For each question, answer the question completely using proper English and make sure to proofread! You must also respond to at least one other student post to receive full credit.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Chapter Two-Killing: " The Hardest Courage"
What was Henry M. Turner's view on black soldiers seeking revenge upon confederate rebels? Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Turner? Why?
Henry M. Turner, "urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies."(pg.54) Turner tried to discourage black soldiers from taking out their anger on Confederate troops. He acknowledges the fact that black soldiers have suffered many horrific casualties during the war. He understood the hatred the black soldiers had for all Confederates but he was opposed to killing rebel prisoners. "Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord."(pg.54) I agree with Mr. Turner. Although black troops were treated especially horribly by Confederate troops including the massacre at Fort Pillow, they should still fight with dignity. By the black troops continuing to act like troops the Confederates would be surprised. The black soldiers' lives that were taken during the war can never be replaced but, the black soldiers should honor the dead and fight with nobility and dignity against the Confederates instead of fighting with recklessness and revenge.
Henry M. Turner was "sternly opposed to the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers."(pg.54). He wanted the black soldiers to disappoint those rebels who expected them to behave brutally. They should take charge of who they are and show the rebels that they have morals and standards of their own. I agree with Henry M. Turner's view. Whether it is a black soldier seeking revenge on confederate soldiers or the other way around, there is no reason for it. Instead of fighting with blind anger, soldiers should fight with the upright respect they deserve.
Henry M. Turner expressed his view when he stated he, “Sternly opposed, and that is the killing of all rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers.”(pg.54) He expected his troops, “To disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally,” and wanted them to fight with class (if that’s possible). There is no question, or doubt, that angry and revengeful feelings were present in black soldier’s minds as a result of being, “singled out for special cruelty and humiliation,”(pg.53) but I agree with Turner that those feelings should not affect one’s morals when fighting. Many black soldiers believed that as Christians they were against brutal fighting and that, “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.”(pg.54). Religion was the only important reason for fighting with morality, as many black soldiers wanted, “To win a place in polity, as citizens and as men.”(pg. 48) That quote shows how black soldiers were not only fighting for their country, but also acceptance in society, and fighting cruelly would not help their chances of being accepted.
Ben, Jamie, and Rachel, if black soldiers were to fight in a respectful manner would they risk enduring slavery after the Civil War? Isn't unbridled violence necessary in order to combat horrors such as slavey. Why shouldn't black soldiers do everthing in their power to destroy their slaveholders and the institution of slavery???? Mr. S
Response to Mr. Santaniello Many of the Union black soldiers would not have had to risk enduring slavery after the war, as many of the Union states had already abolished slavery. So since slavery was already abolished in the states from which these soldiers were from they were not necessarily fighting for release from it. Instead black soldiers focused in on a new goal which Faust describes as, "To win a place in polity, as citizens and as men."(pg.48) Black soldiers should not do everything in their power do destroy slavery because many were now trying to get a place in society, and fighting without respect wouldn't help them get there.
Response to Ben's comment, Good point, most of the northern black soldiers in the Civil war had little risk of becoming slaves again. However, if the Union would have lost the war many of the soldiers' decendents would have faced slavery for many more years to come. The black Union soldiers were fighting for more then themselves. They were fighting for the future freedom for all Blacks.
Turner's view on the revenge black soldiers was strongly discouraged. "Vengeance...belonged to the lord." Revenge is never really a good thing because it feeds off of anger and hatred. However, I'm kind of confused why Turner discouraged revenge. In battle aren't you supposed to hate the enemy and shoot him up. The kind of craziness of revenge could give the black soldiers a special edge in battle. The black soldiers were fighting the men that had enslaved them and their ancestors for many years. Even though revenge isn't morally good, it could be used as a secret weapon in battle. During battle, all reality of society is blocked out and morals don't matter. All that matters sadly is killing.
Henry Turner was “ … sternly opposed to … the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers.” (p.54) He believed such actions were an outrage upon civilization and Christianity. He “urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies.” (p.54) Another black chaplain also said that vengeance belongs to the Lord. I agree with Turner. It is completely understandable for the black soldiers to want revenge: many of their brethren were slaves and thus treated horribly. In addition, all black soldiers were given no quarter if captured: they would either be killed or sent into slavery. The black soldiers (and people) wanted respect, which is something earned, not given. If the black soldiers acted like savages to exact revenge, I don’t think they would be given the respect they wanted. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “That old law about ‘an eye for an eye’ leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”
Turner did not condone the imitation of the brutal behavior displayed by Confederate soldiers, saying that they should "claim a moral superiority to their enemies" (54). I disagree with Turner; "moral superiority" does not win wars. It is not a battle of morals. I am not convinced that the soldiers who had acted so brutally toward black soldiers would be at all interested that Turner's troops had acted morally. Turner should have urged his troops to use the opportunity to liberate themselves, to empower themselves and to gain their freedom. "Killing was for black soldiers . . . the instrument of liberation; it was an act of personal empowerment and the vehicle of racial emancipation" (55). Turner's black soldiers should not have been asked to put aside all that had been done to them by their enemies, the Confederates. This should have been their time to revolt - however they chose, be it with a vengeance or not - after being oppressed and held down for so long.
In response to Orion: I agree that revenge could have been, like you said, a secret weapon in battle. Faust talked about this extensively, saying, "The desire for retribution could be almost elemental in its passion, overcoming reason and releasing the restraints of fear and moral inhibition for soldiers who had witnessed the slaughter of their comrades" (35). Taking revenge on a person who may have killed their comrade could make a soldier feel less guilty and unsure about killing an opposing soldier. Also, killing in revenge attached a goal to the act; when soldiers may have lost sight of why they were fighting and killing at all, revenge could give them the short-term motivation to keep going. Once soldiers felt they were killing for a reason, it could make killing much easier, which would offer them an advantage in warfare.
I believe black Union Soldiers would not risk becoming slaves after the Civil War. Since most northern states were Free states, slavery after the war in these states wasn't likely. Unbridled violence is not necessary when one is already free. I agree with Ben in that, “Black soldiers should not do everything in their power do destroy slavery because many were now trying to get a place in society, and fighting without respect wouldn't help them get there.” Most black soldiers were already free, otherwise how could they be in the war? Black soldiers had to follow orders given to them by the army and although they may have wanted to do everything in their power to destroy slaveholders and the institution of slavery; this would be reckless and could put all their soldiers in harm. They already had freedom even though racism still impacted their life, but they were fighting for equality and to free the slaves of the south.
Response to Mr. Santaniello I know the black soldiers were fighting slavery, but unbridled violence is not necessary. They can fight as much as they want as long as they do not become savages. I am not saying none of the soldiers became savages. The war had an effect on the men that turned them from respected gentlemen into savages blinded by hatred and anger. I would want to fight those people who took my freedom from me but like Turner said, I would want to disappoint the rebels who would expect me to behave brutally.
Turner was "sternly opposed to the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by [their] soldiers [and] urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally," (pg.54). Instead they should "claim a moral superiority to their enemies," (pg. 54). In other words, Turner wanted troops to show some class and fight like gentlemen. I think that Turner's idea was awkwardly unnecessary. I know that first impressions can mean a lot, but a white supremacist won't just see a black man fighting non-brutally (which I'm not sure exactly how exactly any man can fight "gently" with any sort of weapon) and all of a sudden think any higher of blacks, nor will he immediately think any lower of himself. Some minor acts of professionalism, especially coming from a black man, would rarely sway the mind of a man whose opinions are extreme enough to fight for the CSA.
Henry M. Turner was apposed to "the killing of all rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers." [pg.54] Some civilians during the Civil War were against blacks fighting in the war. When slaves people assumed that they were savages because they were differnt. And now fighting in the war they expected the black soldiers to act uncivilized and brutally. Just because people expected the soldiers to do things Henry showed they were civilized. "Even if the rebels had 'set the example,' such actions represented an 'outrage upon civilization and Christianity.'" [pg.54] The South wanted to get a rise out of the black soldiers from what they were doing to their comrades. But the warriors would not rise to tempation. They truely were civilized and religious. "Vengence...belonged to the Lord." [pg.54]
Henry M Turner wanted black soilders to "Disapoint those who expected them to behave brutally", and "claim moral superiority". (pg.54) He didn't want the black solders to take out all their hatred and anger on the confederate army even though he knew how they treated the former slaves and colored troops. I agree with Henry Turner because this was the black soilders chance to prove that they were people not barbaric wild animals.
Henry M. Turner did not want the black soldiers to behave brutally during battle as revenge for the way they were treated as slaves. If they were to do this they would lose any respect they had gained. Turner wanted the soldiers to step up and be bigger than the other soldiers by fighting, but not fighting savage like and attacking them with thier only justification being that they wanted revenge. I agree with him because the black soldiers needed to "disapoint those who expected them to behave brutally"(pg.54) Therefore the black soldiers seem more rightous and above their slave holders.
Henry M. Turner was an individual who had different thoughts and opinions about the Civil War, compared to the majority of the soldiers of the Union, especially the colored people. Many, if not all, of the soldiers fight and kill in order to earn the respect and freedom for black slaves. Therefore, it is completely understandable when colored soldiers fight in a raging manner against their opponent; the Confederates. However, Mr. Turner strongly opposed to their actions and described their manners as an "outrage upon civilization and... Christianity." (pg. 54) Though the rebels had indeed "set the example", his thoughts were to fight with 'class' and to claim victory with a clean behavior. It would not set a good impression to the Northerners, as well as the Southerners, to see their wild and uncontrolled performances upon the battlefield.
In response to Leephan. Why should they act like animals out on the field if like you said they were fighting for respect? how can being crazy with revenge earn respect? When they went out on that field they should fight like everyone else they were men weren't they? If they acted like a crazy vengeful animal that's how they were still going to be treated. They are supposed to be showing that they aren't animals so they shouldn't go and act like one just because they are full of rage and want revenge.
In Response to Lee: I completly agree with what you said about how Turner didn't want the soldiers to fight in a raging manner in revenge. But, to use what they believe in as enough reason to fight. He wanted the soldiers to fight with class and win through clean actions. He wanted them to understand that by fighting brutally they wouldn't win no mattter what happened beacause they would have gone down to the Confederates level.
Henry Turner was "sternly opposed to...the killing of all rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers" and encouraged them to "claim a moral superiority to their enemies." I completely agree with his ideology. After all, if they are trying to abolish an offense against human life, why would they take part in the destruction of the lives of the soldiers? In addition, in 100 years, those looking back on history would look more favorably on the side that chose to at least try to resolve things without violence. Overall, I think that choosing to be the better man in the war would help the North gain more sympathy from the South, from other northerners, and from those studying them later in history.
You bring up a good point in your answer when you say that acting like animals does not help black men prove their manhood. If they wanted to get their freedom from slavery and be treated like men, it would be smart for them to act like men and killing anyone that was captured would not help them with that. Also, the soldiers they captured could be useful in telling them information and could potentially even join their side. Seeking revenge against the rebel soldiers did not help the cause of either side in any way and it caused the Union and the black men fighting to look more barbarous than they really were.
Mr. Turner disapproved of the black soldiers seeking revenge upon the Confederate soldiers. "I am sternly opposed to... the killing of all the rebels prisoners taken by our soldiers" he said. He disapproved because "even if the rebels had 'set the example,' such actions represented an 'outrage upon civilization and... Christianity.'" Mr. turner stated that black soldiers should assume a "moral superiority" over their enemies. I disagree with Mr. Turner. While I understand that these men who were fighting were not the slaves of the men they were fighting against, many were kin to those slaves. By fighting brutally against the common enemy, the Confederates, the black soldiers fighting for the North could exhibit their loyalty to their country and kin by fighting for those who could not. By using such violence, they could display their love for their country and their freedom, as well as the freedom of those who didn't, but could have that freedom. I understand Mr. Turner's argument, but I feel that suppressing the black soldiers' violence would only have brought more losses to Union forces that could have resulted in a lost war. Killing rebel prisoners might have seemed unnecessary, but if it helped to prove a point and win the war, it was worth it. Mr. turner claims that "moral superiority" was the way to act, but that doesn't help soldiers fight for a cause or win a war.
Thank you, Abbey! That is exactly what I meant. By acting morally superior, the blacks gained nothing over the rebels. They just felt that they could not express their anger toward their enemies, but their enemies could express anger towards them. While they were not the ones, most of them, directly affected by slavery, they could have known someone who was. By acting morally, they could not show the rebels that they were serious about what they were fighting for.
Henry M. Turner, the black chaplain of the first U.S. Colored Infantry, displayed his views very boldly throughout the chapter. He expressed his opinion in saying, "I am sternly opposed to, and that is, the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers." (pg 54) He felt that it was wrong what the rebels were doing to all yankee soldiers, especially blacks. He felt this was an "outrage upon civilization and... Christianity." He wanted the Blacks to set an example of how to act with the prisoners of war. It takes a lot to not take revenge on people that have ruined your race. I respect Mr. Turner for his actions and I believe it was the right thing to do, set a good example for others.
Henry M. Turner said "...I am sternly opposed to... the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers". He wanted the soldiers to be better people than what those who thought bad of them- that they were brutal and were seeking revenge. To Mr. Turner, the killing was an "outrage upon civilization... and Christianity"(pg. 54). I agree with Henry Turner that these acts of violence were savage-like and were very unnecessary, and that "vengeance belonged to the Lord." They shouldn't have behaved like brutes and done exactly what the public thought they were capable of doing- murder.
Henry M. Turner believed that though the black soldiers were treated horrifically in battle, that it did not mean that they had to treat others the same way. “Even if the rebels had ‘set the example,’ such actions represented an ‘outrage upon civilization and…Christianity.’” [54] In the movie Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye states that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would be blind and toothless” Both of these men were saying that just because the other side had done something, does not give us the right to do it back to them. I completely agree with this statement. The greatest leaders in this world have not only been fancy talkers, which some of them weren’t, but they practiced what they preached and led by example, which is what I think Henry M. Turner was trying to get the troops to do and possibly be able to get their captured soldiers better treatment.
I completely agree with what Evan said that Henry M. Turner was trying to get the men to set a good example for others. Turner was also saying that though the Confederates were killing all of their prisoners, this did not mean that it was okay for the northerners to do so, because of what was expected of the African American soldiers. The Confederate army expected the African American soldiers to be just as brutal, if not more. “Turner urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally”. [54] His point was that one of the biggest reasons for fighting this war is to free the slaves. The Confederates believed that freeing the slaves would cause mayhem. By being the examples of civility, the soldiers were proving the South wrong and showing that they were men and not animals.
This may sound unjust, but in a way I do agree with everyone that Black soldiers should have fought with "Moral and Dignity", but then again... Revenge is revenge. Some soldiers may have listened to Mr. Turner's obligations and followed due to the Christianity way, but I am pretty sure that some of the soldiers seeked revenge, and given the opportunity.. they may have took control of it. Is there really a proper way to fight a war? Either way killing is killing, fighting is fighting.
Henry M. Turner believed that African American soldiers seeking revenge against the South and killing all rebel prisoners was unjust and brutal. He thought that they should a claim moral superiority against their enemy instead and make a religious stand point. “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.” Henry opposed the violence and blind anger against the South. However, I disagree with him. I believe that African Americans were fueled by this revenge. After hundreds of years of slavery they were now in the position to retaliate and end the cruelty of slavery. This anger drove them to be such a strong fighting force. “Slavery gave the war’s killing and dying a special meaning for black Americans: the conflict was a moment for both divine and human retribution, as well as an opportunity to become the agent rather than the victim of violence. Killing was for black soldiers- as well as for black civilians like Aunt Aggy- the instrument of liberation; it was an act of personal empowerment and the vehicle of racial emancipation.” Without this intense motive the outcome of the War could well have been changed. However, senseless violence and blind anger has a tipping point from a fighting force to corruption and sin.
I support Randolph’s statement that although soldiers should have fought with dignity and morals a war is combat and fighting. Morals may be of great importance in our lives but war holds no place for it. War’s purpose is to achieve personal gain or a common goal through the means of killing and fighting. However, fighting for a reason is different from fighting just to kill. Henry M. Turner had an honorable view of this violence but I believe moral superiority would have been close to impossible. The African American soldiers had suffered in slavery for hundreds of years and now it was time for their liberation. Furthermore, even if they took Henry’s view and respected the rebel prisoners nothing would change the hostile way rebels dealt with black soldiers and their commanders.
Henry Turner believed that black soldiers seeking vengeance opon the Confederates was an "'outrage upon civilization and... Christianity.'" (pg. 54). Turner thought that black soldiers should not take out their anger by killing the Confederates. "Turner urged black soldiers to dissapoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superior to their enemies." Turner is telling his soldiers to stay calm and not become reckless in fighting. I agree with Henry Turner because he is just trying to contain his soldiers. Also, being reckless in a war is very dangerous because many mistakes could be made. For instance, a soldier could shoot his own man because his mind is tainted with revenge. Overall, Henry Turner has a good view on this topic.
Henry M. Turner’s view was for black soldiers to not take revenge on rebel prisoners. “Turner urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies.” (pg. 54). Turner did not want his soldiers to go crazy and seek revenge. Instead he wanted his soldiers calm and to have their heads ready for actual battle. I agree with Turner’s view. Although the black soldiers wanted vengeance on the South, they should take the high road. “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.” (pg. 54). The soldiers remained calm and took out their anger in actual battle through this.
I disagree with you. Instead of the black soldiers taking out their revenge on rebel prisoners, they should’ve taken out their revenge on the actual battlefield. If the black soldiers were to have killed the rebel prisoners, it would have made them look bad and not completely concentrate on actual battle. I understand that the black soldiers had the opportunity to retaliate after hundreds of years of slavery, but by killing just a few rebel prisoners it would not end the cruelty of slavery.
Henry Turner was the black chaplain of the first U.S. Colored Infantry. He had a very strong opinion about the revenge upon Confederate Rebels. Although many whites and colored people wanted to take revenge upon Confederate prisoners of war, Turner was strongly against this. The colored soldiers strongly wanted to kill all Confederate prisoners. In a way, they had the right to feel this way after how the Southerners treated their ancestors for decades. Henry Turner’s opinion was that vengeance would be left to God, and that the soldiers did not need to kill the prisoners. [pg. 54] I strongly agree with Henry Turner that the prisoners should be allowed to live. Another way to look at this, is that the Union soldiers would want their fellow Union soldiers to be treated well, so in my opinion, Mr. Turner was right when he discouraged the killing of Confederate prisoners of war.
In response to Ben Grote: I agree with Ben when he states that the black soldiers had “revengeful feelings” to the Confederates, after how they had been treated during the war. I also agree with him when he says that they should fight the war with class. In many places in the United States, blacks weren’t respected, (especially in the South, but also in some places in the North.) Colored soldiers, in my opinion, were fighting to bring respect to themselves and their families. As Ben Grote said, black’s images would have been hurt if they did not act respectfully to the Confederates, even if they were the people that that they despised the most. Fighting with class is likely what gained them their respect from millions of Americans.
Henry M. Turner was the black chaplain of the First U.S. Colored Infantry, who was strongly "opposed to...the killing of all the rebel prisoners," (page 54) that were captured by his soldiers. He felt that it was an act that was against civilization and the Christian religion. I most definitely agree with Turner because blacks were given a chance to fight in a war where slavery was an issue. The war was a chance for blacks to show they were to be respected and not treated like savages. However, to retrieve that respect they had to act the same way to the Southerners even if they had treated blacks very unfairly. The saying "treat others as though you would want to be treated," goes along with this because if blacks killed the rebels they would be treated even more as savages. Because they fought with respect and pride for the Union, they received much more respect as a race.
I completely agree with Jenna. Tanner you said: "I believe that African Americans were fueled by this revenge...This anger drove them to be such a strong fighting force." I can see your point, however revenge is not the best way to settle something, even if it is something as cruel as slavery. The soldiers still could be a strong fighting force but on the battlefield, as Jenna had said. If the black soldiers had killed their prisoners they would have been seen as savages, not as proud American citizens. You both made really good points, but I have to agree with Jenna on this one.
Henry M. Turner was the black chaplain if the first U.S. Colored Infantry. He had strong opinions on how the colored soldiers should fight. He, “worried about the position, “highly endorsed by an immense number of both white and colored people, which I’m sternly opposed to and that is the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers.” Even if the rebels “set the example” (54) Mr. Turner didn’t want the black soldiers to kill the confederate prisoners because in a way if they did it would be like sinking to their level. He thought if the soldiers weren’t as bad as everyone believed they might be given a different opinion. Mr. Turner didn’t want to be like the whites that were fighting for slavery. He wanted to show that the colored men were people and fighters just as much as the confederates. I absolutely agree with Mr. Turner. Although most colored probably couldn’t wait to have revenge, I think what he wanted sent a more powerful message to those fighting against them. It showed that they could be classy after everything they had been through. I think that was important so the confederates knew they were serious.
You said, "If the black soldiers had killed their prisoners they would have been seen as savages." But the Southerners "quieted wounded black soldiers begging for water." Why should black soldiers be civilized when their comrades were being disrespected so horribly? If a white soldier was denied water and killed "by a bayonet trust," other white soldiers would have gone to get revenge. This probably was a very hard issue for black soldiers.
Henry M. Turner believed that black soldiers should "claim moral superiority"(pg.54) over their enemy, by not acting on revenge. He thought that black soldiers should not kill their Southern prisoners.
I have no real opinion. It would have been fine with me if a black soldier killed his prisoner or if he let him live. One part of war is violence and vengeance. You can't win a war by letting every one live. But if the black soldier doesn't kill the prisoner, it shows that he has discipline. Either way this gains superiority over their enemy.
Henry M. Turner discouraged the black soldiers from seeking revenge on the rebels who had been captured during battle and taken prisoners. If the black soldiers were to take vengeance on these soldiers it would be bad for several reasons. Firstly, it would not help the war end faster with fewer losses but instead prolong it. I theorize this because these soldiers were already prisoners they weren't on the other side of the battle field provoking danger. They were unarmed. Secondly, Killing or even mistreating these men would have caused more tension and plausible justness to the Southern side of the war. But on the other hand if these Black soldiers treated the prisoners with respect then those soldiers may have realized freeing the slaves may not be as bad as first thought and word would spread. I strongly agree with the chaplain that the Black soldiers should not seek vengeance on the rebel prisoners because in my mind the best outcome for the Blacks would come from treating the prisoners with great respect and brotherly kindness.
Jonah-in response to Sophia: I extreamly enjoyed that you associated your answer to the golden rule. I agree with you that the chaplain in a way was teaching the golden rule to the soldiers he was associated with to benifit them during and after the war. Good Job yay.
Henry M. Turner's view on black soldiers seeking revenge on Confederate Rebels was that it was an "outrage upon civilazation and...Christianity." (pg. 54) He urged black soldiers to do the opposite of what the Confederates expected of them which was brutality and violence. Yes, the Confederates set the example but Turner didn't think that they should follow that poor example on the field. I agree with Turner. Blacks should have been setting a better example and showing that they don't need to sink to the Confederate's levels, no matter how much they deserved it for what they did to them. The needed to be the "bigger person".
I understand your opinion that “You can't win a war by letting every one live. But if the black soldier doesn't kill the prisoner, it shows that he has discipline. Either way this gains superiority over their enemy.” Killing the enemy or taking them prisoner does help your side (obviously). However, if some Southern soldiers had heard that black soldiers took no prisoners at a battle, this would have probably made them angrier. They probably would have given any future black soldiers they encountered no quarter. This would only have hurt the blacks (and perhaps the Union), and probably reduced their likelihood of surviving the war even further.
Henry M. Turner tryed to discourage black soldiers to take vengence on Confederate troops. "Even if the Rebels had "set the example," such actions represented an "out rage upon civilization and christianity." Turner urged black soldiers to disappoint who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies."(pg.54) Turner is telling his men to not seek revenge, "vengeance belonged to the Lord". The black soldiers were given a huge opportunity to fight for their cause, and be veiwed as men, not slaves. This then gave the race much more respect. I agree with what Henry Turner had said because he was just trying to do what was best for his soldiers. He also managed, in my opinion, to change the way people veiwed African Americans during the war and how they were able to help.
I agree with what Jordyn said "Mr. Turner didn't want black soldiers to kill the confederate prisoners because in a way if they did , it would be sinking down to their level." I also see it in that same prospective. Turner wanted the blacks to be treated and act the same way as the rest of the men. It probably helped them after the war as well, when slavery was over.
Response to Ben Grote: You say that “angry and revengeful feelings” shouldn’t affect a black man’s “morals when fighting.” Is the fact that they are fighting in the first place a reflection of those feelings? The men they are fighting are the same ones who enslave those of their race, yet you say that they aren’t supposed to fight them based on their “feelings of...humiliation.” Are they not entitled to some anger, and if so, are they not entitled to express their anger how they choose? Also, if it really takes somebody to tell black soldiers not to fight brutally, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of proving southern soldiers wrong when, in reality, they are spot on considering that black soldiers would probably fight brutally unless instructed not to?
Henry Turner discouraged black soldiers to take their anger out on the Confederate prisoners as many believed that blacks should behave brutally instead of fighting a war to win. Blacks wanted to be treated as soldiers not slaves and they wanted to fight in the war as white soldiers did. Mr Turner strongly felt that vengeance belonged to the lord.(pg. 54) Therefore not sinking down to the rebels level. This allowed the black soldiers to feel as if they were better soldiers and deserved respect as they overcame adversity. I agree with Mr Turners as he was only doing what he felt was the right thing to do for his soldiers no matter what their race was.
In response to Kristina I agree with you in that the black soldiers should set the example as they are human too no matter what their race is. And too they wanted to be soldiers and fight for what was right to prove they were the bigger person.
In response to Gabby P I like how you said, “Turner tried to discourage black soldiers to take vengeance on Confederate troops,” It pretty much summed up what Turner really thought. He wanted the blacks to prove the confederates wrong about how they really were. To do this they had to do the opposite of what the Confederates thought they would do. They figured the black soldiers would kill them whenever they got the chance. But if they didn’t take revenge the Confederates almost grew a little respect for them. You were also right when you said, “black soldiers were given a huge opportunity to fight for their cause.” Black soldiers didn’t get many opportunities. But for them to be able to fight for a cause that was for them it was a big deal.
Henry M. Turner believed that his fellow soldiers should not take vengeance against Confederate prisoners. Generally I would agree with not taking vengeance against anyone, however given the years of mistreatment and brutality experienced by the African population at the time, a certain amount of vengeance is not only acceptable, but almost necessary. Had the black soldiers not felt the need to take vengeance, more than likely, they would have continued to be a submissive slave and had no real reason to take up arms against their owners.Furthermore, I feel the black soldiers, any soldier for that matter, should have done everything in their power to stop slavery and if that requires being vengeful to the Confederates, so be it.
Henry M. Turner preached that northern troops mainly black troops should not show the rebel any vengeance. This was to show that they are logical evolved human beings not the barbaric creatures the south had labeled them as. I understand Henry's belief and think it is a good one but also I understand the freed slaves anger from their masters torture. But reverting to violence will only help their masters arguement that they are primitive uncivilized creatures.
I understand why you think the blacks should be vengeful but did you think about how dangerous an angry soldier with a gun could be? Everyone around him would be in danger, not only the Confederates. Turner handled this situation amazingly because he just talked to them before anything could happen. If Turner, or anyone tried to stop an angry slave during an outbreak of rage, they would most likely get hurt.
Mr. turner was opposed to the idea of black soldiers seeking revenge upon confederate rebels. Turner has an interesting concept when he, “urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally”(54). I can agree with him. But it think it is easier said then done. I too would like to say if I were in their situation I would not act out in revenge. But after all the southerners had done to their people I cannot imagine seeing the Confederates and not wanting to make them pay for what they had done. I know Mr. Turner was trying to prove to the world that the slaves were not savages as many feared, but civilized people like themselves. However, I think they would have been considered civilized if everyone would have given them a chance to be in the first place. I cannot agree or disagree with Turner because, I think revenge is wrong but I can’t imagine not wanting revenge if I was in the position of the black soldiers.
I agree when you say hat Mr. Turner wanted the black soldiers to be the bigger person. He didn't want them to stoop to the same level as the south. To show that they were the bigger better person.
Henry M. Turner's view on seeking revenge upon confederate rebels was that he thought it was unacceptable. "Highly endorsed by an immense number of both white and colored people, which I am sternly opposed to, and that is, the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers," Turner stated on page 55. He thought of black soldiers seeking revenge on confederate rebels as an "outrage upon civilization and Christianity." I agree with Turner's views for the most part. I do not think that the black soldiers should have killed or seeked revenge on the confederate rebels regardless of how much they deserved it. I think that the black soldiers should have just done what was better in the situation no matter how hard that might have been.
I agree with you. I definitely think that the black soldiers should have been the "bigger person" in the situation as you said. I agree that they needed to set a bigger example than just giving into what the confederate rebels did by killing them. That is what Henry M. Turner was trying to promote as you also stated.
Henry M. Turner did not believe in killing all of the Confederate prisoners. He said killing then was against Christian beliefs and that they should not follow the rebels. (The rebels killed all of the black soldiers that were prisoners). He said instead of acting with violence, they should, “disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies.” I completely agree with Mr. Turner. If the rebel prisoners expected to be brutally killed or tortured and they weren’t, it would make them look like idiots for thinking that black people were just like animals. “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.” (All of this information is from page 54). I agree with Mr. Turner and the black chaplain because they wanted to be seen as good men, not as revengeful savages; and that is what I would do in a situation like that.
I agree with Kristna, Henry M. Turner's view on black soldiers seeking revenge on Confederate Rebels was that it was an "outrage upon civilazation and...Christianity." (pg. 54) He urged blak soldiers to preform acts of brutality and violence, which would degrade them to the Confederates level, therefore they would be no better than the Confederates. The black soldiers needed to be the "bigger person" by far even if the Confederates deserved it after doind what they had done.
Henry M. Turner's thought was that black soldiers should fight as civilized people, without seeking revenge on the southerners. I agree with this, because, although it would be hard not to want to get even with their former masters, if they only fought with vengence, it would just show the rebels that they were uncivilized saveages. If they fought as civilized as everyone else, they would prove to the south that they were human beings, and that they weren't any lower than anyone else.
I agree with you when you said "Had the black soldiers not felt the need to take vengeance, more than likely, they would have continued to be a submissive slave and had no real reason to take up arms against their owners", however, if they would have only fought out of vengence, the south would have only seen them as uncivilized and savage. I think that they had a right to be angry, and a right to want revenge, however, if that was their only purpose for fighting, it would not prove anything to the southerners.
Henry M. Turner was "...sternly opposed to...the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers." He thought of such actions as an "outrage upon civilization and...Christianity," as stated on page 54. Though the rebels had committed such acts, Henry M. Turner believed that it was wrong to duplicate such actions.
I believe Turner was exactly correct. To do as one's enemy does makes one the same as his enemy. In a fight for equality, fairness, even from those who have been wronged, is essential. Turner realized that if Union soldiers acted in a way they regarded wrong, they would become the men they sought to destroy.
I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with your stand on prisoners. Were a country to slaughter their prisoners, what meaning would the term surrender mean? It is completely indignifying to be taken prisoner, and to then be killed is to be stripped of any honor left. A prisoner is only so named because he is held in prison, whether that be a jail cell or a huddled group of scared men. To kill a prisoner strips away the promise of safety the word includes. Whether Black or White, it is a terrible act to take a prisoner then mercilessly end his life.
Ok I kind of didn’t make that as clear as I would have liked. I think it would be unacceptable to promote slaves being cruel and torturing of the confederates, but I think that to the slaves it shouldn’t matter what the south thinks of them, the biggest act of revenge is to live as a free man. Faust even describes (I’m too lazy to look it up) killing to be like a civil right. Free men have these civil rights and that to me is the biggest slap in the face to the Southern slavers.
Henry M. Turner's view on black soldiers seeking revenge upon confederate rebels was that he “urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally”(54). This means that just because they were treated bad doesn't mean they should treat others badly. I personally disagree with Turner's views because if i was treated as brutal as these slaves, trust me you would fear me. You would not want to cross my path. Turner wanted these slaves to be civil and not hold grudges. That is a lot to ask of somebody who lived a life like the slaves.
I disagree with you and Turner. The men should have been allowed to fight like animals. It would have been a major advantage for the North to have crazy animals fighting against their former masters.
Mr. Turner believed that the black soldiers fighting for the north that were seeking revenge should not fight for revenge, but instead fight for their country and not prove to the south that they really fighting animals that need to be tamed. I agree with Mr. Turners opinion because the black soldiers had been through enough being slaves and didn't need the extra humiliation of being called animals in combat.
I have to disagree with you because if the black soldiers did behave as animals they were not any better than the southern people that had imprisoned them for so long, and they wanted to show the southerners that they were better than them.
Mr. Turner discouraged black soldiers from seeking revenge on the Confederates and urged them to be the bigger man in the fight and not stoop down to their level. I however, believe that all is fair in love and war especially when the blacks had endured the horrors of slavery and wished to end it by whatever means necessary. War is not a place to behave like gentlemen.
In response to Gabby: I agree with you that the blacks were given a huge opportunity to fight for their cause. Why would they waste it on revenge? The North could easliy have changed their mind's about the blacks and still made slavery legal. If their vengence would've gotten any more out of control who know's what the country would be like today.
Henry M. Turner, "urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies."(pg.54) Turner tried to discourage black soldiers from taking out their anger on Confederate troops. He acknowledges the fact that black soldiers have suffered many horrific casualties during the war. He understood the hatred the black soldiers had for all Confederates but he was opposed to killing rebel prisoners. "Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord."(pg.54) I agree with Mr. Turner. Although black troops were treated especially horribly by Confederate troops including the massacre at Fort Pillow, they should still fight with dignity. By the black troops continuing to act like troops the Confederates would be surprised. The black soldiers' lives that were taken during the war can never be replaced but, the black soldiers should honor the dead and fight with nobility and dignity against the Confederates instead of fighting with recklessness and revenge.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner was "sternly opposed to the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers."(pg.54). He wanted the black soldiers to disappoint those rebels who expected them to behave brutally. They should take charge of who they are and show the rebels that they have morals and standards of their own. I agree with Henry M. Turner's view. Whether it is a black soldier seeking revenge on confederate soldiers or the other way around, there is no reason for it. Instead of fighting with blind anger, soldiers should fight with the upright respect they deserve.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner expressed his view when he stated he, “Sternly opposed, and that is the killing of all rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers.”(pg.54) He expected his troops, “To disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally,” and wanted them to fight with class (if that’s possible). There is no question, or doubt, that angry and revengeful feelings were present in black soldier’s minds as a result of being, “singled out for special cruelty and humiliation,”(pg.53) but I agree with Turner that those feelings should not affect one’s morals when fighting. Many black soldiers believed that as Christians they were against brutal fighting and that, “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.”(pg.54). Religion was the only important reason for fighting with morality, as many black soldiers wanted, “To win a place in polity, as citizens and as men.”(pg. 48) That quote shows how black soldiers were not only fighting for their country, but also acceptance in society, and fighting cruelly would not help their chances of being accepted.
ReplyDeleteBen, Jamie, and Rachel, if black soldiers were to fight in a respectful manner would they risk enduring slavery after the Civil War? Isn't unbridled violence necessary in order to combat horrors such as slavey. Why shouldn't black soldiers do everthing in their power to destroy their slaveholders and the institution of slavery???? Mr. S
ReplyDeleteResponse to Mr. Santaniello
ReplyDeleteMany of the Union black soldiers would not have had to risk enduring slavery after the war, as many of the Union states had already abolished slavery. So since slavery was already abolished in the states from which these soldiers were from they were not necessarily fighting for release from it. Instead black soldiers focused in on a new goal which Faust describes as, "To win a place in polity, as citizens and as men."(pg.48) Black soldiers should not do everything in their power do destroy slavery because many were now trying to get a place in society, and fighting without respect wouldn't help them get there.
Response to Ben's comment,
ReplyDeleteGood point, most of the northern black soldiers in the Civil war had little risk of becoming slaves again. However, if the Union would have lost the war many of the soldiers' decendents would have faced slavery for many more years to come. The black Union soldiers were fighting for more then themselves. They were fighting for the future freedom for all Blacks.
Turner's view on the revenge black soldiers was strongly discouraged. "Vengeance...belonged to the lord." Revenge is never really a good thing because it feeds off of anger and hatred. However, I'm kind of confused why Turner discouraged revenge. In battle aren't you supposed to hate the enemy and shoot him up. The kind of craziness of revenge could give the black soldiers a special edge in battle. The black soldiers were fighting the men that had enslaved them and their ancestors for many years. Even though revenge isn't morally good, it could be used as a secret weapon in battle. During battle, all reality of society is blocked out and morals don't matter. All that matters sadly is killing.
ReplyDeleteHenry Turner was “ … sternly opposed to … the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers.” (p.54) He believed such actions were an outrage upon civilization and Christianity. He “urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies.” (p.54) Another black chaplain also said that vengeance belongs to the Lord. I agree with Turner. It is completely understandable for the black soldiers to want revenge: many of their brethren were slaves and thus treated horribly. In addition, all black soldiers were given no quarter if captured: they would either be killed or sent into slavery. The black soldiers (and people) wanted respect, which is something earned, not given. If the black soldiers acted like savages to exact revenge, I don’t think they would be given the respect they wanted. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “That old law about ‘an eye for an eye’ leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”
ReplyDeleteTurner did not condone the imitation of the brutal behavior displayed by Confederate soldiers, saying that they should "claim a moral superiority to their enemies" (54). I disagree with Turner; "moral superiority" does not win wars. It is not a battle of morals. I am not convinced that the soldiers who had acted so brutally toward black soldiers would be at all interested that Turner's troops had acted morally.
ReplyDeleteTurner should have urged his troops to use the opportunity to liberate themselves, to empower themselves and to gain their freedom. "Killing was for black soldiers . . . the instrument of liberation; it was an act of personal empowerment and the vehicle of racial emancipation" (55).
Turner's black soldiers should not have been asked to put aside all that had been done to them by their enemies, the Confederates. This should have been their time to revolt - however they chose, be it with a vengeance or not - after being oppressed and held down for so long.
In response to Orion:
ReplyDeleteI agree that revenge could have been, like you said, a secret weapon in battle. Faust talked about this extensively, saying, "The desire for retribution could be almost elemental in its passion, overcoming reason and releasing the restraints of fear and moral inhibition for soldiers who had witnessed the slaughter of their comrades" (35). Taking revenge on a person who may have killed their comrade could make a soldier feel less guilty and unsure about killing an opposing soldier. Also, killing in revenge attached a goal to the act; when soldiers may have lost sight of why they were fighting and killing at all, revenge could give them the short-term motivation to keep going. Once soldiers felt they were killing for a reason, it could make killing much easier, which would offer them an advantage in warfare.
In response to Mr. Santaniello:
ReplyDeleteI believe black Union Soldiers would not risk becoming slaves after the Civil War. Since most northern states were Free states, slavery after the war in these states wasn't likely. Unbridled violence is not necessary when one is already free. I agree with Ben in that, “Black soldiers should not do everything in their power do destroy slavery because many were now trying to get a place in society, and fighting without respect wouldn't help them get there.” Most black soldiers were already free, otherwise how could they be in the war? Black soldiers had to follow orders given to them by the army and although they may have wanted to do everything in their power to destroy slaveholders and the institution of slavery; this would be reckless and could put all their soldiers in harm. They already had freedom even though racism still impacted their life, but they were fighting for equality and to free the slaves of the south.
Response to Mr. Santaniello
ReplyDeleteI know the black soldiers were fighting slavery, but unbridled violence is not necessary. They can fight as much as they want as long as they do not become savages. I am not saying none of the soldiers became savages. The war had an effect on the men that turned them from respected gentlemen into savages blinded by hatred and anger. I would want to fight those people who took my freedom from me but like Turner said, I would want to disappoint the rebels who would expect me to behave brutally.
Turner was "sternly opposed to the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by [their] soldiers [and] urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally," (pg.54). Instead they should "claim a moral superiority to their enemies," (pg. 54). In other words, Turner wanted troops to show some class and fight like gentlemen. I think that Turner's idea was awkwardly unnecessary. I know that first impressions can mean a lot, but a white supremacist won't just see a black man fighting non-brutally (which I'm not sure exactly how exactly any man can fight "gently" with any sort of weapon) and all of a sudden think any higher of blacks, nor will he immediately think any lower of himself. Some minor acts of professionalism, especially coming from a black man, would rarely sway the mind of a man whose opinions are extreme enough to fight for the CSA.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner was apposed to "the killing of all rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers." [pg.54] Some civilians during the Civil War were against blacks fighting in the war. When slaves people assumed that they were savages because they were differnt. And now fighting in the war they expected the black soldiers to act uncivilized and brutally. Just because people expected the soldiers to do things Henry showed they were civilized. "Even if the rebels had 'set the example,' such actions represented an 'outrage upon civilization and Christianity.'" [pg.54] The South wanted to get a rise out of the black soldiers from what they were doing to their comrades. But the warriors would not rise to tempation. They truely were civilized and religious. "Vengence...belonged to the Lord." [pg.54]
ReplyDeleteHenry M Turner wanted black soilders to "Disapoint those who expected them to behave brutally", and "claim moral superiority". (pg.54) He didn't want the black solders to take out all their hatred and anger on the confederate army even though he knew how they treated the former slaves and colored troops. I agree with Henry Turner because this was the black soilders chance to prove that they were people not barbaric wild animals.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner did not want the black soldiers to behave brutally during battle as revenge for the way they were treated as slaves. If they were to do this they would lose any respect they had gained. Turner wanted the soldiers to step up and be bigger than the other soldiers by fighting, but not fighting savage like and attacking them with thier only justification being that they wanted revenge. I agree with him because the black soldiers needed to "disapoint those who expected them to behave brutally"(pg.54) Therefore the black soldiers seem more rightous and above their slave holders.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner was an individual who had different thoughts and opinions about the Civil War, compared to the majority of the soldiers of the Union, especially the colored people. Many, if not all, of the soldiers fight and kill in order to earn the respect and freedom for black slaves. Therefore, it is completely understandable when colored soldiers fight in a raging manner against their opponent; the Confederates. However, Mr. Turner strongly opposed to their actions and described their manners as an "outrage upon civilization and... Christianity." (pg. 54) Though the rebels had indeed "set the example", his thoughts were to fight with 'class' and to claim victory with a clean behavior. It would not set a good impression to the Northerners, as well as the Southerners, to see their wild and uncontrolled performances upon the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Leephan. Why should they act like animals out on the field if like you said they were fighting for respect? how can being crazy with revenge earn respect? When they went out on that field they should fight like everyone else they were men weren't they? If they acted like a crazy vengeful animal that's how they were still going to be treated. They are supposed to be showing that they aren't animals so they shouldn't go and act like one just because they are full of rage and want revenge.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Lee:
ReplyDeleteI completly agree with what you said about how Turner didn't want the soldiers to fight in a raging manner in revenge. But, to use what they believe in as enough reason to fight. He wanted the soldiers to fight with class and win through clean actions. He wanted them to understand that by fighting brutally they wouldn't win no mattter what happened beacause they would have gone down to the Confederates level.
Henry Turner was "sternly opposed to...the killing of all rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers" and encouraged them to "claim a moral superiority to their enemies." I completely agree with his ideology. After all, if they are trying to abolish an offense against human life, why would they take part in the destruction of the lives of the soldiers? In addition, in 100 years, those looking back on history would look more favorably on the side that chose to at least try to resolve things without violence. Overall, I think that choosing to be the better man in the war would help the North gain more sympathy from the South, from other northerners, and from those studying them later in history.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michelle McClurg:
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point in your answer when you say that acting like animals does not help black men prove their manhood. If they wanted to get their freedom from slavery and be treated like men, it would be smart for them to act like men and killing anyone that was captured would not help them with that. Also, the soldiers they captured could be useful in telling them information and could potentially even join their side. Seeking revenge against the rebel soldiers did not help the cause of either side in any way and it caused the Union and the black men fighting to look more barbarous than they really were.
Mr. Turner disapproved of the black soldiers seeking revenge upon the Confederate soldiers. "I am sternly opposed to... the killing of all the rebels prisoners taken by our soldiers" he said. He disapproved because "even if the rebels had 'set the example,' such actions represented an 'outrage upon civilization and... Christianity.'" Mr. turner stated that black soldiers should assume a "moral superiority" over their enemies. I disagree with Mr. Turner. While I understand that these men who were fighting were not the slaves of the men they were fighting against, many were kin to those slaves. By fighting brutally against the common enemy, the Confederates, the black soldiers fighting for the North could exhibit their loyalty to their country and kin by fighting for those who could not. By using such violence, they could display their love for their country and their freedom, as well as the freedom of those who didn't, but could have that freedom. I understand Mr. Turner's argument, but I feel that suppressing the black soldiers' violence would only have brought more losses to Union forces that could have resulted in a lost war. Killing rebel prisoners might have seemed unnecessary, but if it helped to prove a point and win the war, it was worth it. Mr. turner claims that "moral superiority" was the way to act, but that doesn't help soldiers fight for a cause or win a war.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Abbey B...
ReplyDeleteThank you, Abbey! That is exactly what I meant. By acting morally superior, the blacks gained nothing over the rebels. They just felt that they could not express their anger toward their enemies, but their enemies could express anger towards them. While they were not the ones, most of them, directly affected by slavery, they could have known someone who was. By acting morally, they could not show the rebels that they were serious about what they were fighting for.
Henry M. Turner, the black chaplain of the first U.S. Colored Infantry, displayed his views very boldly throughout the chapter. He expressed his opinion in saying, "I am sternly opposed to, and that is, the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers." (pg 54) He felt that it was wrong what the rebels were doing to all yankee soldiers, especially blacks. He felt this was an "outrage upon civilization and... Christianity." He wanted the Blacks to set an example of how to act with the prisoners of war. It takes a lot to not take revenge on people that have ruined your race. I respect Mr. Turner for his actions and I believe it was the right thing to do, set a good example for others.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner said "...I am sternly opposed to... the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers". He wanted the soldiers to be better people than what those who thought bad of them- that they were brutal and were seeking revenge. To Mr. Turner, the killing was an "outrage upon civilization... and Christianity"(pg. 54). I agree with Henry Turner that these acts of violence were savage-like and were very unnecessary, and that "vengeance belonged to the Lord." They shouldn't have behaved like brutes and done exactly what the public thought they were capable of doing- murder.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner believed that though the black soldiers were treated horrifically in battle, that it did not mean that they had to treat others the same way. “Even if the rebels had ‘set the example,’ such actions represented an ‘outrage upon civilization and…Christianity.’” [54] In the movie Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye states that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would be blind and toothless” Both of these men were saying that just because the other side had done something, does not give us the right to do it back to them. I completely agree with this statement. The greatest leaders in this world have not only been fancy talkers, which some of them weren’t, but they practiced what they preached and led by example, which is what I think Henry M. Turner was trying to get the troops to do and possibly be able to get their captured soldiers better treatment.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Evan Lanz
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Evan said that Henry M. Turner was trying to get the men to set a good example for others. Turner was also saying that though the Confederates were killing all of their prisoners, this did not mean that it was okay for the northerners to do so, because of what was expected of the African American soldiers. The Confederate army expected the African American soldiers to be just as brutal, if not more. “Turner urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally”. [54] His point was that one of the biggest reasons for fighting this war is to free the slaves. The Confederates believed that freeing the slaves would cause mayhem. By being the examples of civility, the soldiers were proving the South wrong and showing that they were men and not animals.
This may sound unjust, but in a way I do agree with everyone that Black soldiers should have fought with "Moral and Dignity", but then again... Revenge is revenge. Some soldiers may have listened to Mr. Turner's obligations and followed due to the Christianity way, but I am pretty sure that some of the soldiers seeked revenge, and given the opportunity.. they may have took control of it. Is there really a proper way to fight a war? Either way killing is killing, fighting is fighting.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner believed that African American soldiers seeking revenge against the South and killing all rebel prisoners was unjust and brutal. He thought that they should a claim moral superiority against their enemy instead and make a religious stand point. “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.” Henry opposed the violence and blind anger against the South. However, I disagree with him. I believe that African Americans were fueled by this revenge. After hundreds of years of slavery they were now in the position to retaliate and end the cruelty of slavery. This anger drove them to be such a strong fighting force. “Slavery gave the war’s killing and dying a special meaning for black Americans: the conflict was a moment for both divine and human retribution, as well as an opportunity to become the agent rather than the victim of violence. Killing was for black soldiers- as well as for black civilians like Aunt Aggy- the instrument of liberation; it was an act of personal empowerment and the vehicle of racial emancipation.” Without this intense motive the outcome of the War could well have been changed. However, senseless violence and blind anger has a tipping point from a fighting force to corruption and sin.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Randolph:
ReplyDeleteI support Randolph’s statement that although soldiers should have fought with dignity and morals a war is combat and fighting. Morals may be of great importance in our lives but war holds no place for it. War’s purpose is to achieve personal gain or a common goal through the means of killing and fighting. However, fighting for a reason is different from fighting just to kill. Henry M. Turner had an honorable view of this violence but I believe moral superiority would have been close to impossible. The African American soldiers had suffered in slavery for hundreds of years and now it was time for their liberation. Furthermore, even if they took Henry’s view and respected the rebel prisoners nothing would change the hostile way rebels dealt with black soldiers and their commanders.
Henry Turner believed that black soldiers seeking vengeance opon the Confederates was an "'outrage upon civilization and... Christianity.'" (pg. 54). Turner thought that black soldiers should not take out their anger by killing the Confederates. "Turner urged black soldiers to dissapoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superior to their enemies." Turner is telling his soldiers to stay calm and not become reckless in fighting. I agree with Henry Turner because he is just trying to contain his soldiers. Also, being reckless in a war is very dangerous because many mistakes could be made. For instance, a soldier could shoot his own man because his mind is tainted with revenge. Overall, Henry Turner has a good view on this topic.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner’s view was for black soldiers to not take revenge on rebel prisoners. “Turner urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies.” (pg. 54). Turner did not want his soldiers to go crazy and seek revenge. Instead he wanted his soldiers calm and to have their heads ready for actual battle. I agree with Turner’s view. Although the black soldiers wanted vengeance on the South, they should take the high road. “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.” (pg. 54). The soldiers remained calm and took out their anger in actual battle through this.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tanner,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you. Instead of the black soldiers taking out their revenge on rebel prisoners, they should’ve taken out their revenge on the actual battlefield. If the black soldiers were to have killed the rebel prisoners, it would have made them look bad and not completely concentrate on actual battle. I understand that the black soldiers had the opportunity to retaliate after hundreds of years of slavery, but by killing just a few rebel prisoners it would not end the cruelty of slavery.
Henry Turner was the black chaplain of the first U.S. Colored Infantry. He had a very strong opinion about the revenge upon Confederate Rebels. Although many whites and colored people wanted to take revenge upon Confederate prisoners of war, Turner was strongly against this. The colored soldiers strongly wanted to kill all Confederate prisoners. In a way, they had the right to feel this way after how the Southerners treated their ancestors for decades. Henry Turner’s opinion was that vengeance would be left to God, and that the soldiers did not need to kill the prisoners. [pg. 54] I strongly agree with Henry Turner that the prisoners should be allowed to live. Another way to look at this, is that the Union soldiers would want their fellow Union soldiers to be treated well, so in my opinion, Mr. Turner was right when he discouraged the killing of Confederate prisoners of war.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben Grote:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben when he states that the black soldiers had “revengeful feelings” to the Confederates, after how they had been treated during the war. I also agree with him when he says that they should fight the war with class. In many places in the United States, blacks weren’t respected, (especially in the South, but also in some places in the North.) Colored soldiers, in my opinion, were fighting to bring respect to themselves and their families. As Ben Grote said, black’s images would have been hurt if they did not act respectfully to the Confederates, even if they were the people that that they despised the most. Fighting with class is likely what gained them their respect from millions of Americans.
Henry M. Turner was the black chaplain of the First U.S. Colored Infantry, who was strongly "opposed to...the killing of all the rebel prisoners," (page 54) that were captured by his soldiers. He felt that it was an act that was against civilization and the Christian religion. I most definitely agree with Turner because blacks were given a chance to fight in a war where slavery was an issue. The war was a chance for blacks to show they were to be respected and not treated like savages. However, to retrieve that respect they had to act the same way to the Southerners even if they had treated blacks very unfairly. The saying "treat others as though you would want to be treated," goes along with this because if blacks killed the rebels they would be treated even more as savages. Because they fought with respect and pride for the Union, they received much more respect as a race.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jenna Hofmann and Tanner Hudson:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jenna. Tanner you said: "I believe that African Americans were fueled by this revenge...This anger drove them to be such a strong fighting force." I can see your point, however revenge is not the best way to settle something, even if it is something as cruel as slavery. The soldiers still could be a strong fighting force but on the battlefield, as Jenna had said. If the black soldiers had killed their prisoners they would have been seen as savages, not as proud American citizens. You both made really good points, but I have to agree with Jenna on this one.
Henry M. Turner was the black chaplain if the first U.S. Colored Infantry. He had strong opinions on how the colored soldiers should fight. He, “worried about the position, “highly endorsed by an immense number of both white and colored people, which I’m sternly opposed to and that is the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers.” Even if the rebels “set the example” (54) Mr. Turner didn’t want the black soldiers to kill the confederate prisoners because in a way if they did it would be like sinking to their level. He thought if the soldiers weren’t as bad as everyone believed they might be given a different opinion. Mr. Turner didn’t want to be like the whites that were fighting for slavery. He wanted to show that the colored men were people and fighters just as much as the confederates. I absolutely agree with Mr. Turner. Although most colored probably couldn’t wait to have revenge, I think what he wanted sent a more powerful message to those fighting against them. It showed that they could be classy after everything they had been through. I think that was important so the confederates knew they were serious.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "If the black soldiers had killed their prisoners they would have been seen as savages." But the Southerners "quieted wounded black soldiers begging for water." Why should black soldiers be civilized when their comrades were being disrespected so horribly? If a white soldier was denied water and killed "by a bayonet trust," other white soldiers would have gone to get revenge.
This probably was a very hard issue for black soldiers.
Henry M. Turner believed that black soldiers should "claim moral superiority"(pg.54) over their enemy, by not acting on revenge. He thought that black soldiers should not kill their Southern prisoners.
ReplyDeleteI have no real opinion. It would have been fine with me if a black soldier killed his prisoner or if he let him live. One part of war is violence and vengeance. You can't win a war by letting every one live. But if the black soldier doesn't kill the prisoner, it shows that he has discipline. Either way this gains superiority over their enemy.
Henry M. Turner discouraged the black soldiers from seeking revenge on the rebels who had been captured during battle and taken prisoners. If the black soldiers were to take vengeance on these soldiers it would be bad for several reasons. Firstly, it would not help the war end faster with fewer losses but instead prolong it. I theorize this because these soldiers were already prisoners they weren't on the other side of the battle field provoking danger. They were unarmed. Secondly, Killing or even mistreating these men would have caused more tension and plausible justness to the Southern side of the war. But on the other hand if these Black soldiers treated the prisoners with respect then those soldiers may have realized freeing the slaves may not be as bad as first thought and word would spread. I strongly agree with the chaplain that the Black soldiers should not seek vengeance on the rebel prisoners because in my mind the best outcome for the Blacks would come from treating the prisoners with great respect and brotherly kindness.
ReplyDeleteJonah-in response to Sophia: I extreamly enjoyed that you associated your answer to the golden rule. I agree with you that the chaplain in a way was teaching the golden rule to the soldiers he was associated with to benifit them during and after the war. Good Job yay.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner's view on black soldiers seeking revenge on Confederate Rebels was that it was an "outrage upon civilazation and...Christianity." (pg. 54) He urged black soldiers to do the opposite of what the Confederates expected of them which was brutality and violence. Yes, the Confederates set the example but Turner didn't think that they should follow that poor example on the field. I agree with Turner. Blacks should have been setting a better example and showing that they don't need to sink to the Confederate's levels, no matter how much they deserved it for what they did to them. The needed to be the "bigger person".
ReplyDeleteIn response to David:
ReplyDeleteI understand your opinion that “You can't win a war by letting every one live. But if the black soldier doesn't kill the prisoner, it shows that he has discipline. Either way this gains superiority over their enemy.” Killing the enemy or taking them prisoner does help your side (obviously). However, if some Southern soldiers had heard that black soldiers took no prisoners at a battle, this would have probably made them angrier. They probably would have given any future black soldiers they encountered no quarter. This would only have hurt the blacks (and perhaps the Union), and probably reduced their likelihood of surviving the war even further.
Henry M. Turner tryed to discourage black soldiers to take vengence on Confederate troops. "Even if the Rebels had "set the example," such actions represented an "out rage upon civilization and christianity." Turner urged black soldiers to disappoint who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies."(pg.54) Turner is telling his men to not seek revenge, "vengeance belonged to the Lord". The black soldiers were given a huge opportunity to fight for their cause, and be veiwed as men, not slaves. This then gave the race much more respect. I agree with what Henry Turner had said because he was just trying to do what was best for his soldiers. He also managed, in my opinion, to change the way people veiwed African Americans during the war and how they were able to help.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jordyn Voegele:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jordyn said "Mr. Turner didn't want black soldiers to kill the confederate prisoners because in a way if they did , it would be sinking down to their level." I also see it in that same prospective. Turner wanted the blacks to be treated and act the same way as the rest of the men. It probably helped them after the war as well, when slavery was over.
Response to Ben Grote:
ReplyDeleteYou say that “angry and revengeful feelings” shouldn’t affect a black man’s “morals when fighting.” Is the fact that they are fighting in the first place a reflection of those feelings? The men they are fighting are the same ones who enslave those of their race, yet you say that they aren’t supposed to fight them based on their “feelings of...humiliation.” Are they not entitled to some anger, and if so, are they not entitled to express their anger how they choose? Also, if it really takes somebody to tell black soldiers not to fight brutally, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of proving southern soldiers wrong when, in reality, they are spot on considering that black soldiers would probably fight brutally unless instructed not to?
Henry Turner discouraged black soldiers to take their anger out on the Confederate prisoners as many believed that blacks should behave brutally instead of fighting a war to win. Blacks wanted to be treated as soldiers not slaves and they wanted to fight in the war as white soldiers did. Mr Turner strongly felt that vengeance belonged to the lord.(pg. 54) Therefore not sinking down to the rebels level. This allowed the black soldiers to feel as if they were better soldiers and deserved respect as they overcame adversity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr Turners as he was only doing what he felt was the right thing to do for his soldiers no matter what their race was.
In response to Kristina
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that the black soldiers should set the example as they are human too no matter what their race is. And too they wanted to be soldiers and fight for what was right to prove they were the bigger person.
In response to Gabby P
ReplyDeleteI like how you said, “Turner tried to discourage black soldiers to take vengeance on Confederate troops,” It pretty much summed up what Turner really thought. He wanted the blacks to prove the confederates wrong about how they really were. To do this they had to do the opposite of what the Confederates thought they would do. They figured the black soldiers would kill them whenever they got the chance. But if they didn’t take revenge the Confederates almost grew a little respect for them. You were also right when you said, “black soldiers were given a huge opportunity to fight for their cause.” Black soldiers didn’t get many opportunities. But for them to be able to fight for a cause that was for them it was a big deal.
Henry M. Turner believed that his fellow soldiers should not take vengeance against Confederate prisoners. Generally I would agree with not taking vengeance against anyone, however given the years of mistreatment and brutality experienced by the African population at the time, a certain amount of vengeance is not only acceptable, but almost necessary. Had the black soldiers not felt the need to take vengeance, more than likely, they would have continued to be a submissive slave and had no real reason to take up arms against their owners.Furthermore, I feel the black soldiers, any soldier for that matter, should have done everything in their power to stop slavery and if that requires being vengeful to the Confederates, so be it.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner preached that northern troops mainly black troops should not show the rebel any vengeance. This was to show that they are logical evolved human beings not the barbaric creatures the south had labeled them as. I understand Henry's belief and think it is a good one but also I understand the freed slaves anger from their masters torture. But reverting to violence will only help their masters arguement that they are primitive uncivilized creatures.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Stephen Simpson:
ReplyDeleteI understand why you think the blacks should be vengeful but did you think about how dangerous an angry soldier with a gun could be? Everyone around him would be in danger, not only the Confederates. Turner handled this situation amazingly because he just talked to them before anything could happen. If Turner, or anyone tried to stop an angry slave during an outbreak of rage, they would most likely get hurt.
Mr. turner was opposed to the idea of black soldiers seeking revenge upon confederate rebels. Turner has an interesting concept when he, “urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally”(54). I can agree with him. But it think it is easier said then done. I too would like to say if I were in their situation I would not act out in revenge. But after all the southerners had done to their people I cannot imagine seeing the Confederates and not wanting to make them pay for what they had done. I know Mr. Turner was trying to prove to the world that the slaves were not savages as many feared, but civilized people like themselves. However, I think they would have been considered civilized if everyone would have given them a chance to be in the first place. I cannot agree or disagree with Turner because, I think revenge is wrong but I can’t imagine not wanting revenge if I was in the position of the black soldiers.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kristina,
ReplyDeleteI agree when you say hat Mr. Turner wanted the black soldiers to be the bigger person. He didn't want them to stoop to the same level as the south. To show that they were the bigger better person.
Henry M. Turner's view on seeking revenge upon confederate rebels was that he thought it was unacceptable. "Highly endorsed by an immense number of both white and colored people, which I am sternly opposed to, and that is, the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers," Turner stated on page 55. He thought of black soldiers seeking revenge on confederate rebels as an "outrage upon civilization and Christianity." I agree with Turner's views for the most part. I do not think that the black soldiers should have killed or seeked revenge on the confederate rebels regardless of how much they deserved it. I think that the black soldiers should have just done what was better in the situation no matter how hard that might have been.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kristina:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I definitely think that the black soldiers should have been the "bigger person" in the situation as you said. I agree that they needed to set a bigger example than just giving into what the confederate rebels did by killing them. That is what Henry M. Turner was trying to promote as you also stated.
Henry M. Turner did not believe in killing all of the Confederate prisoners. He said killing then was against Christian beliefs and that they should not follow the rebels. (The rebels killed all of the black soldiers that were prisoners). He said instead of acting with violence, they should, “disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally; they should instead claim a moral superiority to their enemies.” I completely agree with Mr. Turner. If the rebel prisoners expected to be brutally killed or tortured and they weren’t, it would make them look like idiots for thinking that black people were just like animals. “Vengeance, as another black chaplain emphasized, belonged to the Lord.” (All of this information is from page 54). I agree with Mr. Turner and the black chaplain because they wanted to be seen as good men, not as revengeful savages; and that is what I would do in a situation like that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristna, Henry M. Turner's view on black soldiers seeking revenge on Confederate Rebels was that it was an "outrage upon civilazation and...Christianity." (pg. 54) He urged blak soldiers to preform acts of brutality and violence, which would degrade them to the Confederates level, therefore they would be no better than the Confederates. The black soldiers needed to be the "bigger person" by far even if the Confederates deserved it after doind what they had done.
ReplyDeleteHenry M. Turner's thought was that black soldiers should fight as civilized people, without seeking revenge on the southerners. I agree with this, because, although it would be hard not to want to get even with their former masters, if they only fought with vengence, it would just show the rebels that they were uncivilized saveages. If they fought as civilized as everyone else, they would prove to the south that they were human beings, and that they weren't any lower than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Steven Simpson:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said "Had the black soldiers not felt the need to take vengeance, more than likely, they would have continued to be a submissive slave and had no real reason to take up arms against their owners", however, if they would have only fought out of vengence, the south would have only seen them as uncivilized and savage. I think that they had a right to be angry, and a right to want revenge, however, if that was their only purpose for fighting, it would not prove anything to the southerners.
Henry M. Turner was "...sternly opposed to...the killing of all the rebel prisoners taken by our soldiers." He thought of such actions as an "outrage upon civilization and...Christianity," as stated on page 54. Though the rebels had committed such acts, Henry M. Turner believed that it was wrong to duplicate such actions.
ReplyDeleteI believe Turner was exactly correct. To do as one's enemy does makes one the same as his enemy. In a fight for equality, fairness, even from those who have been wronged, is essential. Turner realized that if Union soldiers acted in a way they regarded wrong, they would become the men they sought to destroy.
In response to David White,
ReplyDeleteI respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with your stand on prisoners. Were a country to slaughter their prisoners, what meaning would the term surrender mean? It is completely indignifying to be taken prisoner, and to then be killed is to be stripped of any honor left. A prisoner is only so named because he is held in prison, whether that be a jail cell or a huddled group of scared men. To kill a prisoner strips away the promise of safety the word includes. Whether Black or White, it is a terrible act to take a prisoner then mercilessly end his life.
In response to ben norton’s response to me
ReplyDeleteOk I kind of didn’t make that as clear as I would have liked. I think it would be unacceptable to promote slaves being cruel and torturing of the confederates, but I think that to the slaves it shouldn’t matter what the south thinks of them, the biggest act of revenge is to live as a free man. Faust even describes (I’m too lazy to look it up) killing to be like a civil right. Free men have these civil rights and that to me is the biggest slap in the face to the Southern slavers.
Henry M. Turner's view on black soldiers seeking revenge upon confederate rebels was that he “urged black soldiers to disappoint those who expected them to behave brutally”(54). This means that just because they were treated bad doesn't mean they should treat others badly. I personally disagree with Turner's views because if i was treated as brutal as these slaves, trust me you would fear me. You would not want to cross my path. Turner wanted these slaves to be civil and not hold grudges. That is a lot to ask of somebody who lived a life like the slaves.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alfredo:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you and Turner. The men should have been allowed to fight like animals. It would have been a major advantage for the North to have crazy animals fighting against their former masters.
Mr. Turner believed that the black soldiers fighting for the north that were seeking revenge should not fight for revenge, but instead fight for their country and not prove to the south that they really fighting animals that need to be tamed. I agree with Mr. Turners opinion because the black soldiers had been through enough being slaves and didn't need the extra humiliation of being called animals in combat.
ReplyDeletein response to Tori:
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you because if the black soldiers did behave as animals they were not any better than the southern people that had imprisoned them for so long, and they wanted to show the southerners that they were better than them.
Mr. Turner discouraged black soldiers from seeking revenge on the Confederates and urged them to be the bigger man in the fight and not stoop down to their level. I however, believe that all is fair in love and war especially when the blacks had endured the horrors of slavery and wished to end it by whatever means necessary. War is not a place to behave like gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gabby:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the blacks were given a huge opportunity to fight for their cause. Why would they waste it on revenge? The North could easliy have changed their mind's about the blacks and still made slavery legal. If their vengence would've gotten any more out of control who know's what the country would be like today.