Holy Rebellion

Hello, my name is Nat Turner, and I am one of, if not the most important figure in the early abolitionist movement. I was born the son of an unknown father, (many think he ran away), on a small plantation. My mother was a native African who engrained her passion of hatred into me. I learned my ability to read from one of my master’s sons. In the early 1820’s I was sold to a neighboring plantation. Around this time, I became fas

cinated with religion. I knew that I was destined for greatness in the eyes of the Lord, even referring to myself as a chosen child of GOD who was called upon to lead my enslaved race of people out of bondage. My influence was so powerful that those around me began to refer to me as "The Prophet."

One fateful day in 1831 there was an eclipse of the sun; I knew this was my time to strike. I first enlisted the help of four other slaves. We were forced to abort this attempt however. The second time I enlisted the help of 6 others and killed a slave owning family. After this I felt empowered like I was really carrying out the Lord’s will on his behalf. I then decided to enlist the help of 75 additional slaves. This resulted in the murder of an estimated 57 whites. After what was a long two day killing spree, my revolt was finally brought to a halt. I however, managed to escape. During this time militias and white mobs killed an estimated 160 slaves. State officials thought it’d be fit that I’d stand trial for my actions, even going as far as offering a $500 reward for my capture and subsequent safe return. This amount of

money is the equivalent of $18,091.72 today. I thought that it’d be smart for me to hide out in a nearby cave due to amount of heat that was on me because of the situation. I chose to hide out in a nearby cave. This however proved itself to be a bad idea due to the fact that I was found by a local farmer who didn’t live that far away from the cave. In my jail cell I was interviewed and recorded by a local planter and lawyer. These so called “Confessions of Nat Turner” became a pamphlet short after this time and subsequently the basis for a bestselling book as we as operating as the definitive source for nearly all accounts of the event.

I was hung shortly after these events took place. Nineteen of the thirty men who were arrested for carrying out my plan were convicted and executed. The rest of them, along with 300 free blacks from the area, agreed to be exiled to Liberia in Africa. My rebellion led to a passage of new laws, opened up the door for discussions regard

ing the end of slavery, and forced the Virginia legislature to have some difficult discussions around slavery that they would not have otherwise had. In the short term however, this holy rebellion ended in the implementation of harsher penalties on the activities of both enslaved and free blacks in the state of Virginia. Other slave states soon followed suit as well; with placing restrictions on their rights to travel, preach, and the opportunity to learn how to read and write. People always used to ask me why I did it and the answer remains the same every time, I simply say it was the Lord’s will.

Is Slavery Justified in Religion?

 Slavery in religion. Religion has been a means to both justify as well as condemn the institution of slavery. Still, almost 1400 years later, there are arguments to be heard on both sides. In each religion there's definitely different things to be taken away from the different sacred texts. In fact, all of these different excerpts can be viewed as evidence backing the other side of the debate depending on how you choose to interpret the excerpt.

Let's start with Islam. In this religion their holy prophet is a man named Muhammad. Muhammad is seen as the chosen recipient and messenger of the word of GOD through divine revelations. Based off this, you can see that Muhammad is a highly respected figure in this religion. Well, In various sections of the Quran, Islam's holy book, we are privy to the fact that Muhammad himself owned slaves. “Muhammad began to take slaves after he moved to Medina, and had power.  Slaves were usually taken in raids on nearby Arab tribes, or war, either through offensive or defensive actions."  Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a great scholar and Islamic historian says in his book "Zad al-Ma'ad", part 1, p160: "Muhammad had many male and female slaves.  He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves then he sold.  He once sold one black slave for two.  His purchases of slaves were more than he sold." 

"Muhammad had a number of black slaves.  One of them was named 'Mahran'.  Muhammad forced him to do more labor than the average man. Whenever Muhammad went on a trip and he, or his people, got tired of carrying their stuff, he made Mahran carry it.  Mahran said "Even if I were already carrying the load of 6 or 7 donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load".  Tabari and Jawziyya both record this, so Islam accepts this as true."These quotes makes it seem as though Muhammad was an avid slave owner. Also, not just the fact that he was a slave owner but also the fact that he forced his slaves to do more work than “the average man”. This kind of behavior being exhibited through what the religion sees as their prophet who was chosen by God makes it almost seem as if this exhibited behavior is ok and is also ordained by God. Besides these excerpts, there is also much much more information exhibiting pro slavery behavior in Islam's so called Holy Book.Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God - Sura 16:77. According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave.  Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this. According to this, murdering a slave is almost the equivalent of murdering an animal seeing as there is no punishment nor does it even seem to be looked down upon.

Next up, we have Judaism. In this religion there are various prophets and the final say goes to GOD or Adonai. The holy books of Judaism include portions of the Old Testament of the Bible as well as the Torah, along with a couple others. A Hebrew could not become a slave unless by order of the court or by giving himself voluntarily into bondage. Other slaves were always recruited from outside the nation. It has been opined that the epithet "'eved 'ivri," and the laws relating to Hebrew slaves (Ex. 21:2–6) would apply also to such non-Jewish slaves as were born into the household as the offspring of alien slaves."Of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondwomen. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy and of their families that are with you which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession" (Lev. 25:44–45). A debtor who is
unable to pay his debts may give himself in bondage to his creditor (cf.

Lev. 25:39; Prov. 22:7; see also II Kings 4:1; Isa. 50:1; Amos 2:6, 8:6; Neh. 5:5). We see a common theme where slaves are permissible if acquired by way of certain means. These means include debt, prisoners of war, as well as other means of acquiring slaves from outside of the nation. What caught my attention however, was the attention placed on women specifically in certain passages. A father may sell his daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7), usually apparently for household duties and eventual marriage (Ex. 21:7–11).This almost likens women to possessions that can be handed down by way of men.Female slaves sold into bondage by their fathers go free if their master's sons deny them their matrimonial rights (Ex. 21:11).This specific example implies that female slaves were justified in their situation of slavery unless they weren’t to be married.This specific example implies that female slaves were justified in their situation of slavery unless they weren’t to be married.

In regards to the Christian faith, there is no side taken for or against slavery as like other religions, there is an impartiality on the topic of slavery. However, the Bible has been used to justify slavery with multiple direct verses being cited. Stories told by Jesus that involve slavery and slave masters have been used in the past due to Jesus also taking an impartiality on slavery. Reasoning states that since Jesus never outspokenly says he condemns slavery, he then justifies slavery by keeping silent. A direct verse is Leviticus 25:44-46, which discusses buying slaves and seeing them as property. This verse is one of the main reasons for why slavery is seen as justified by the Bible with no words of potential condemnation in the story being told. A final story used is the one of Noah cursing Canaan after Canaan murdered his brother, Abel. In Genesis 9: 18-29, Noah says to Canaan, “May Canaan be the slave of Shem… May Canaan be the slave of Japeth!” With the word slave being strongly used by Noah, there is a serious justification of slavery involving that story. As told, there are several stories from the Old Testament that justify slavery, but the New Testament is known as having a “changed”
view on slavery even if it never takes a side on the matter. Stories that entail condemning slavery in the Bible are very slim, however, there are letters from St. Paul in which he discusses slavery. He writes to enslaved Christians to push for freedom and to escape from their lives of terror. One final Bible verse found regarding slavery in a more positive manner is

1 Timothy 6:2. This verse discusses how slave masters must treat their slaves in an equally respectful manner and must be devoted to the welfare of the slaves. While this verse does accept slavery and spreads no word of condemnation, showing respect and care for others is the backbone of Christianity and those qualities are ones that not many slave masters display. Therefore, Christianity took its own approach against slavery by calling slave masters to live more as a Christian, even if they were still allowed to own slaves and have them work.

SCOTUS

 The Supreme Court of the United States is the most powerful judicial body on earth. The power

they have rests on public faith in their fairness and ability to do their job. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the constitution and to subsequently apply this interpretation to various matters of law. There have been just over 100 justices with all of them serving an average of 16 years. The Supreme Court's sole job is to interpret the constitution.

Cases start in a district court. This is what we call a "trial of facts". Said case then travels up to an appellate court. In this court they must hear your case. This trial is what's considered "a trial of law". This just means that, in this case, they are looking to see if the lower court allowed for due process during your case. Then, after all of this, a petition is made to the Supreme Court in order to get them to preside over the case. However, this court goes through what's called a Writ of Certiorari. This means that the Supreme Court has the option to deny a case if it doesn't think it's worth taking a look at it. The court and it justices receive just over about 8,000 cases a year (only about 80 are actually heard each year). If and only if a case is chosen, then it gets allowed an oral argument where attorneys from both sides of the case will get to plead each of their respective cases. The Court's sole job during these cases is to interpret the

constitution and apply that interpretation of the constitution to each specific case. A high profile example of this power being used is in the case titled "Marbury v Madison". In this case we get to see the Supreme Court deny a man the ability to gain his commission by the Writ of Mandamus. The Supreme Court is one of the few places where, "...the public never has a direct ability to influence the decision through the ballot box." - Justice Steven Breyer.

The issue that continues to present itself in Supreme Court rulings over time present themselves on the prospect of fairness, or in some case the lack thereof. While watching a documentary video on the Supreme Court I noticed that some of these justices seem to have views that have already been established on certain case before they even get a chance to hear the case. Now obviously, said justices are humans. With that being said it's difficult, if at all possible, for them to come into hearings without preconceived notions or opinions that are already molded to think what they're already set on thinking. Now, how far is too far when having these preconceived notions? I mean in all honesty you have to ask yourself, why are these cases even being heard if the justices already hold opinions on them. Justice John Breyer is heard saying that he even goes as far as using the oral arguments in a case to ask questions that he wants to be on his colleagues minds. From what I've been able to gather, we as Americans just have to trust that these fellow human beings who have accepted the responsibility to uphold our greatest sanctity as Americans do just that. This trust and belief that a choice selection of specially chosen citizens stand both literally and morally above the very people that make them the most powerful judicial body on earth.