bacon's rebellion final edit

Bacon's Rebellion

I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, while they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see it. 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. Throughout history, there are many important and influential events that may be interpreted in different ways. Take Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 for example; there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not the Indians were the victims. While teaching this event in American history, the instructors teach the facts about who attacked who and when, but they do not directly tell the students who the heroes and the victims were. I believe there is no one ‘right’ interpretation to a historical event, just as there is no one ‘right’ way to paint a painting. One of the many factors that are involved in this idea of mine is the time era in which the event took place. This is because something viewed as morally wrong in the 1950’s may be viewed as socially acceptable in 2050. Times change and so do ideas.

Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era. That is one reason why I had a very difficult time in deciding if the Indians were truly the victims. What I tried to do was to chose a side that was right in my eyes, which my first instinct was that the Indians were one hundred percent the true victims of Bacon’s Rebellion with no doubt about it. After much thought and conversation with my peers, I realized that my view must be biased because of the time era that I was raised in. If I were to have been born and raised in the 1600’s or even 1700’s, I may have strongly believed that Nathaniel Bacon Jr. was nothing but a hero, and that his actions were completely justifiable. Since the 17th and 18th centuries had very different views on subjects such as Indians and land than we do today, it would not be fair for me to judge Bacon and his actions in the 17th century. Today’s teachings and social views have definitely changed since the 1600’s. So who is to say that if I were in Bacon’s shoes in the 1670’s, that I would have not taken the same exaction action as he did? There is no true way to tell. In order to correctly make interpretations about Bacon’s Rebellion, an overview of the facts is needed.

Nathaniel Bacon Jr. rebelled against the government of Virginia in 1676 because he believed that the government was not governing properly and that it was his duty to go against the government. The Indians were attacking the 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 from the lack of profit earned 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. In the beginning of the rebellion, Bacon and his supporters burned Jamestown, and then went into a full out rebellion by killing many Indians. Bacon died in the October of 1676 due to dysentery, and his rebellion quickly ended because of the loss of the leader of the rebellion. Berkeley and the government then caught and punished Bacon's supporters by burning down or damaging their properties, as well as putting them in jail. Now that we know a bit about Bacon’s Rebellion, it might be beneficial to examine others’ views on the rebellion. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that in my time, I see that Bacon was wrong in his actions and the Indians were the true victims. There are many other people who agree with me.

One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In this 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 that 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, 91) This treaty might have worked if the population had not have grown. The majority of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen of all classes at that time in search for land. According to the quote about the treaty, one major conflict was that because there were many people searching for land, the English were forced to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits. There was much more available Indian land than there was set aside for the English. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English believed that they were superior to the Indians, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected the land of their inferiors. Land was at the top of the priority list for the English colonists.

Englishmen who were in search for land began to search outside of their allotted land. Eventually they 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 may imply that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, that the Indians had a right to protect their land. One fact that might make these actions understandable was that most of "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). Howard Zinn’s point is basically that Bacon has the majority of the people behind him since the majority of the colonists are underclass, which would make sense of why the rebels were so strong. 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." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). The same thing is happening today, the lower class is not getting the help it needs and deserves. Douglass S. Massey 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.” (Massey, 346.) What Massey is saying is that the rich do not want to help out the poor when it comes to financial crises. 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. This was one of the main reasons why I believe that the Indians were the victims, but there are many other reasons that support my belief.

One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians who 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.” (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 and if they were enemies or allies. To me it seems that the group of rebels assumed that the Indians were only in the way, so why shouldn’t they kill them all just to get them out of the way, even if they were allies? 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 Indians were in his way of gaining land, and that they needed to get out of his way, taking whatever necessary actions in the process. I believe that it would have been most beneficial to Bacon and the government if Bacon had approached the rebellion differently. One thing he could have done differently was to make sure that the only Indians he killed were actually enemies. In agreement to my belief, Governor William Berkeley wrote 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, 370.) 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 as peaceful and as effective as possible. That is the reasoning behind the common view that the Indians were the true victims.

The other common view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims, and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. In this interpretation, the colonists were the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One piece of evidence that supports that statement is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses. This was 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, 90). As it was made known earlier, most of Bacon's supporters were the recently freed servants, who wanted more land. The lower class was the most heavily taxed of all the classes, but Berkeley didn’t really pay attention to the hardship that these taxes caused them. Not allowing the poor to vote was taking away their opportunity to change who was getting taxed, and how high those taxes were. The lower class had no say in how much they were getting forced to pay because they could not vote. 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 petition verifies how the people felt about being underrepresented. They were saddened that they had no voice, and that the government did not care that they had no voice. One reason that many people followed Bacon was because he gave the lower class a voice by passing laws such “Bacon’s Laws” when he was elected into the House of Burgesses in 1676. These quotes suggest 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 happened to be deserted Indian lands. As the English approached Indian lands, many of the Indians were killing the Englishmen so they could protect their land. Today, many people understand that the Indians were people too, so the Indians should not receive all the blame for acting upon regular human feelings and retaliating against the English.

Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders, even though in my eyes they were more justified that Bacon’s 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, 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. I cannot stress enough that time era and society has the most impact on the ideals out of all of the other factors.

In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what Bacon did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. My view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that if I were looking at this event from the 1600’s, I would have said that Bacon was justified in his actions. In contrast, when I look at this event from the 2000’s, I firmly believe that Bacon was not justified in his actions and he killed the Indians without any real reasons. Yet, I believe that Bacon was not an evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.

Sources:
o “The American Promise” by James L. Roark and others.
o "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" by the Royal Commissioners, many excerpts.
o "A Young People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff.
o "Royal Commissioners Narrative" Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird.
o "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, NO. 2
By Douglass S. Massey.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781105
o "The Journal of Southern History"
URL:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2954992