The Confessions of Nat Turner: The Punishment as a Revenge

For this response paper I was asked to give my personal thoughts on the book “The confessions of Nat Turner”. Here’s some background information on Nat Turner. Nat Turner was “the leader of this ferocious band, whose name has resounded throughout our widely extended empire. (Greenberg 38)” He was born on October 2nd 1800. This man lead a two-day rebellion of slaves and free blacks in Southampton county, Virginia. I personally think the book is realistic. When reading this book I thought did they get these things from Nat Turner? If you read the book you would become engaged and start wondering “what’s next”? I did not care for a couple of things that were said, but I did not think too deep into it. In this book they used words such as “heart-rending” instead of saying rebellion.

I believe this book could be made into a movie because of the different events that occurred in the book. I think in the movie we need to know: why he did it, how he started the rebellion, the exact location, and anyone else who was involved. We want to know how many people were killed also. In this book the author states he had four helpers. Their names were: Sam, Nelson, Hark, and Henry. In the film only facts should be told. No one should throw anything in to make him seem right or wrong. We also want to know what they used to kill the families. The book says he got a sign and it was the appearance of the eclipse of the sun in February. That sign encouraged him to use his enemies weapons to kill people. The book also talks about how Nat turner was gifted in many ways. The film should elaborate on that statement. The film should speak on how reading and writing was an important part of his life too. Back then blacks couldn’t read and write, but whites could. Whites had a big advantage and they used it against the slaves. Instead of teaching them to read and write they just helped each other. I think whites knew if blacks learned to read and write they would be on to something. Well, Nat Turner learned how to read and write and it opened up a new chapter for him. Something else people want to know how Turner got caught. Throughout the film we should see how they were plotting to capture him. The film should also include how the rebellion ended, but Nat Turner didn’t get caught until a couple months later. If this film includes all these things and details this movie can be a hit.

I do think this book is a reliable source to make a film. I think it is a reliable source because the book is realistic in my opinion. The book includes great details. I think if the boo didn’t give descriptive details I would be stuck. When I say stuck I mean curious on how they can say this occurred and that occurred, but can not give me examples to get an idea on how things went down. The book tells how Turner stayed in a cave after the rebellion ended until a dog smelled his food. Days later the book says two slaves took that same dog and came to his cave. Turner said he knew they would betray him. After this occurred he left the cave and got caught by Mr. Benjamin Phipps. Things like this made me think the book was reliable.

I’m in a unsure place when it comes to whether all questions in this book are answered. I think everything in this book is true and reliable. I don’t think everything in is answered, but then again everything could be answered. I’m still having a debate with myself on this. I’m not sure if the author left things out or Turner left things out. I don’t blame Turner for leaving things out just because of the fact that he thought everything he was doing was right. I believe he thought since they treated slaves wrong everyone should be punished. He wasn’t alone when killing these families so that’s another reason he may have thought what he did was ok. I don’t agree that it was right, but I do understand his frustration. He could’ve handled things differently, but If you think about it they were waiting for him to do something out of line so they could kill him. After thinking this over as writing it there is an iffy statement in the book that had me thinking. The book states, “Honest and open dialogue across racial lines was unusual in the antebellum South- so why would we expect it in a conversation between an enslaved and imprisoned rebel and white lawyer? (Greenberg 9)” I think this is unanswered. I’m really not sure why it wasn’t answered, but if someone could answer this should be added in the film also.