Draft. Most recent, ready for Craig. =]

I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, yet they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see fit. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. For example, Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 is a very influential event in American History. The instructors teach the facts about who attack who and when, but they do not tell the students who were the victims and who were the heroes. They leave that open to interpretation. I see that as a form of art, there is no one right interpretation to a historic event. Bacon’s Rebellion proves my theory.

Nathaniel Bacon rebelled against the government of Virginia because he believed that the government was not governing properly. It was his duty to go against the government. The Indians were attacking colonists, as well as colonists attacking the Indians. The killing on both sides was a vicious cycle that never seemed to cease. The government had raised taxes and the tobacco was sold for so cheap that the poor suffered dramatically because of the lack of profit from their crops. Bacon honestly wanted to end these problems. Bacon wrote to Governor William Berkeley to try and persuade him to allow Bacon to attack the Indians, he thought it might solve part of the problem. When Berkeley did not give him the authority to do so, he decided to go ahead and continue on without the Governors approval. He and his supporters burned Jamestown in the beginning, and then went into a full out rebellion by killing many Indians. Bacon died in October due to sickness, and his rebellion quickly ended because of the loss of their leader. Berkeley caught and punished Bacon's supporters by burning down or damaging their properties as well as 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 claimed that the Indians were the true victims, yet there are many people who believe that English settlers were the true victims. There are many documents saying that the Indians are not the victims and that they deserved what they received, 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 as such. Perspectives have changed. This was the not case in the 1600’s. 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 have been changed or biased based upon what time era they were raised in and what beliefs were practiced at that time. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that there are no true or definitive heroes and victims involved in Bacon's Rebellion.

One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In that case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. 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 had not have grown. Much of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen at that time as well in search for land. The only conflict was that there were many people searching for land, which forced the English to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits because of the availability of Indian land. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English were superior to them in their beliefs, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected their inferiors.

Steadily, the Englishmen who were in search for land ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history implies that since 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 believe 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 quote agrees with the fact that 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. Once again, an Indian life lost was not nearly as important as a colonists’ life lost in the English’s eyes.

One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the '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 insisting 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. One implication that can be made about the rebels was that to them, Indians were only Indians, no matter what tribe they are in. The group of rebels apparently assumed that the Indians were only in the way, so why shouldn’t they kill them all since they are not as important as them? 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 support that Bacon only thought that the natives were in his way of gaining land, and that they needed to get out of his way, taking whatever necessary actions in the process.

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. [J-STOR]) Berkeley was suggesting was 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.]” (insert something)That petition verifies 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 suggests that Bacon’s followers were the victims because they were not given any chance for success in their own colony, so they were forced 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 text acknowledges 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. Confucius also states that if the government is governing incorrectly, then it is the citizens’ duty to go against the government until it is corrected. Since quality history classes in my past I have developed the mindset that if the government is not governing in the best way possible, that it is the job of the citizens to stand up against the government while trying to fix the corruption. This idea made sense to me because when I was a young child I would always play games with my neighbors. This one older girl always changed the rules of the game to make it so that she would always win, so she wasn’t being fair. I remember wanting to rebel against her and take over, and it is basically the same principal that Confucius taught but he taught it with different examples and relativity to his time.

Bacon’s Rebellion is very relevant to what is going on in the 21^st century. This is because one of the most common views was that Bacons Rebellion was caused by the separation from the elites (rich) and the common (poor, or middle class) people. Douglas S. Massey believes that “if class segregation is also imposed, then the additional poverty is not only restricted to minority neighborhoods, it is confined primarily to poor minority neighborhoods.” (American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, no. 2 page 337.) Internet Address: [http://socsci.colorado.edu/~downeyl/re/Massey1990_American_Apartheid.pdf] [[J-STOR]]). Many of the poor households today do not have the same role in society as the upper class do. The upper class seem to always have the advantage over the underclass, and they are not given what they are needed just as Bacon’s supporters were not helped when they needed it from the government. Basically what Massey is saying does not directly relate to the separation from the rich and poor, but it does support that the minorities still are the lower part of society today, just like in the 1600’s. It seems like society will never fully connect and allow rich and poor to live together. According to Nouriel Roubini, “Most poor households lack financial literacy… These vulnerable Americans often end up in debt traps…” (Stop Fleecing Poor Americans. Internet address: [http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/05/stop_fleecing_p.html] Roubini’s statement can be connected to Bacon’s Rebellion because the poor were the ones that were getting overlooked in the colonies. The same thing is happening today, the lower class is not getting the help it needs and deserves. Massey also states, “Moreover, even homeowners and landlords with money to maintain their properties have less incentive to do so because of the spreading deterioration around them.” (American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, no. 2 page 346.) What Massey is saying is that the rich do not want to help out the poor when it comes to financial crisis. They are too worried about their own personal interests to invest some time and make some extra land or real estate available for the poor. That is exactly what happened before Bacon’s Rebellion, the poor ran out of land to obtain.

In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21^st century, it seems like what he did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. I believe that Bacon was not a evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. One common idea in his time era was “might makes right.” That idea did not really had a name yet, but it was still an ideal in the early colonies. In this situation, Bacon had the might over the government and the Indians, which may have been seen as a justification of his rebellion in the 17^th century. Since it is now the 21^st century, the majority of people have been taught that “might does not make right”, or an ideal similar. This causes many people may argue that his rebellion was not justified or right. I strongly believe that each person’s opinion will be different from others’ because people interpret things differently which greatly depends on what era they were raised in. “Might makes right” was one of the ideals that had changed over time because of the growth in education people rose as time went on. That is why there really are no true victims or heroes of Bacon's Rebellion. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.