Background Information
In recent discussions of Bacon's Rebellion, a controversial issue has been whether Bacon and his followers had proper justification and means for rebellion against the richer whites and the Native Americans or was it unnecessary. On one hand, some writers take the side of Bacon and his followers, for example Historians Zinn and Stefoff, in A Younger People's History of the United States, who portray Bacon as a hero. From this perspective, "It was not a war of American colonist against the British. Instead, Bacon's Rebellion was an uprising of angry, poor colonists against two groups they saw as their enemies. One was the Indians. The other was the colonists' own rich and privileged leaders." [35]
Then, "In 1676, these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon." [37] They felt as if Bacon was on their side, so they elected him into the House of Burgesses, which was the colonial government. Following the election, Bacon was ready to take matters into his own hands, as it says, "Bacon was ready to send armed militias, or armed grouped of citizens, to fight the Indians. These militias would act outside the government control. This alarmed William Berkeley, the governor of the colony. Berkeley called Bacon a rebel and had him captured." Berkeley later had him [Bacon] released after two thousand of Bacon's supporters had marched into Jamestown, but right when he was free, he began raiding the Indians and set Jamestown, their capital, on fire. "The rebellion was under way."
Bacon gave his reason for the rebellion in a paper called "Declaration of the People," in which showed the frontiersman's hatred of the Indians and the common people's anger toward the rich, and Bacon's accusations of Sir William Berkeley, Sir Henry Chichley, William Claiburne Junior, Lieut. Coll. Christopher Wormeley, Thomas Hawkins, William Sherwood, Phillip Ludwell, along with all the others listed on the document, as to their wrong doings with unfair taxes, non-protection of the western farmers from the Indians, going against the King, etc. A few months following, Bacon got sick and died.
Shortly after the death of Bacon, an armed ship came to restore order. They killed many servants and then the remaining, they captured, sent back to their masters, and they punished them [thirty lashes with a whip], causing these servants to be in almost a worst shape they before the rebellion. There was basically a systematic ladder with England controlling the new American colony, and the new American colony controlling the Natives. For this reason, most people in Virginia supported the rebellion and one member of Berkeley's council even said that the rebels wanted to take the colony out of the King's hands and into their own. Although another said that, "the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich.
Many of the poor settlers were mislead. They came to America with the promise of the good lives they would have in American and the possibility of becoming very wealthy, but that was not the case. According to this piece, "Many poor people bound for America became indentured servants. They signed an agreement called an indenture that said that they would repay the cost of their journey to America by working for a master for five or seven years. Often they were imprisoned after signing the indenture, so that they couldn't run away before their ship sailed. Also, the sailing conditions weren't good at all. One thing to keep in mind about this is that the trip took eight to twelve weeks, possibly longer, with a few varying factors. Then, once they got to American these servants were treated inhumanely and sold as though they were livestock. Many Virginians were unhappy because of terrible conditions they had as servants or the state of living in poverty. Plus, there was a constant reality of the saying, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Due to the wealthy being in fear of the Indian hostility, the danger of slave revolts, and the growing class anger of poor whites, they [the wealthy] tried to turn all the others against each other; the poor against the Indians, the blacks against the the Indians, and blacks and white against each other [racism]. Everything developed over time in this same pattern with the divided social and racial classes, these that still exist today. In synapses, Bacon's Rebellion impacted history so much so, that it lead to future rebellions.
Thesis
Was it just for the Indians to be treated poorly during Bacon’s Rebellion?
Body/Discussion
The Indians were very unselfish people. They allowed the colonists to have a portion of land, yet the colonists were so selfish that they still took more without thinking of how the Indian people would feel about it. “The Indians had their lands seized by white frontiersmen.” (“A Young People’s History of the United States” by Historians Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff). Part of the reason for the colonists coming into the Indian’s land was because once the indentured servants became free, they had to be given the land promised to them and the only land that was left was not theirs to be giving away. “Bacon’s Rebellion stated with trouble on Virginia’s western frontier. By the 1670s rich landowners controlled most of eastern Virginia. As a result, many ordinary people felt that they were pushed towards the frontier. Life was more dangerous there.” [Zinn] This made the frontiersmen feel like their government had let them down. The way I see it, the colonists were just being greedy. They received a big portion of land and yet they kept wanting more. Whether or not they had enough land to give to the indentured servants or not, they should not have continued to go into the Indian land boundaries that they had formerly said they would not protrude. I think that the Indians had all the right to be unhappy about this issue. After all, any of us today would be mad if that were to happen to us. No one should be ok with other people taking what is rightfully ours.
The Indians clearly were not always intentionally harming the colonists. Some of the colonists were even on the natives side of the issues, especially those in the government. “The settlers had problems with the Natives American. They wanted the colony’s leaders to fight the Indians, but the politicians and big landowners who ran the colony wouldn’t fight.”[Zinn] This could have been because of issues like tobacco, but regardless, if the Indians were really in the wrong about how they were acting towards the colonists, the government would have had to uphold their duty and step in to do something about it, even if it were only slight. If what they did was only slight, then they would maintain the peace and still have the opportunities of trading with the Indians, while defending and protecting their people at the same time. “When Bacon began his private war against Indians, Berkeley – who hoped to keep the peace among the frontiers – declared the upstart a rebel.” [“The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century” by Warren Billings, ed.] If the Indians’ treatment towards the colonists were to really be that big of a deal, the government would have had to step in and do something about it. But they did not, therefore showing that the Indians were treating the colonists in an acceptable manner. This is presented clearly because Berkeley went as far as to announce Bacon as a rebel for trying to fight the Indians, keep in mind that Bacon and Berkeley were formerly on good terms, as stated in “The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century,” where it says, “Bacon’s status as a member of prominent English family gained him recognition from Virginia’s governor, Sir William Berkeley.” All in all, the Virginian government did not see the treatment of the Indians towards the colonists as an issue, so clearly it was not that immoral.
How can anyone be sure that Bacon had probable cause for stating the rebellion? No one knows that he did for sure. Although some people see Bacon as a hero, helping the poor farmers, others thought he was greedy. “Bacon owned a good bit of land. He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor. Still, the common people of Virginia felt that he was on their side.” [Zinn] Like it said in the quote, Bacon might have cared more about fighting the Indians than about helping the poor. For all we know, he could have very well been an inspirational speaker and convinced many people into believing that his cause was just and was for those people. Realistically, were a few Indians killing one of Bacon’s dear friends reason enough to start hatred against Indians as a whole, even the ones that were their “friends”? In “Whether They be Friends or Foes” by Michael J. Puglisi of the Marian College, it says “Both [referring to native groups such as the Powhatan and the so-called Praying Indians] felt the obvious isolation from tribes that lived outside of colonial control, but both also suffered from the lingering and thriving English prejudice against any Indians, regardless of their administrative loyalties or behavioral patterns. During the 1670s, this aambigous situation resulted in open attacks on the peaceful native groups in Virginia and Massachusetts.” To add to the concept, “Another [referring to one of the members of Governor Berkeley’s council] said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon’s Rebellion, but the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich.” [Zinn] This comes to show that many of Bacon’s “supporters” were only contributing out of their own wants for more money because after all, the major groups fighting in Bacon’s Rebellion were the Rich Englishmen and the Indians, verses the Poor farmers and Bacon, so money or class was of great relevance.
Present Day
No comments:
Post a Comment