He was accidently seen con-
cealed in his yard and shot. ...
Nat, the r ingleader, who calls himself General, p retends to be a Baptist preacher’s
great enthusiast—declares to his comrades t hat he is commiss ioned by Jesus Christ,
and proceeds under hi s inspired di rections—that the late singular appearance of the
sun was the sign for him, &c., &c., is among the number not yet taken. The story of his
having been killed at the bridge, and of two e ngagements there, is ungrounded. It is
believed he cannot escape.
The General is convinced, from various sources of information, that there existed no
general concert among the slaves. Circumstances impossible to have been feigned, dem-
onstrate the entire ignorance on the subject of all the slaves in the counties around
Southampton, among whom he has never known more perfect order and quiet to
prevail.
Source: Enquirer (Richmond, VA), August 30, 1831.
288 Nat Turner ’s Rebellion (1831)
Texas Revolt (1835–1836)
In August 1821, a revolutionary entered San Antonio de Bexar, the capital of
Spanish, now Mexican Tejas. Although in the dying days of Spanish rule, insur-
gents had been nothing new to the frontier provin ce, this rebel was different. He
came armed, not with guns, but with surveying tools. His goals lay not in estab-
lishing a new political order, but rather, an economic one. His promise of prosper-
ity was the standard raised. To his potential audience, American’s dealing with the
horrific economic crisis of the Panic of 1819 was desperate for hope. So much so
that Stephen F. Austin’s contract for settling 300 families was complete in just
one year, with 297 families established.
Austin ceaselessly worked to insure the success and prosperity of his colonists.
He expanded his colonial contracts and assured many beneficial items for his col-
onists: Tax-free status for six years, legalization of slavery, and duty-free ports
(James E. B. Austin to J. H. Bell, Austin Papers, 589; and Stephen Austin to
Luciano Garcia, Austin Papers, 703). Crucial to Austin’s success was that his col-
onists stay out of politics. Mexico, distracted by its own nation building, was too
preoccupied with establishing its government and order to pay attention to distant
Texas. Left in this status of salutary neglect, Texas prospered.
By1828,however,eventsinMexicoCityhadcalmeddownenoughthatonce
again attention could be paid to Texas. General Manuel Mier y Tera
´
nwasdis-
patched to Texas, and his observations horrified him. Mexican sovereignty was
almost nonexistent. He fearfully stated that “these colonies, whose industriousness
and economy receive such praise, will be the cause for th e Mexican federation to
lose Tejas unless measures are taken soon” (Tera
´
n to President Guadalupe Victoria,
March 28, 1828, as seen in Tera
´
n 2000, 32).
When Tera
´
n sent his report to Mexico, the Mexican congress responded by issu-
ing the Decree of April 6, 1830. This decree called for the establishment of a mili-
tary presence in Texas and a limit on immigration, and it di rectly affected the
region’s prosperity by removing the tax-exempt status and collection of tariffs.
Many histories argue that a myriad of points about the decree ignited frustrations.
The bans on immigration, and even slavery, are li sted as flashpoints of the Texas
rebellion. A critical insight sees these points as secondary. The true threat that
compelled the Texians to action was the threat to prosperity. A s h istorian Crane
Brinton argued, revolutions begin when there “is the existence among a group ...
289
of a feeling that prevailing conditions limit or hinder their economic ac tivity”
(Brinton 1965, 33). In other words, the prosperity that h ad visited t he colonies
was threatened.
With the presence of Mexican troops off the Texas coast, the period of salutary
neglect was over. In the Department of Nacogdoches, Juan Davis Bradburn arrived
with troops and erected a brick and stockade fort garrisoned; it was an obvious
show of force (Henson 1982, 50), and the colonists saw it as such. Much of the gar-
rison consisted of convict-soldiers (Henson 1982, 52). Bradburn began to impress
their slaves for further construction of his fortress, and told them that they should
be free. Although many aggravating secondary items were present, the main threat
to the agrarian economy was the flashpoint of outright revolt: maritime commer-
cial enforcement.
Bradburn’s first attempt to collect customs was thwarted by colonial petitions.
When legal restr ictions were removed, Bradburn was ready. In November 1831,
all ports were closed save the one at Anahuac—the fort supplied with a garrison.
At Brazoria, some captains, chafing at the limitation, si mply defied the order and
began to float downstream. Including one vessel, the Nelson that was fired upon,
and in response, an enraged crewman, Spencer H. Jack fired his own rifle, wound-
ing one of the guards (Henson 1982, 83). This outraged Bradburn, who d eclared
martial law.
Bradburn not only continued tariff collections, but enlarged his threat to pros-
perity by taking “property from the colonists, disclaimed their land titles, and
declared that all of their slaves were freed” (Lewis 1969, 5). Some questioning
colonists, including lawyer William Ba rrett Travis and Spencer Jack’s brother
Patrick C. Jack, were thrown into jail. When yet another Jack , Will iam, arrived
to free his brother, Bradburn responded by telling him he had 15 minutes to leave,
or he too would be arrested.
William left and spread the word of this injustice. Volunteers arrived to take up
arms against this threat to prosperity. By Jun e 4, the rebel numbers had rea ched
130 and although still outnumbered by the Mexican force of 162, the rebels were
determined. Fort Velasco was put under siege.
A group was formed to travel to Brazoria to retrieve three cannons (Rowe 1903,
282–283). A merchant schooner, Brazoria, was requisitioned. By the time Velasco
was reached, the rebel numbers included from 150 to 190. Ugartecha would not
allow them to pass, and a battle ensued lasting more than 10 hours (Henson
1982, 107–108). Continual fire from the Texians on the shore, and cannonade from
the Brazoia, silenced the Mexican cannon. While rainfall limited the effectiveness
of the rifle troops, the cannon on the Brazoria continued to fire. At 10:00 a.m. with
his powder ruined, Ugartecha was f orced t o r aise the white flag (John Austin to
Francisco M. Duclor, Lamar 1968, vol. 1, 100–101).
290 Texas Revolt (1835–1836)
Casualties of the battle depended on which side was believed. The Mexican
report sta ted 7 Mexican dead and 19 wounded, while 7 Texians were killed and
15 wounded (Hill 1962, 16). The Texian observer of the battle, however, claimed
only 6 Texian dead, none wounded and 34 Mexican dead and wounding, “I think
about 40” (“Alexander Thompson to William Thompson” 1904, 326–327). The
casualties on both sides of the battle, however, were insignificant compared to its
consequences.
Then, an event in Mexico City occurred assisted the Texians. A young general,
Santa Anna, had carried out his Plan of Vera Cruz, attempting to return Mexico to
the Liberal Constitution of 1824. In the battle of federalism, the Texians claimed a
federalist victory of state rights (J. Austin to F. Duclor, Lamar 1968, vol. 1, 101).
At Anahuac, the commander of the garrison at Nacogdoches, Colonel Jose de la
Piedras, seemed to reinforce this notion when he found Bradburn had extended
his authority and dismissed him. As the revolutionaries had “thus obtained their
object” of “s hewing [sic] the Military that the c onstitution should be adhere d to
and the civil power rule”—in other words, with the threat to prosperity gone—
the militants simply “return’d home peaceably” (Alexander Thompson to William
Thompson, Lamar 1968).
General Jose Antonio Mexica and 400 soldiers arriv ed to ensure all was well, and
remained at this location to observ e the Tex ians for one week. He found the colonists
“placid, loyal, and exulted” over Santa Anna’s victories. Pleased at his discovery,
Mexica sailed a way on July 24, gi ving the Texas santanistas his blessing.
The Texians—bloodied by the lessons learned—believed they had learned how
to make changes in the Mexican political system. Now that they had cast their lot
with the federalists, the Texians continued in pursuit of a goal that would grant
them the political voice that they sought, and the prosperity they craved—separate
Mexican statehood.
Flush with victory, the Texians called a series of political meetings known as
the Consultation of 1832 and 1833. Their main object was to ensure prosperity.
This could be ac hieved by tariff red uction and separation from the ir sister state
Coahuila. Stephen Austin, with Erasmo Seguin and Dr. James Miller, were chosen
to present the petition to Mexico City on April 13, 1833.
The Texians apparently seemed to believe that now that their petitions had been
filed, they could let down their vigilance. All points seemed to display the victory
of their rights. Tariff enforcement had not returned. The “Decr ee of April 6” had
been repealed. Texas would receive additional representation in t he legislature.
English could be used in legal documents (Barker 1928, 113–114; Report of
Ugartechea to Teran, Lamar 1968, vol. 1, 100–101; Henson 1976, 39). Prosperity
had returned to the coasts. It is not surprising, then, that news of Austin’s arrest in
Saltillo on January 3, 1834, was lost in the other victories the Texians had gained.
Texas Revolt (1835–1836) 291
Unbeknownst to the Texians we re the conditi ons of Austin’s arrest. His incar-
ceration was harsh. He remained incarcerated for almost a year, without any
charges being pressed. He was released on December 25, 1834, but without his
passports he would remain in Mexico City until July 11, 1835.
During Austin’s absence, the Texians followed Austin’s rule of staying out of
politics, and Texas prospered. A Mexican general, sent to spy on the Texians, not
only found all placid, but also was certain “that Texas is soon destined to be the
most flourishing section of its republic”(Almonte 1925, 178).
The peace in Texas was inspired not by federalist promises, but rather, distance
from the capital, Mexico City. Specifically, Santa Anna had grown more centralis-
tic. To continue his consolidation of power, he ordered all state militia reduced
(Henson 1976, 69–70). Many provinces revolted, but as Texas did not, it was
ignored. Texas’s sister state of Coahuila rebelled, and although they cried to Texas
for s upport, few assisted. Prosperity lived in Texas, and few were willing to rock
the boat.
Then on January 1, 1835, Colonel Ugartechea, still in military command, dis-
patched various garrisons to differing locations in Texas. Customs c ollections
were to begin at Anahuac, and it would be enforced by soldiers and a new revenue
cutter (Barker 1928, 137, 152). With salutary neglect ending, a threat to the pros-
perity in the r egion appeared (Andrew Briscoe to J.D. Allen, McDonald 1995,
110). The owners of a stopped vessel, the Ohio,wenttotheirattorney,William
Barrett Travis, to file a protest.
Travis responded through what he had done in the past: he led a popular revolt.
Specifically, he led 30 rebels to expel the threat at Anahuac (Barker 1901, 200).
They were successful, but rather than receiving accolades, Travis was berated for
his threat to the peace and told he would have to make a public apology (Travis
to Henry Smith, Lamar 1968, vol. 5, 81). The moneyed interests believed that
activity might bring repression. The action, however, was too much, Martin
Perfcto de Co
´
s, the military commander in Texas, found the Texians show wanting
and called for the arrest of those who had taken part in the expulsion. Sensing a
threat to prosperi ty, Columbia put out the call for another po litical meeting, the
Consultation (“W. H. Wharton and Others Call for a Public Meeting,” Lamar
1968, vol. 1, 219).
The catalyst that shook the Texians from inactivity was arrival of the same man
who warned them to remain politically inactive. Stephen F. Austin arrived back in
Texas on September 2, 1835. That prior day, some Texians at Anahuac became
enraged a t the capture of a brig, the Tremont, by the Mexican sch ooner of war,
the Correo de Mejico. The Texians recaptured the Tremont . As Austin’s boat, the
San Felipe, arrived, the Mexican captain, Thomas Thompson , was preparing to
retake the Tremont. The Texians disembarked Austin and used the Laura to tow
292 Texas Revolt (1835–1836)
the San Felipe to capture the Correo. Up on boarding the Correo,Thompson,
unable to find his papers, was arrested. Austin responded by preparing his people
to resist. With Austin back in Texas, activity began. Committees of correspon-
dence maintained information on Mexican troop movements. A call was issued
for another political consultation to prepare (“W. H. Wharton and Others Call for
a Convention,” Lamar 1968).
Two weeks before the political meeting, however, fighting erupted. In a threat
surpassing prosperity and striking survival, Mexican general Martin Perfecto de
Co
´
s dispatched more than 100 dragoons to retrieve a cannon from Gonzales. In
its short history, Gonzales had been destroyed twice by Native American attacks.
All this cha nge d once they were given a fieldpiece by the Mexican government .
The “cannon” wa s nothing more than a spiked armament captured from Spanish
rebels. While its firing was inaccurate, it w as able to make a loud noise, which
was enough of a threat to persuade Native Americans against attack.
Now however, Mexican forces were arriving to take the town’s guardian. When
the Mexican forces arrived on September 29, a meager 18 Texians stood in deter-
mined opposition on the opposite bank of the swollen Guadalupe River. The Tex-
ians were determined to hold on to the cannon as it was seen as necessary for
survival—discouraging Native American attacks (Smithwick 1983, 76). Although
Lieutenant Francisco Castan
˜
eda w as prevented from crossing, he waited f or the
stream recede.
During Castan
˜
eda’s delay, messengers rode to the countryside crying for rein-
forcements. By October 1, the Texians’ numbers swelled to over 180, and prepara-
tions were being made to fight the next day. On October 2, 1835, after parley
failed, the rebel flag declaring “Come and Take it” was unfurled by the cannon
now mounted on a wagon. In what is known as the “Lexington of Texas,” shots
were fired, and one, possibly two Mexicans w ere killed. As t he Texians held the
woods, Castan
˜
eda retreated with his troops. The Texians faced no losses, and they
were emboldened for a fight (T. J. Rusk, “Account of the fight at Gonzales,” Lamar
1968). The only problem is, they did not agree on what they were fighting for.
Indeed, one observer, N oah Smithwick, attempted to explain: “Some were for
independence, some were for the Constitution of 1824; and some were for any-
thing, just so long as it was a row” (Smithwick 1983, 76).
Enraptured by the relatively easy victory at Gonzales, George M. Collinsworth
led a contingent of 49 men to remove the threat of troops by capturing the Presidio
at Goliad (La Bahia), an d hopefully capture General Co
´
s. (Ano nymous, Lamar
1968) As they marched, their numbers increased to probably about 120 men. On
October 10, the Texian force was able to catch the Mexican guards by surprise.
The Presidio was captured after about 30 minutes of resistance by the guards.
Although the Texians were bloodied, none were killed, while Mexican forces
Texas Revolt (1835–1836) 293