Was nat turner justified in leading a rebellion against slave-owners? explain.

He pretty much was. Whites had enslaved black people for a hundred years already and anyone with an ounce of self-respect would have done the same as him. Imagine being taught that your value is less than that of a mutt. Now, that's some hardcore mental abuse. Nat Turner saw that his people were in shambles and, unlike some other house slaves, simply decided to take things into his own hands. So I applaud him for having heart enough to do that and consider him the perfect symbol of rebellion.

colony: virginia

1: 1607,john smith

2: british were looking for gold and land

3: near oceans and theres forests

4: fishing? ithink

5: sometimes