At first, I was surprised at how Baker portrayed the rebellion. It was obviously going to be a violent event, but I remembered that Baker had described Nat Turner as a hero of his in the preface of the book. So I found it odd that his hero and the blacks that he led were portrayed as utterly ruthless, killing men, women, and children alike without remorse. Taking this into account, I got that the slaughtering of the whites was an abomination that was given birth to by the abomination of slavery. In fact, there are scenes of pain, suffering, and horror throughout the entire book, none of which would have occurred were it not for slavery.
Nat Turner was a gifted and highly intelligent man, but unfortunately born into a life of servitude. As a slave, it seems that he didn’t accomplish much more in life than a brutally violent, religion-inspired rebellion. Given these facts, I’m led to imagine what good he could have accomplished and contributed to his society if he was a free man, and not burdened with the shackles of slavery. People were naturally drawn to him due to his intellect and charisma, and he seems to be a born leader. Would his leadership benefit his fellow man? Would he still perceive himself as a Christ-like figure? And how many other similar individuals with great potential might have been held back due to the circumstances of their birth?
These are interesting “what-if” questions in the second half of your post. I wonder, does Baker’s art or narrative seem to nudge readers to any answer or even open-ended response to these questions?