Rough Draft #2 for the American Revolution

I will no longer stand by and allow Britain to do with the colonies what they wish! I am one of many who have come to be a part of this new land. This is land that has been run by the British government, which does not quite make sense to me; after all, we are an ocean away from each other. Although many of us have been born British, we are no longer a part of them; I, for one, an a citizen of New York. Why should we, the colonies, continue to follow under the rule of a country that really does not have much to do with us? We need each other in terms of trade and such, but how do we benefit in any other way from the British? We are a new people and part something that is not Britain; I hold my alliance with New York, and not with Great Britain because the Brits wrongly taxed us, the limits on the immigrants, the conditions in the prisons for the prisoners of war, and how they want to continue to maintain control over the colonies.

The Tories do not allow the immigrants to settle in the colonies and treat the prisoners of war inhumanely. “The British also exploited to the fullest two other manpower pools, immigrants and war prisoners.”1 With the harsh and forceful conditions many found no other way around alliance. “According to Captain Alexander McDonald of the Royal Highland Emigrants, ‘We cannot say they [the immigrants] were there forced into the Service, yet there was no other shift for them since they would not be allowed to goe to Settle in the Country, and it was promised them their wives and Children should have the Same allowance with the others belonging to the Army.”1 Those in jail see it as either a life or death situation. “Through December and January, more and more prisoners died in all the British jails. Not surprisingly, the recruiters did well. Many prisoners enlisted to escape life in these prisons. Others joined only to desert at the first opportunity.”1 Many have been forced to join the tories, not by choice, but as the only way out; who wants to be a part of a country that “created inhuman conditions to push prisoners into enlisting”1 or whose enlistment technique is “force, or fear of it”?1

Great Britain has been taxing us for matters of their own benefit. They chose to protect us and now expect us to pay taxes on everything in order to repay for this protection, as stated in the Stamp Act, where it says, “Whereas by an act made in the last session of parliament, several duties were granted, continued, and appropriated, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing, the British colonies and plantations in America: and whereas it is just and necessary, that provision be made for raising a further revenue within your MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, towards defraying the said expences[...]. That from and after the first day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, throughout the colonies and plantations in America which now are, or hereafter may be, under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs and successors.”2 We do not feel that this is our responsibility to repay Great Britain because they defended us in their best interests towards trade not because we asked them to, so we, the people of merchants of New York, have put into place the Non-importation Agreement. In this agreement, we have all “promise and oblige ourselves not to buy any goods, wares, or merchandises of any person or persons whatsoever that shall he shipped from Great Britain after the first day of January next unless the Stamp Act shall be repealed-as witness our hands.” The result of the taxes infringed upon us has put many colonists, including myself, into debt and should not be our responsibility.

Great Britain is wrongly taxing us and we are not willing to allow this to keep happening any more. We, the merchants, the lawyers, and other inhabitants of many ranks unite to testify our dislikes for the evil project the Brits have of enslaving Americans. We came together in order to create a document called “Association of the Sons of Liberty in New York,” in which we all agree that we are not going to have anything to do with the duties on tea nor those who do. Together we understand that taxation has been a big issue and that it is not ok. They have used it against us to maintain some control, but no longer are we going to sit back and allow this to happen, nor favor anyone else who allows the taxation to continue without any act towards change. Little by little, we will not stop making attempts to take over our land and run it our way, by our people.

The British are taxing us for things that do not belong to them. Why might anyone want to be a Tory? After all, the British are selfish. “For ‘What property have they in that which another may, by right, take when he pleases to himself?’ The former is the undoubted right of Englishmen, to secure which they expended millions and sacrificed the lives of thousands.”4 All they want is money for things that do not belong to them, in order to make up for the money that they willingly sacrificed.

Our constitution, like the constitution of many other states, touches on subjects such as how our government is run by the people, how we are protected under the constitution and those in ruling power must judge our crimes according, the right-to-bear-arms, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion and the liberties that we have been fighting for. We earn what we have been fighting for all along, our liberties and a form of government that we have taken back control of. No longer must we consider ourselves British or the lower class British men. All along I knew that what I was fighting for was right and that in the end we would conquer.

Patrick Henry is one of my inspirations because he understands how important our liberty is and how we need to stand up to Great Britain. I was there the day he gave his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” Speech and it was phenomenal. The way he spoke with such a profound and determined character came to my amazement. He had the guts to say what I had been thinking all along. If I could have, I would have stood by his side during that speech and shown that I too believe that our liberty is worth our lives, after all, what is life without liberty. Sacrificing everything for everyone’s freedom is more than worthwhile, it is necessary and it is a privilege to have that opportunity to make a difference. Like the saying, drastic times call for drastic measures and this is one. He shows us that there really is not much of another option, because the “war” has already begun and there is no turning back. Either we stand up for the change or we fall back and let Great Britain continue to push us around. Like Patrick Henry’s decision, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

As a patriot from New York, I am so glad that we have finally won our independence. No longer can the Brits continue to tax us. No longer can they try to control us and manipulate us. No longer can they control the people that come into the United States, or anything that we do. It is such a breath of fresh air to finally be Americans.













Bibliography

4. Association of the Sons of Liberty in New York; December 15, 1773
[The Avalon Project]

3. New York Merchants Non-importation Agreement; October 31, 1765
[The Avalon Project]

6. Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death; March 23, 1775
[The Avalon Project]

1. Ranlet, Philip. "British Recruitment of Americans in New York During the American --------Revolution." Military Affairs Vol. 48 No.1(1984): 26-28.

5. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
[The Avalon Project]

2. The Stamp Act, March 22, 1765
[The Avalon Project

Rough Draft f #1for the American Revolution Essay

I will no longer stand by and allow Britain to do with the colonies what they wish! I am one of many who have come to be a part of this new land. This is land that has been run by the British government, which does not quite make sense to me; after all, we are an ocean away from each other. Although many of us have been born British, we are no longer a part of them; I, for one, an a citizen of New York. Why should we, the colonies, continue to follow under the rule of a country that really does not have much to do with us? We need each other in terms of trade and such, but how do we benefit in any other way from the British? The Brits are selfish and forceful. We are a new people and part of something that is not Britain; New York is where I hold my alliance.

Many only choose to join the tories because they do not have much of any other options. “The British also exploited to the fullest two other manpower pools, immigrants and war prisoners.”1 With the harsh and forceful conditions many found no other way around alliance. “According to Captain Alexander McDonald of the Royal Highland Emigrants, ‘We cannot say they [the immigrants] were there forced into the Service, yet there was no other shift for them since they would not be allowed to goe to Settle in the Country, and it was promised them their wives and Children should have the Same allowance with the others belonging to the Army.”1 Those in jail see it as either a life or death situation. “Through December and January, more and more prisoners died in all the British jails. Not surprisingly, the recruiters did well. Many prisoners enlisted to escape life in these prisons. Others joined only to desert at the first opportunity.”1 Many have been forced to join the tories, not by choice, but as the only way out; who wants to be a part of a country that “created inhuman conditions to push prisoners into enlisting”1 or whose enlistment technique is “force, or fear of it”?1

Great Britain has been taxing us for matters of their own benefit. They chose to protect us and now expect us to pay taxes on everything in order to repay for this protection, as stated in the Stamp Act, where it says, “Whereas by an act made in the last session of parliament, several duties were granted, continued, and appropriated, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing, the British colonies and plantations in America: and whereas it is just and necessary, that provision be made for raising a further revenue within your MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, towards defraying the said expences[...]. That from and after the first day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, throughout the colonies and plantations in America which now are, or hereafter may be, under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs and successors.”2 We do not feel that this is our responsibility to repay Great Britain because they defended us in their best interests towards trade not because we asked them to, so we, the people of merchants of New York, have put into place the Non-importation Agreement. In this agreement, we have all “promise and oblige ourselves not to buy any goods, wares, or merchandises of any person or persons whatsoever that shall he shipped from Great Britain after the first day of January next unless the Stamp Act shall be repealed-as witness our hands.” The result of the taxes infringed upon us has put many colonists, including myself, into debt and should not be our responsibility.

We, the merchants, the lawyers, and other inhabitants of many ranks unite to testify our dislikes for the evil project the Brits have of enslaving Americans. We came together in order to create a document called “Association of the Sons of Liberty in New York,” in which we all agree that we are not going to have anything to do with the duties on tea nor those who do. Together we understand that taxation has been a big issue and that it is not ok. They have used it against us to maintain some control, but no longer are we going to sit back and allow this to happen, nor favor anyone else who allows the taxation to continue without any act towards change. Little by little, we will not stop making attempts to take over our land and run it our way, by our people.

Why might anyone want to be a Tory? After all, the British are selfish. “For ‘What property have they in that which another may, by right, take when he pleases to himself?’ The former is the undoubted right of Englishmen, to secure which they expended millions and sacrificed the lives of thousands.”4 All they want is money for things that do not belong to them, in order to make up for the money that they willingly sacrificed.

Our constitution, like the constitution of many other states, touches on subjects such as how our government is run by the people, how we are protected under the constitution and those in ruling power must judge our crimes according, the right-to-bear-arms, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion and the liberties that we have been fighting for. We earn what we have been fighting for all along, our liberties and a form of government that we have taken back control of. No longer must we consider ourselves British or the lower class British men. All along I knew that what I was fighting for was right and that in the end we would conquer.

Patrick Henry was one of my inspirations. I was there the day he gave his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” Speech and it was phenomenal. The way he spoke with such a profound and determined character came to my amazement. He had the guts to say what I had been thinking all along. If I could have, I would have stood by his side during that speech and shown that I too believe that our liberty is worth our lives, after all, what is life without liberty. Sacrificing everything for everyone’s freedom is more than worthwhile, it is necessary and it is a privilege to have that opportunity to make a difference. Like the saying, drastic times call for drastic measures and this is one. He shows us that there really is not much of another option, because the “war” has already begun and there is no turning back. Either we stand up for the change or we fall back and let Great Britain continue to push us around. Like Patrick Henry’s decision, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

First Continental Congress related to the Advisory Council and our community meetings

I think that the First Continental Congress could teach us that although we come from a number of different feeder schools and have a different number of perspectives, we can still come together in meetings, such as community meetings, Advisory Council, and things of that nature, in order to push for a greater common cause. It is kind of like the saying, “United we stand, divided we fall,” which originated in the fourth verse of a 1768 patriotic ballad, The Liberty Song, by John Dickinson. (http://americanhistory.si.edu/1942/campaign/campaign24.html) I truly think that if a group of divers people come together with a common goal at hand, they hold a vast amount of possibilities, and it would be more then likely in their favor, especially when it comes to change. I know that in my experience, that previous thought has been a reality. When I was about eleven or twelve, I was involved in this organization called ICL, the Institute for Community Leadership. In this organization, the common cause was to fight for non-violence; we reiterated this in both our workshops and in numerous speaking events. Our organization was made of students and administrators ranging in age from eleven years old to those in their late fifties. We came from many different schools, cities, and had different ethnicities and backgrounds. But this always worked out to our advantage because we were able to captivate and persuade people and a variety of different levels. More then not, our audience was able to connect with us. Although many people might see diversity as a downfall, I see it as a mere advantage, a strengthening feature. The reason being that if a large diversed number of people are in favor of a particular cause, say one of the constitutions in place at PSEC, it becomes a stronger argument because there will be a large number of reasons and back up for the decision. If everyone were the same, it would take out the complexity of the issue, and therefore create the possibility of lacking depth and enough support.


To my knowledge, I feel that the governing process by which we follow at PSEC is a valid process and as it stands, is good the way it is, for right now. First off, I am for a democracy and equality. I feel that it is important for matters to be fair and everyone hold a say in what happens and the rules by which they must follow. This is something that I have always thought to be important. I personally, like most people when they are young, used to always say, “That’s not fair” and I would always receive the response, “life isn’t fair. Get over it.” This I feel does not need to be true. I think that everyone should be allowed the same things as everyone else, as long as they abide by the rules, clearly a murder shouldn’t be allowed the same rights as a hero of the community, for example. I also find it wonderful how our Advisory Council consists of four juniors, four seniors, and four members of the faculty. This creates as much of an equality as possible, except I feel it would be better if of each of the four, two members of each category be girls and two boys, unless an exception has to be made due to the people interested because it is better to have the equality thrown off a little, then to force someone into being on Advisory Council and they aren’t even committed or they doesn’t really care about what happens to PSEC as a community. Although I don’t know much on the current governing process we hold at PSEC, what I know as of now seems to be pretty reasonable.


I, just like every student at PSEC, can get involved and make an impact on the process and structure of PSEC as a community. One way in which I could do this would be to become a part of the Advisory Council. Another way I could involve myself is by making a proposal for things that I feel need to be change and bring it up to the community in one of our community meetings. I could also help implement the changes, if approved. One thing that is nice about the constitution is that we are able to make changes if need and it is not something looked down upon, but instead is considered a good thing because it allows the possibility for change and gives up the chance to see what does or doesn’t work out for the better. Without this opportunity, we might continue to make preventable situations and nothing could be done, in terms of growth and development of PSECs process and structure.


Because the process allows us, as a community, to get involved, I know that this can be considered a challenge. I also understand that this challenge may be ignored or not engaged due to laziness, fear, or simply not caring about the matters. This becomes a challenge because it isn’t required of anyone to step up and make changes, unless they commit to the Advisory Council, or something of that nature and it is their duty. It may also be a challenge to come up with a reasonable response or possible action to take in order to make the changes. Another place where this becomes a challenge is when people are too afraid to speak up because they are scared of being turned down or someone might put them down for their beliefs. Because we have a democracy, it is less likely, because everyone is allowed a say, making it more unlikely for someone to put you down for your idea and more likely that someone else may side with you on the issue, maybe not complete, but to a substantial point. If those people aren’t willing to step up and get involved, year after year, PSEC would not see any significant changes, and will be stuck in a certain state, by which they would have reoccurring difficulties. I do feel that it is essential for members of the community to get involved in these issues that make an impact on them and push for a change, to not only benefit themselves, but those who come after them and the members of their cohort.

Text Analysis

Essay 1 Reflection

Throughout the first half of this class I have learned a number of things about my writing, in terms of the style I write in, the methods I use in my writing, how to make my writing sound professional, and much more. As a writer, I have grown to see that I am capable of professionally writing, not just blabbing that sounds good. All in all, I am growing and understand myself as a writer with each day far more then I thought possible.

In my honest opinion for this essay, I felt as though it was really good in the first few drafts and then not really what I wanted as the process neared the end. In order to "improve" my paper I had to make my changes that I did not really agree with and I thought threw off the whole follow of my paper and it upset me but I did it in order to finish my paper and satisfy most of the requirements. So was the end product of the first essay to my liking and standards? No.

One thing that I have found to be of great use was the They Say, I Say book. In the beginning of the class I can surely say that I was not wanting to read the book, but as time has gone by I have seen that the templates are very useful. They are easy to use, they can fit into almost any context, they sound great but aren't overly complicated to understand, they just are all over helpful. I think that this book might continue to help me in the future and would be a great resource to look back on.

Another tool I found helpful was peer editing. Although some comments were of no help, like ones such as "It's a good piece of writing overall," others, such as Joe Brown's were very helpful and constructive. They helped me to see what I had failed to do and what was unnecessary. These were thinks that I had not noticed and really helped me develop my paper. Peer editing was a tool that I found to be useful and helpful if done with seriousness, intent, and done properly.

I have also come to notice that my writing, as far as what I originally talked about in My Writing Philosophy has yet to really change. I still write a lot, I still don't find my writing to be very fun to read, even if it is well thought out and sounds professional, and it doesn't always capture part of me besides my thoughts on the piece at hand. This may partly be because we don't ever really have these times of writing prompts or tasks. Most of the writing that we work on in class are fact and examination. We read the material, talk about our ideas, then express what we feel the writer is talking about and connect our ideas with them on paper. But it does make sense, considering that it is a writing/history class. Although I wish to develop my writing in the same ways I explained in my writing Philosophy, I do feel that there is reason to believe why I have not in fact improved on my standards.

Like I said, I do still wish to develop my writing according to my writing philosophy. It would be wonderful to me if I was able to captivate my reader into seeming and believing what I feel through my writing. I would love to be able to pull together a story in my writings not just present my opposition. So I do feel that my want for growth described in my writing philosophy continues to apply and I hope to be able to get the chance to work with it.

As far as Essay 1 goes, I do not feel like it I made any steps towards my want for progression in my writing abilities. I also do not think that it would have been appropriate, considering that Essay number one was supposed to be a factual and input argument, not an informative and input piece, which I had thought it would be. In conclusion, my first essay did not turn out how I wanted it to and I did not really progress in my writing goals, but I did find certain tools to be of great help.

Text Analysis for Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act 1765

Who is Writting?
Patrick Henry on behalf of The Virginia House of Burgesses.

Who is the audience?
The audience is The Citizens, colonists, and the the House of Commons.

Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the position of the colonists.

What is being said or argued?
Recognizing the rights of the Virginia governor and legislature to tax Virginians (Stamp Act) as well as the six Resolutions made by the House of Burgesses, even though the fifth and sixth resolves weren't actually adopted.

How is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
It is being said in a respectful manner, as far as respecting all the people of Virginia, including those in a position of power, in the aspect of it being their right to take control of their own laws and taxing, rather than a demanding one, as the other two articles had presented themselves and informative as far as the six resolves.

What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize request?

In a way, I guess you could say that the proof is that the people dont really have a say more of the legislatures and the justification is the parliament should not be able to impose taxes on them.

Bacon's Rebellion Paper

To this day Native American people still are not treated the way that they should be. In his article, “Billions Missing From U.S. Indian Trust Fund,” Dyer, who has had work featured in numerous magazines such as the New York Times, maintains that “In his testimony before Congress, John Echohawk, director of Native American Rights Fund, called it "yet another serious and continuing breach in a long history of dishonorable treatment of Indian tribes and individual Indians by the United States government." Arizona Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, bluntly called it "theft from Indian people." These men were describing the single largest and longest-lasting financial scandal in history involving the federal government of the United States. With no other recourse left at their disposal, NARF, along with other attorneys, filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court on June 10 on behalf of more than 300,000 American Indians. The suit charges Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Assistant Interior Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Ada Deer and Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin with illegal conduct in regard to the management of Indian money held in trust accounts and managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If the lawsuit's claims are correct, and there's an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests they are, then the federal government has lost, misappropriated or, in some cases, stolen billions of dollars from some of its poorest citizens.” It is absurd how through the years the Natives still are not given proper treatment, whether the subject at hand be the treatment towards them and their land, or in this case, the treatment of their entrusted money.

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, the unhappy Virginians found a leader in farmer Nathaniel Bacon so they elected him into the colonial government, the House of Burgesses. 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 people were not controlled by the government, which alarmed Governor William Berkeley, so they announced Bacon as a rebel. He was captured then set free when two thousand of Bacon’s supporters had marched into Jamestown, which they began raiding the Indians and set their capital, Jamestown on fire.

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. After Bacon’s death, there basically became a sense of inferiority with England controlling the new American colony, and the new American colony controlling the Natives.

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 Zinn, "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. 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. Which brings me to my question of whether or not it was 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. In the American Promise, they state that “the number of land-hungry colonists, especially poor, recently freed servants, continued to multiply. In their quest for land, they pushed beyond the treaty limits of English settlement and encroached steadily on Indian land.” The way I see it, the colonists were just being greedy. They received a big portion of land and yet they wanted more and 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.

The Native Americans were not treated properly during Bacon’s Rebellion. Majority of the time the Natives saw the colonists as god’s people, which they were. They allowed the colonists to take over their land and be unpleasant towards them. I really do not think that Bacon had probable cause to “go to war” with the Indians. Why what was Bacon’s initial intent to fighting with the Indians? Why did Bacon have so much hatred towards these people? Was this rebellion really meaningful to those poor farmers that were lead, by Bacon, to believe that the Indians were somehow the enemy? Were the Natives really in the wrong? Because in my own opinion, all this harshness towards the Indians was not necessary and the colonists could have very well handled the Natives in a different manner and still have gotten their greedy, selfish wants or needs.