On a dreary day, I trudged over the wet moorland across Ainthorpe Rigg, under a dull and overcast sky. Reaching the edge, I found myself looking down at Little Fryup Dale, with Crossley Side sprawled below me.
In the history of events that happened on this day, this morning, I had come across a chilling event. The 5th November 1831 was the day Nat Turner, the man who had spearheaded the deadliest slave revolt in American history, stood before the court and received a death sentence. The debate still rages on whether his brutal tactics, which left no white survivors in their wake except for a lone toddler who sought refuge in a fireplace, were justifiable in their quest for freedom.
The rebels claimed the lives of around 60 white men, women, and children, but in the days that followed, an estimated 120 enslaved individuals lost their lives in retaliatory violence, most of whom had no connection to the rebellion. The frenzy extended to the persecution of countless other innocent Black people who had not taken part in the uprising.
While the enormity of this dark chapter in history doesn’t compare directly to the ongoing situation in Palestine, there exists a troubling parallel between the two. This compelled me to ponder a challenging question: can horrific acts of retaliation ever find justification?
Following the trials, the Commonwealth of Virginia executed 56 enslaved individuals accused of involvement in the revolt, Nat Turner among them. After his execution, his body suffered a gruesome fate — dissection and flaying, with his skin repurposed into morbid souvenir purses.
Leave a Reply