Pros And Cons Of Nat Turner

791 Words4 Pages

A murderer, but not a monster. It’s hard to believe that anyone would consider the thought of Nat Turner not being a monster after unsympathetically killing around 50 people. However, gaining some knowledge of the circumstances that were happening during this time in 1828 in Southampton, Virginia may justify the actions of a born slave. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: a set of qualities promised to all Americans through the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Yet, one could argue that liberty was never an option for a slave in the early 1800s. Furthermore, to accurately transcribe a personal interview during this time was not easy. Lack of technology in the early 1800s makes it clear that Nat’s truth may have been …show more content…

Furthermore, his confession may not tell the whole truth. Nat was interviewed by attorney Thomas Ruffin Gray on November 1st, 1831 and continued his conversation throughout the next two days. When the interview was finally over, it took Gray 5 days to officially print the manuscript. The credibility of these transcripts is questionable due to the difficulty and longevity to officially print copies of what this “monster” apparently confessed. “But like all documents generated in the course of master-class investigations of slave revolts, alleged or actual, The Confessions of Nat Turner raises obvious evidentiary quandaries: credibility, reliability, authenticity”(Tomlins, 3). Obviously, the ability to record an interview was not an option in the early 1800s, so one could argue that the only thing between truth and fiction was the word of Gray himself. Additionally, there are parts of this confession that seem controversial and could prove the lack of authenticity of Gray’s work. “--my master, who belonged to the church, and other religious persons who visited the house, and whom I often saw at prayers, noticing the singularity of my manners…” It is unclear why Nat would be so eager to kill his master if both of them enjoyed church and prayer together; this may be a bias of Gray’s translation in order to make Nat seem more evil than he actually is. If Gray can make people believe that Nat had no sympathy or reason for his rebellion, then there would be no doubt in people’s minds that Nat was indeed a