For the most part, “Southampton whites regarded insurrection as some unimaginable calamity that happened to someone else.” (50) This lack of experience with slave discontent further propagated the white perspective that slaves were satisfied with their current conditions. By comparison, Virginia – especially Southampton County – was more lenient with slaves than the Deep South, perhaps because “over one-third of Southampton’s white families owned no slaves” (2), and the county had never experienced a risk of rebellion. Most Great Planters were not unnecessarily cruel to their slaves many owners allowed slaves holidays off and opportunity to be with family in the evenings. Virginia allowed such freedoms as slave schools and slave churches, but at the same time enforced slave behavior with military guard. Beyond the societal implications, slavery served as a means of “racial control” (10) if blacks were kept busy serving masters, they would not have the time or means to revolt. In addition, for many plantation owners and farmers, owning slaves was a status symbol. Even Virginia’s governor, John Floyd, only disapproved of the institution for an economic reason, namely tariff reductions given to Free states. In early 1800’s Virginia, slavery was an integral part of Southern life. Nat’s insurrection reinforced both the fear and ignorance of Virginia whites toward the institution of slavery, which resulted in numerous repercussions toward slaves, despite would-be Southern Christian intentions. Nat Turner used his spotless reputation among whites and religious influence over black slaves to cleverly plan a slave rebellion in 1831. Oates, tells the story of a man who caught a glimpse of freedom as a child and understood its value. The book, The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner’s Fierce Rebellion, by Stephen B.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |