Draft #2

In 1676 Nathaniel Bacon rebelled against the government of Virginia because of his hatred towards the Indians. The Indians were attacking colonists, as well as colonists attacking the Indians. It was a vicious cycle of killing that never really seemed to stop. The government had raised taxes and the tobacco was so cheap that the poor were suffering dramatically. Bacon wanted to end that problem. Bacon wrote to Governor William Berkeley to try and persuade him to allow Bacon to attack the Indians. When Berkeley did not give him the authority to do so, he decided to do it without the Governors approval. He and his supporters killed many Indians as well as burning down Jamestown. But Bacon died in October due to sickness, and his rebellion quickly ended because of the loss of their leader. Berkeley punished Bacon's supporters by burning down or damaging their properties and putting them in jail.

When it comes to the topic of Bacon’s Rebellion, there are many different views about who the victims and heroes were. It is often said that the Indians were the victims, yet there are many people who believe that English settlers were the victims. There is many documents saying that the Indians are not the victims, but those documents were also written hundreds of years ago. As time has gone on, people began to understand that everyone is equal and should be treated the same. This was the not case at that time. More people today understand that the way Englishmen treated Indians was controversial, yet back in the 1600’s they didn’t think that was the case. Opinions changed based upon time era and what beliefs are being practiced at that time. Although Bacon may have been a hero in his time, it is clear to me that there really was no true or definitive heroes and victims in Bacon's Rebellion.

One view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims primarily because the colonists were the instigators of this event, and they cannot blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported because the English settlers broke the treaty that concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644. What this treaty contracted was that “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, page 91) This treaty may have worked if the population would not have grown. Many of the new growth was the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land, and there were many land-hungry rich Englishmen at that time. The only problem was that there were many other people trying to claim land, that the English had begun to expand their search outside of the treaty limits.

Steadily the Englishmen who were in search for land ran into Indian settlements, and this caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, and they had a right to protect their land. "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (A Young People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff. page 39). There are mixed views about why the poor followed Bacon. Some say that "the rebels wanted to take the colony out of the king's hands and into their own. Another said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but that the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich." (A Young People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff, page 39). That would make sense because these were the people who wanted to steal land from the natives, at whatever the cost. They didn’t care about taking Indians lives, as long as they were gaining new lands it was worth it.

One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were 'guilty' Indians that had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the Royal Commissioners, 1677) Basically the Royal Commissioners are saying that Bacon killed any Indians that he came into contact with, while not caring who they were and what relations their tribe had to the English. In that same document the Royal Commissioners stated that, “the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all Indians…we will spare none.” The commissioners’ point is that Bacon only thought that the natives were in his way of gaining land, and that they needed to get out of his way.

Governor William Berkeley believed that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (the journal of southern history, page 370. [jstor]) What Berkeley was saying is that the subject of expanding into the Indians’ land should be approached cautiously to make sure there will be no hostility between the English and natives. Berkeley wanted to expand just like Bacon and his supporters did but they had differences in how they wanted to go about it. The difference between Berkeley and Bacon is that Berkeley wanted to make sure expansion was done right so that it was peaceful.

The other view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. The colonists were also the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One reason is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (the American promise, page 90). Most of Bacon's supporters were the poor who wanted more land, they were the most heavily taxed and Berkeley didn’t really pay attention to their needs. The things that were voted on greatly impacted them because many of the votes were on subjects such as taxing and what was to be done with the land. The inhabitants of Surry County sent a petition of grievance to the Royal Commissioners in 1677 where one part stated,” We most humbly pray for the future of the County levy may be laid publickly (sic) in the Court house [that is, that all taxes should be created publicly, in the open, and not arranged in secret by a small number of privileged people.] “ That shows how the people felt about being underrepresented. One reason that many people followed Bacon was because he gave the poor people a voice by passing laws like “Bacon’s Laws” when he was elected into the House of Burgesses in 1676. This makes Bacon’s followers victims because they were not given any chance for success in their own colony so they had to seek it elsewhere which just happened to be deserted Indian lands.

Also, the natives were killing many of the English settlers. Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,” That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that Berkeley was not ruling for the general good of colony but for his own selfish personal interests. “Colonists…accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government official ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept, ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (the American promise, page 90) Basically what that shows is that Bacon believed he was right in rebelling against Berkeley. This also follows the ideals of Confucius. Confucius believes that if the government is governing correctly, then the people should support that government in every way possible. But he also says that if the government is governing incorrectly, then it is the citizens’ duty to go against the government until it is corrected.

During Bacon’s time, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right thing to do. In today’s time, it seems like what he did was wrong and he was unjustified in going against the Indians. I believe that Bacon was not a bad man, but his choices are different from what our choices would be today. One common idea in that time era was “might makes right.” In this situation, Bacon had the might over the government and the Indians, but that does not necessarily make it right. That is one of the ideals that change over time, as well as when people get more educated like the people of today. That is why there really are no true victims or heroes of Bacon's Rebellion. Everyone is titled to their opinion, but there is no set in stone victims or heroes, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion.