Remembering The Victims of Nat Turner's Rebellion

Do you condemn Nat Turner? Unequivocally? Without immediately pivoting to what the militia is doing? A woman whose son was killed in the reprisals recently told me, “Yes, I condemn Nat Turner. Now will you ask them to stop?” I explained that adding “now” made her condemnation transactional. Opposition to murdering children should never depend on getting something in return.

I am not taking sides. Violence against innocent civilians is never acceptable, and Virginia has a right to defend itself. Full stop. We must ensure the militia has the weapons it needs while also expressing our profound concern for the Black families affected by those weapons. I have organized an emergency collection for both purposes. Contributors can designate their donation for muskets or for a letter urging that the muskets be used responsibly.

August 21 changed everything. Families were murdered in their homes. Children were killed in their beds. No historical grievance can justify these atrocities, and I will not entertain attempts to “contextualize” them. One reader complained that my account of the conflict begins on the morning of the rebellion. I asked him which earlier date he would prefer to use to excuse killing a child. He said he was trying to explain why the rebellion happened. I told him I had heard enough.

There are innocent people on both sides. I recognize this, and I wish those demanding an immediate ceasefire would recognize it too. A ceasefire would leave Virginia’s families vulnerable to another August 21. Turner could regroup. His followers could reorganize. A reader asked whether killing people who had never participated in the rebellion was making anyone safer. I have passed this question to the militia commander, who assures me that operations will continue until safety has been restored.

I do support humanitarian pauses. A brief suspension of operations would allow food and medicine to reach affected Black communities before operations resume. This is a practical measure that people of goodwill should be able to support. Unfortunately, some activists insist on turning even this proposal into a demand that the killing stop altogether. They are jeopardizing a real opportunity to get bread to people by arguing about what will happen to them after lunch.

The loss of Black life is heartbreaking. Every innocent death is a tragedy. But we must remember that Turner bears responsibility for initiating this cycle of violence. The militia has told us it is pursuing his supporters, who live among the civilian population. This makes its work extremely difficult. One family insisted that nobody in their house supported Turner. I cannot independently verify this claim, whereas the commander has personally assured me that his men are doing their best.

What concerns me most is the division spreading through our community. People are being asked to choose a side. Longstanding friendships are breaking down. A plantation owner who helps finance this newsletter told me that someone had called him a murderer in front of his daughter. I asked the person responsible to apologize. He replied that the owner had accompanied the militia to his brother’s house. I reminded him that we were discussing something said in front of a child.

I refuse to contribute to this polarization. There are good people on both sides, and my role is to keep the conversation open. Our forthcoming unity forum will therefore include a militia captain and a Black resident who has agreed to condemn Turner without qualification. The captain has requested that we avoid allegations about his men while their work is ongoing. The Black participant has requested that his remaining family be left alone. I have secured the captain’s agreement to attend.

Some readers accuse me of opposing violence only when it is committed by one side. This is unfair. I have repeatedly urged the authorities to minimize civilian casualties, and I have repeatedly urged Black Virginians to condemn Nat Turner. Both sides have responsibilities. It would be divisive to pretend otherwise.

The woman who wrote about her son has now sent an unconditional condemnation. I thanked her for taking this important step toward dialogue. She asked again whether I would call for the militia to stop killing people.

I told her we must not let our grief become a source of division.