91.4k views
4 votes
Was Nat Turner justified in leading a rebellion against slave-owners? Explain.

User Phil Bozak
by
8.6k points

2 Answers

3 votes

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.


hope this helps you

User Kobold
by
8.1k points
1 vote

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.

User Pdanese
by
7.6k points

Related questions

2 answers
4 votes
177k views
1 answer
1 vote
93.1k views