Although Writing 101 class was only one quarter long, I have learned more in the duration of this class about writing, than I had during any year of high school. Besides learning about writing, this class also helped me learn more about life, because it was a more difficult and trying class than I had ever experienced. I had to reach within myself for a strength previously unknown to me. I would definitely say that this class made me a better person, and, despite some hard times, I am so glad to have taken it.
The first essay we did, the Bacon's Rebellion essay, I had looked forward to writing. It was exciting for me, because it was something completely new. Every single essay in high school had always been five paragraphs (except for one eight-paragraph essay we did), and this one I could write as long as I wanted to! I liked the way we wrote this essay, with a lot of preparation, research, revising, and peer review. All of it helped me create an essay like I had never created before. Most of the way through the essay I was enjoying it, although towards the end I believe that I started to lose confidence in myself and my writing. One of my weaknesses, which showed in the writing of this essay, is how I question my intelligence and my potential. Also, how I compare myself to others and worry that everyone else at PSEC is smarter than me. A strength of mine, that showed during the writing of this essay, is my love for writing. And another would be my drive to stay on-schedule -- I got all of my drafts etc. done on time except for one slip-up. Though, I didn't nearly as well on the second essay.
The second essay went a lot worse for me than the first essay. First of all, the subject of the essay scared me. It seemed like such a hard, almost impossible, thing to write about. Though, after I had a meeting with Craig, I realized that I had been shooting for impossible goals in my essay, and that I was over-thinking it, and that the goals of the essay were really much simpler. So with all my wasted time researching for things that didn't exist, I was way behind schedule. I got my feedback from Craig on my outline the day the final draft was due. Of course, I couldn't finish my essay in that amount of time. So, I got zero points on it, but I finished it anyways so I could put it inside of my portfolio. One of my weaknesses was made apparent through this essay, which is my inability to work under pressure. We had a lot more time for the first essay, and a lot more revisions and other sorts of things. I did a lot better under this sort of environment. With the second essay I kind of freaked or froze up. Although I completely failed the second essay because I didn't turn it in on time, I still worked on a rough draft over that weekend, talked to Craig about it in another meeting the next week, and then worked it into a final draft for the portfolio. That showed me a new kind of strength I had. I was able to still work on an essay that I knew I already had zero points on.
Overall, I feel my first essay turned out much better than my second one. The reason I feel that way is because my passion for the first essay was genuine – I had picked a subject in Bacon's Rebellion that I truly wanted to write about. On the second essay we were assigned a side, either Loyalist or Patriot. I would have chosen the opposite side than I was assigned, so I faced more challenges for the second essay. Although I try to write passionately for the loyalist cause, sounding persuasive, and justifying myself, it wasn't the same kind of genuine passion from the first essay. In general, I sincerely hope that my love for learning and my motivation showed in Writing 101 class, although there was a short period of time where I sort of lost hope in myself.
Writing 101 class made me not only a much better writer, but also a much better person. My writing is stronger and my will is stronger, and so I feel that I was meant to be in this class (destined, if you will, despite how cheesy that sounds). I think that I have mostly dropped my old high school style of writing, and replaced it with this new and improved writing style (with the help of Craig and “They Say, I Say”), but I still have some ways to go. Though, with the knowledge I have already obtained from this class, I think I can continue improving my writing on my own, because now I have the tools to do that with.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Portfolio: Essay 2 (Patriots vs. Loyalists) Final Draft
A Loyalist Speaks Up Amidst a Mass of Ignorant Patriotism
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that, I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, then so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, and I will stay true. This is my stand – that the Loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.
The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” (North Carolina Congress 1) Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, because everyone has a chance for a good life in America.
Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” (1) I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” (1) It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11)
Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” (North Carolina Congress 3) What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good.
I hope that in reading this, you have been persuaded to the Loyalist side and seen the truth about the Patriots, although there are much more popular documents out there like documents by Thomas Paine, like “Common Sense” and “The Crisis”. Those documents have persuaded many because of his artistic use of metaphors and emotions. Though if you really picked apart these Patriot documents piece by piece, you would see that they are full of cruelty and ignorance. My essay speaks the truth. Choose what you will, but hear me out, that the Loyalist cause is what is best for America! We threw away what was best for America – our connection with Britain – but let's not let things worsen. We still have time to repair connections! Don't run, my loyalists! Stay in America and continue to fight for our cause! Our nation is falling and we must help lift it, do not let things continue worsening as they have been!
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
Caswell, Richard and Green, James. North Carolina. Congress.Constitution of North Carolina. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909.
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that, I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, then so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, and I will stay true. This is my stand – that the Loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.
The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” (North Carolina Congress 1) Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, because everyone has a chance for a good life in America.
Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” (1) I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” (1) It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11)
Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” (North Carolina Congress 3) What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good.
I hope that in reading this, you have been persuaded to the Loyalist side and seen the truth about the Patriots, although there are much more popular documents out there like documents by Thomas Paine, like “Common Sense” and “The Crisis”. Those documents have persuaded many because of his artistic use of metaphors and emotions. Though if you really picked apart these Patriot documents piece by piece, you would see that they are full of cruelty and ignorance. My essay speaks the truth. Choose what you will, but hear me out, that the Loyalist cause is what is best for America! We threw away what was best for America – our connection with Britain – but let's not let things worsen. We still have time to repair connections! Don't run, my loyalists! Stay in America and continue to fight for our cause! Our nation is falling and we must help lift it, do not let things continue worsening as they have been!
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
Caswell, Richard and Green, James. North Carolina. Congress.Constitution of North Carolina. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909.
Portfolio: Bacon's Rebellion Essay Re-Write
The Abuse of the Natives Committed by Nathaniel Bacon and his Followers in the Rebellion of Virginia
In 1676, a rebellion was started by Nathaniel Bacon that would forever change Virginia. Everyone involved in the rebellion, and historians today, have many different views about it. My person view is that the major antagonist was Nathaniel Bacon, and that the Natives were the victims. However, Bacon's view was that the Indians and the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, were the cause of all the problems in Virginia. In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkeley and the Natives. Bacon accused Berkeley, “For having protected favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” (Bacon 1)
Bacon managed to persuade all of the lower classes that his word was true, and they joined him in his uprising, but not all were swayed to his side. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkeley makes no effort against the Natives when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after the Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, “Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers...” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkeley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the native faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” (Puglisi 83)
By saying that the Natives were only the victims, I mean that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Natives, but the Natives had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reason to back up my claim that the Natives were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful toward the Natives lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” (Roark and Johnson 73) This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist. Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” (Craven 67)
This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Natives had pure and innocent intentions. Though, they began to take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” (Craven 69) The Virginian colonists attempts to civilize those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control them. A law was passed in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians does and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” (Roark and Johnson 85) I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Natives. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more of a stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Natives, and so the Natives found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on pained of death'.” (Puglisi 83)
The white Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, when he writes, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” (Craven 68) Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Natives. The Royal Commissioners observed that, “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kepy Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 106)
It is apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Natives. However, as I stated firstly, I think that the worst of them was Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” (123) When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Besides just being cruel to the Natives, bacon pressured Berkeley and his council with his manipulative ways. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkeley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and he draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Assembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldier mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” (Sherwood) According to Sherwood, Bacon got a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Berkeley. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkeley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacrilegious hands...” (Berkeley) Berkeley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credibly source with an unbiased standing, The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. (Mathews) I now feel sure that Berkeley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his own declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” (Bacon 2) I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Back to my defense for the Natives, I believe that when the Natives did fight back at all, it was for self-defense. The Royal Commissioners wrote, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Though they did not always fight back. Sometimes they would simply flee in terror of the white man. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Natives only tried to run, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” (127) The Natives had a lot of reasons to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for righting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not only short-term effects on the Virginian Indians, but long-term ones too. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Natives by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Natives. Bacon angrily exaggerated about the Natives, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all placed, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.”(Bacon 1) In other words, Bacon believes the cause of every Virginian colonist's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they had gotten rid of these two factors, then life in the American colonies would have been much better, in Bacon's opinion. Another long-term effect on the Natives from that time is the reservations that still exist today. Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” (Roark and Johnson 91) This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was started by a fairly average, yet intelligent, and also immoral, man. The rebellion turned into a disastrous uprising that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion (whether one views it as positive or negative) was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Natives would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
Works Cited
Bacon, Nathaniel. "The Declaration." (1676): 1.
The Royal Commissioners, and Jameson, Franklin. A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia. 1st ed. American Historical Association, 1915.
Puglisi, Michael. ""Whether They Be Friends or Foes:" The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." Marian College 70(2001): 83.
Roark, James, and Johnson, Michael. The American Promise. '4th ed'. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009.
Craven, Wesley. "Indian Policy in Early Virginia." The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 1(1944): 67-69.
Sherwood, William. "Letter to Sir Joseph Williamson." (1676):
Berkely, William. “Letter to Henry Coventry.” (1677):
Mathews, Thomas. "The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676." (1835):
In 1676, a rebellion was started by Nathaniel Bacon that would forever change Virginia. Everyone involved in the rebellion, and historians today, have many different views about it. My person view is that the major antagonist was Nathaniel Bacon, and that the Natives were the victims. However, Bacon's view was that the Indians and the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, were the cause of all the problems in Virginia. In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkeley and the Natives. Bacon accused Berkeley, “For having protected favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” (Bacon 1)
Bacon managed to persuade all of the lower classes that his word was true, and they joined him in his uprising, but not all were swayed to his side. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkeley makes no effort against the Natives when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after the Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, “Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers...” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkeley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the native faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” (Puglisi 83)
By saying that the Natives were only the victims, I mean that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Natives, but the Natives had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reason to back up my claim that the Natives were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful toward the Natives lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” (Roark and Johnson 73) This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist. Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” (Craven 67)
This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Natives had pure and innocent intentions. Though, they began to take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” (Craven 69) The Virginian colonists attempts to civilize those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control them. A law was passed in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians does and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” (Roark and Johnson 85) I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Natives. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more of a stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Natives, and so the Natives found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on pained of death'.” (Puglisi 83)
The white Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, when he writes, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” (Craven 68) Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Natives. The Royal Commissioners observed that, “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kepy Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 106)
It is apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Natives. However, as I stated firstly, I think that the worst of them was Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” (123) When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Besides just being cruel to the Natives, bacon pressured Berkeley and his council with his manipulative ways. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkeley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and he draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Assembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldier mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” (Sherwood) According to Sherwood, Bacon got a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Berkeley. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkeley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacrilegious hands...” (Berkeley) Berkeley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credibly source with an unbiased standing, The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. (Mathews) I now feel sure that Berkeley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his own declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” (Bacon 2) I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Back to my defense for the Natives, I believe that when the Natives did fight back at all, it was for self-defense. The Royal Commissioners wrote, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Though they did not always fight back. Sometimes they would simply flee in terror of the white man. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Natives only tried to run, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” (127) The Natives had a lot of reasons to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for righting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not only short-term effects on the Virginian Indians, but long-term ones too. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Natives by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Natives. Bacon angrily exaggerated about the Natives, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all placed, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.”(Bacon 1) In other words, Bacon believes the cause of every Virginian colonist's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they had gotten rid of these two factors, then life in the American colonies would have been much better, in Bacon's opinion. Another long-term effect on the Natives from that time is the reservations that still exist today. Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” (Roark and Johnson 91) This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was started by a fairly average, yet intelligent, and also immoral, man. The rebellion turned into a disastrous uprising that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion (whether one views it as positive or negative) was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Natives would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
Works Cited
Bacon, Nathaniel. "The Declaration." (1676): 1.
The Royal Commissioners, and Jameson, Franklin. A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia. 1st ed. American Historical Association, 1915.
Puglisi, Michael. ""Whether They Be Friends or Foes:" The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." Marian College 70(2001): 83.
Roark, James, and Johnson, Michael. The American Promise. '4th ed'. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009.
Craven, Wesley. "Indian Policy in Early Virginia." The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 1(1944): 67-69.
Sherwood, William. "Letter to Sir Joseph Williamson." (1676):
Berkely, William. “Letter to Henry Coventry.” (1677):
Mathews, Thomas. "The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676." (1835):
Portfolio: Final Exam Frame II
In this passage the writer states his beliefs that group work will produce more creativity among students, and also improve their writing. The writer quotes another writer, who says that talking to other students about things you have written or things you don't understand will help you a lot, even if they don't agree with you or they don't understand what you've written. As long as they're not close-minded, he emphasizes.
I can definitely relate with what the writer is saying. The two things that first jump into my mind is Writing 101 class and History 121 class. A specific example of this in my writing class is the 'peer review'. Instead of just getting feedback from your teacher, you can get the feedback from several students, who will probably each notice different things that stood out to them about your work. In my experience, the students will read other students' work with an open-mind, just as the writer of this passage emphasized as being essential. It is very effective not only to improve your writing and obtain different view points, but also to get a feeling of togetherness.
In my history class, we sometimes analyze documents in small groups, which is actually my favorite thing. The reason for it being my favorite aspect of the class is because how much of a greater understanding I achieve than when I just had read the document by myself. Sometimes I might run across something I don't understand, and perhaps the others in my group had difficulty with the concept also, but when there is group participation and discussion, then, suddenly, things make a lot more sense. It is just as Elbow, quoted by the writer of this passage, said. He said, “If you are stuck...trying to figure something out, there is nothing better than finding one person, or more, to talk to. If they...have trouble understanding [also], so much the better...”
So, I agree with the writer and his claim that group work helps students. However, I also think that you must teach the students how to work effectively in groups. In writing class, we were taught that effective peer review is not saying “Good job, your writing's great.”, but to offer them helpful criticisms that apply specifically to their writing. We were also taught to take our peers' feedback with a grain of salt. In history class, leaders of small group discussions were given specific questions to ask their group, and they may ask additional things also. Without a few guidelines, I believe that too many students would be inclined to only make remarks like “I don't get it.” and “It was boring.” With some nudging, all students have great potential, and, as the writer of this passage said, “Group work...highlights the interactive nature of creativity.”
So, group work is very effective in discussion and reflection, but what about a few students working on a big project together? In writing class, we also had to work together as a group to make a formal outline for the debate. I am still not sure how effective that sort of group work is though. There are plus sides to it. The work is being shared, so each individual doesn't have as much of a load. Also, since group discussion does heighten creativity, as I quoted earlier, one can probably come up with better ideas in a group. Though sometimes ideas in a group may clash. One student thinks of something that he/she thinks is a brilliant idea! Then, another student comes up with a contradicting idea. There's a couple different problems that could arise with that. The two students may argue, each thinking that they have the better idea. Or, one student will be passive and give up their idea, but they will no longer put their heart into the group work, feeling beat down.
Another problem that may arise with group project work is that when the situation gets stressful, everyone has a different way of handling it. In my experience with the group project we had to do in writing class, one of my group members was a very serious and anxious individual. Another member was cool and optimistic. When I would communicate with the stressful individual, I would have thoughts that everything was going downhill. However, when I would communicate with the cool individual, I would feel optimistic about our project. With this confusion, I did not work nearly as well as I feel that I would have if there was more of an atmosphere of group unity.
Although it can be terribly stressful, group project work does have more upsides than downsides. Even if I'm not enjoying myself doing this sort of work, it does get me better prepared for life. In life, we don't always choose who we work with, and some situations will force you to work with others, for better or for worse. Overall, any sort of group work will be more effective than individual work in several ways. It is good life practice, it expands creativity, and, if a group works together properly, it is a generally a more efficient way of getting things done.
I can definitely relate with what the writer is saying. The two things that first jump into my mind is Writing 101 class and History 121 class. A specific example of this in my writing class is the 'peer review'. Instead of just getting feedback from your teacher, you can get the feedback from several students, who will probably each notice different things that stood out to them about your work. In my experience, the students will read other students' work with an open-mind, just as the writer of this passage emphasized as being essential. It is very effective not only to improve your writing and obtain different view points, but also to get a feeling of togetherness.
In my history class, we sometimes analyze documents in small groups, which is actually my favorite thing. The reason for it being my favorite aspect of the class is because how much of a greater understanding I achieve than when I just had read the document by myself. Sometimes I might run across something I don't understand, and perhaps the others in my group had difficulty with the concept also, but when there is group participation and discussion, then, suddenly, things make a lot more sense. It is just as Elbow, quoted by the writer of this passage, said. He said, “If you are stuck...trying to figure something out, there is nothing better than finding one person, or more, to talk to. If they...have trouble understanding [also], so much the better...”
So, I agree with the writer and his claim that group work helps students. However, I also think that you must teach the students how to work effectively in groups. In writing class, we were taught that effective peer review is not saying “Good job, your writing's great.”, but to offer them helpful criticisms that apply specifically to their writing. We were also taught to take our peers' feedback with a grain of salt. In history class, leaders of small group discussions were given specific questions to ask their group, and they may ask additional things also. Without a few guidelines, I believe that too many students would be inclined to only make remarks like “I don't get it.” and “It was boring.” With some nudging, all students have great potential, and, as the writer of this passage said, “Group work...highlights the interactive nature of creativity.”
So, group work is very effective in discussion and reflection, but what about a few students working on a big project together? In writing class, we also had to work together as a group to make a formal outline for the debate. I am still not sure how effective that sort of group work is though. There are plus sides to it. The work is being shared, so each individual doesn't have as much of a load. Also, since group discussion does heighten creativity, as I quoted earlier, one can probably come up with better ideas in a group. Though sometimes ideas in a group may clash. One student thinks of something that he/she thinks is a brilliant idea! Then, another student comes up with a contradicting idea. There's a couple different problems that could arise with that. The two students may argue, each thinking that they have the better idea. Or, one student will be passive and give up their idea, but they will no longer put their heart into the group work, feeling beat down.
Another problem that may arise with group project work is that when the situation gets stressful, everyone has a different way of handling it. In my experience with the group project we had to do in writing class, one of my group members was a very serious and anxious individual. Another member was cool and optimistic. When I would communicate with the stressful individual, I would have thoughts that everything was going downhill. However, when I would communicate with the cool individual, I would feel optimistic about our project. With this confusion, I did not work nearly as well as I feel that I would have if there was more of an atmosphere of group unity.
Although it can be terribly stressful, group project work does have more upsides than downsides. Even if I'm not enjoying myself doing this sort of work, it does get me better prepared for life. In life, we don't always choose who we work with, and some situations will force you to work with others, for better or for worse. Overall, any sort of group work will be more effective than individual work in several ways. It is good life practice, it expands creativity, and, if a group works together properly, it is a generally a more efficient way of getting things done.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Writing 101 Reflective Letter
Although Writing 101 class was only one quarter long, I have learned more in the duration of this class about writing, than I had during any year of high school. Besides learning about writing, this class also helped me learn more about life, because it was a more difficult and trying class than I had ever experienced. I had to reach within myself for a strength previously unknown to me. I would definitely say that this class made me a better person, and, despite some hard times, I am so glad to have taken it.
Writing class was sometimes quite fun, and other times it was a bit of a drag. I enjoyed the first half of the class more than the second half. Although I was at first skeptic about it, I did like the “They Say, I Say” writing textbook. It really did help me in my writing…In fact it was probably the second most practically useful textbook I had read (the first being a book for Marriage & Relationships class in high school). I very much enjoyed “On Keeping a Notebook” and wish we would’ve read more things like that! But I know it didn’t have to do with history, so it wouldn’t be relevant to the class. I liked it so much that I think I’m going to go find it and read it again…Maybe show it to friends even…I even enjoyed the writing we did about Bacon’s Rebellion, but it did get old after awhile.
I say that I didn’t like the second half of the quarter as much because I feel the things we wrote about were not nearly as interesting as what we wrote about in the first half. It was a lot of stuff about politics and government in early America which does not interest me at all. The debate was kind of fun after the retaliation part began, but the before part was stressful for a lot of students. I think we would’ve all been more successful it we could choose our group members, since quite a few groups seemed to clash. Though I realize this is impractical to life since we won’t always choose who we work with.
In this class, some weaknesses of mine were made apparent. Although I might have already known them, they were made ever so clearer with the pressure of new, college-level classes. I do not work well under pressure, or with a short time limit (an example of this would be our second essay), and I tend to take everything personally (I’m getting much better at that though). A weakness that I came into the classroom with, but thankfully left behind, was basing my self-worth off of grades. One reason I like PSEC is that it doesn’t seem to be as grade-based as high school is, but, still, when I did see my grade results, and they weren’t what I wanted, I was no longer a happy person. In high school, I was used to getting As, and then Bs in subjects I struggled with more (like math), but I have learned to get over that. For even if I fail one test, essay, or maybe even a whole class, it does not make me, personally, a failure. I am only a failure when I give up; as long as I keep trying, striving, then, I am a winner.
Besides improving weaknesses, I found new strengths in this class also. One thing is that I can better cope with my stress and emotions. I also became a stronger essay writer. One of my strengths in the class is that I enjoy writing, though more specifically creative writing, like I am really enjoying writing this letter, but I also like school writing. Another strength of mine is my drive and my motivation. I am shooting for a far away goal, but I believe I can achieve it (my dream career). Also, another goal I am shooting for which keeps me motivated is that I want to always be working on being a better person, always improving myself, never just sitting in one place, but always reaching forward. Finally, although this strength applies generally to life but it also helps in the classroom, I always love myself, love others, and love life (even during the dark times), and I would also say that’s another motivator to work hard.
Writing class was sometimes quite fun, and other times it was a bit of a drag. I enjoyed the first half of the class more than the second half. Although I was at first skeptic about it, I did like the “They Say, I Say” writing textbook. It really did help me in my writing…In fact it was probably the second most practically useful textbook I had read (the first being a book for Marriage & Relationships class in high school). I very much enjoyed “On Keeping a Notebook” and wish we would’ve read more things like that! But I know it didn’t have to do with history, so it wouldn’t be relevant to the class. I liked it so much that I think I’m going to go find it and read it again…Maybe show it to friends even…I even enjoyed the writing we did about Bacon’s Rebellion, but it did get old after awhile.
I say that I didn’t like the second half of the quarter as much because I feel the things we wrote about were not nearly as interesting as what we wrote about in the first half. It was a lot of stuff about politics and government in early America which does not interest me at all. The debate was kind of fun after the retaliation part began, but the before part was stressful for a lot of students. I think we would’ve all been more successful it we could choose our group members, since quite a few groups seemed to clash. Though I realize this is impractical to life since we won’t always choose who we work with.
In this class, some weaknesses of mine were made apparent. Although I might have already known them, they were made ever so clearer with the pressure of new, college-level classes. I do not work well under pressure, or with a short time limit (an example of this would be our second essay), and I tend to take everything personally (I’m getting much better at that though). A weakness that I came into the classroom with, but thankfully left behind, was basing my self-worth off of grades. One reason I like PSEC is that it doesn’t seem to be as grade-based as high school is, but, still, when I did see my grade results, and they weren’t what I wanted, I was no longer a happy person. In high school, I was used to getting As, and then Bs in subjects I struggled with more (like math), but I have learned to get over that. For even if I fail one test, essay, or maybe even a whole class, it does not make me, personally, a failure. I am only a failure when I give up; as long as I keep trying, striving, then, I am a winner.
Besides improving weaknesses, I found new strengths in this class also. One thing is that I can better cope with my stress and emotions. I also became a stronger essay writer. One of my strengths in the class is that I enjoy writing, though more specifically creative writing, like I am really enjoying writing this letter, but I also like school writing. Another strength of mine is my drive and my motivation. I am shooting for a far away goal, but I believe I can achieve it (my dream career). Also, another goal I am shooting for which keeps me motivated is that I want to always be working on being a better person, always improving myself, never just sitting in one place, but always reaching forward. Finally, although this strength applies generally to life but it also helps in the classroom, I always love myself, love others, and love life (even during the dark times), and I would also say that’s another motivator to work hard.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Response to Constitution of South Carolina (for group members to look at)
Okay, so I read through the Constitution of South Carolina to see whether it seemed agreeable or not. Most of this constitution seemed like it was just information about the government. But I did note a couple things I agreed with and didn't see anything disagreeable.
II. "elect by ballot" electing is good -- democratic!
VII. "All other bills...may be altered, amended, or rejected by either." freedom!
XXVI. "That the president and commander-in-chief shall have no power to make war or peace, or enter into any final treaty,- without the consent of the general assembly and legislative council." anti-monarchy...democratic
II. "elect by ballot" electing is good -- democratic!
VII. "All other bills...may be altered, amended, or rejected by either." freedom!
XXVI. "That the president and commander-in-chief shall have no power to make war or peace, or enter into any final treaty,- without the consent of the general assembly and legislative council." anti-monarchy...democratic
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Essay 2 First Draft
Grr, I wanted to color code this but I seem to have trouble coloring this blogger thing all the time. So I had to use other, messier ways to organize.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, I will stay true. That is my stand. The loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.(Thesis Statement)
Point One --> The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, for everyone has a chance for a good life in America. <--Point One
Point Two --> Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11) <--Point Two
Point Three--> Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good. <--Point Three
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, I will stay true. That is my stand. The loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.(Thesis Statement)
Point One --> The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, for everyone has a chance for a good life in America. <--Point One
Point Two --> Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11) <--Point Two
Point Three--> Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good. <--Point Three
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Outline Second Draft
I. King is gracious/generous.
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" disagreement...“That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” This is not loyal.
......1. Don't the Patriots remember where we came from?
......2. By the graciousness of the King we our ancestors were given charters for this blessed land
.........a. ...where even the poor people here do not suffer from poverty as much as others do in others places of the globe.
.........b. This gift of America we have received, where everyone has a chance for a good life, is thanks to the King.
II. Too much freedom means chaos.
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" says “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.”
......1. Is it wise to trust our fellow Americans to make good decisions voting? I wouldn't.
......2. Too much freedom will mean chaos for us. The structured monarchy of Britain kept our nation under control, and now, I predict, it will fall apart.
...B. “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.”
......1. Freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion.
...C. Splitting from Britain would mean loss of safety.
......1. We had many powerful friends in Parliament, that would have defended us. Information from "Loyalists in the American Revolution"
III. Patriots are rude/disrespectful/ungrateful.
...A. “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...”
......1. The Thirteen United Colonies do not have a right to absolve from Britain, because of British roots.
.........a. We are British citizens who came here to colonize, even if we were born here, our ancestors came from Britain.
...B. Loyalists are brave and honorable for stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us!
......1. Thomas Paine said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.”
Okay, so now I have three sources and three points so I hope it's good! My sources are "The Crisis" by Thomas Paine, "Constitution of North Carolina", and "Loyalists in the American Revolution" by Claude Halstead Van Tyne
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" disagreement...“That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” This is not loyal.
......1. Don't the Patriots remember where we came from?
......2. By the graciousness of the King we our ancestors were given charters for this blessed land
.........a. ...where even the poor people here do not suffer from poverty as much as others do in others places of the globe.
.........b. This gift of America we have received, where everyone has a chance for a good life, is thanks to the King.
II. Too much freedom means chaos.
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" says “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.”
......1. Is it wise to trust our fellow Americans to make good decisions voting? I wouldn't.
......2. Too much freedom will mean chaos for us. The structured monarchy of Britain kept our nation under control, and now, I predict, it will fall apart.
...B. “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.”
......1. Freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion.
...C. Splitting from Britain would mean loss of safety.
......1. We had many powerful friends in Parliament, that would have defended us. Information from "Loyalists in the American Revolution"
III. Patriots are rude/disrespectful/ungrateful.
...A. “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...”
......1. The Thirteen United Colonies do not have a right to absolve from Britain, because of British roots.
.........a. We are British citizens who came here to colonize, even if we were born here, our ancestors came from Britain.
...B. Loyalists are brave and honorable for stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us!
......1. Thomas Paine said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.”
Okay, so now I have three sources and three points so I hope it's good! My sources are "The Crisis" by Thomas Paine, "Constitution of North Carolina", and "Loyalists in the American Revolution" by Claude Halstead Van Tyne
Beginnings of New Outline
Perspective: Loyalist, first person, responsive.
I. King is gracious/generous.
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" disagreement...“That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” This is not loyal.
......1. Don't the Patriots remember where we came from?
......2. By the graciousness of the King we our ancestors were given charters for this blessed land
.........a. ...where even the poor people here do not suffer from poverty as much as others do in others places of the globe.
.........b. This gift of America we have received, where everyone has a chance for a good life, is thanks to the King.
II. Too much freedom means chaos.
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" says “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.”
......1. Is it wise to trust our fellow Americans to make good decisions voting? I wouldn't.
......2. Too much freedom will mean chaos for us. The structured monarchy of Britain kept our nation under control, and now, I predict, it will fall apart.
...B. “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.”
......1. Freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion.
III. Patriots are rude/disrespectful/ungrateful.
...A. “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...”
......1. The Thirteen United Colonies do not have a right to absolve from Britain, because of British roots.
.........a. We are British citizens who came here to colonize, even if we were born here, our ancestors came from Britain.
...B. Loyalists are brave and honorable for stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us!
......1. Thomas Paine said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.”
Okay, so there is my first NEW outline since I decided to trash the last one. So far I have two sources, and I know I need THREE. So I shall decide which source I'd like to be as the third one, and continue expanding my outline. Or more sources if I want to...
I. King is gracious/generous.
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" disagreement...“That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” This is not loyal.
......1. Don't the Patriots remember where we came from?
......2. By the graciousness of the King we our ancestors were given charters for this blessed land
.........a. ...where even the poor people here do not suffer from poverty as much as others do in others places of the globe.
.........b. This gift of America we have received, where everyone has a chance for a good life, is thanks to the King.
II. Too much freedom means chaos.
...A. "Constitution of North Carolina" says “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.”
......1. Is it wise to trust our fellow Americans to make good decisions voting? I wouldn't.
......2. Too much freedom will mean chaos for us. The structured monarchy of Britain kept our nation under control, and now, I predict, it will fall apart.
...B. “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.”
......1. Freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion.
III. Patriots are rude/disrespectful/ungrateful.
...A. “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...”
......1. The Thirteen United Colonies do not have a right to absolve from Britain, because of British roots.
.........a. We are British citizens who came here to colonize, even if we were born here, our ancestors came from Britain.
...B. Loyalists are brave and honorable for stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us!
......1. Thomas Paine said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.”
Okay, so there is my first NEW outline since I decided to trash the last one. So far I have two sources, and I know I need THREE. So I shall decide which source I'd like to be as the third one, and continue expanding my outline. Or more sources if I want to...
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Quote
A good quote from "Loyalists in the American Revolution"...to use hopefully...
“American interests had many powerful friends in Parliament, and they would defend America from injustice.”
“American interests had many powerful friends in Parliament, and they would defend America from injustice.”
More Outlline
I. The King is Generous
...A. Provided for them in times of need.
......1. Loans -- Under 'Article 1', in "Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles", there is a list of loans the King has granted the colonies. From 1778-1779, the King granted a total of 4,000,000(livres--French money) in loans.
...B. We are ungrateful for what the King has done for us. (Short point. Loyalist opinion/point of view.)
II. The King is Our Safety Net
...A. We will be stronger as a nation with ties to the British crown.
......1. Without these ties, our nation will be left vulnerable.
...B. If we have too much freedom, there will be disorder in the colonies.
...A. Provided for them in times of need.
......1. Loans -- Under 'Article 1', in "Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles", there is a list of loans the King has granted the colonies. From 1778-1779, the King granted a total of 4,000,000(livres--French money) in loans.
...B. We are ungrateful for what the King has done for us. (Short point. Loyalist opinion/point of view.)
II. The King is Our Safety Net
...A. We will be stronger as a nation with ties to the British crown.
......1. Without these ties, our nation will be left vulnerable.
...B. If we have too much freedom, there will be disorder in the colonies.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Trying to enhance outline...
I. The King is Generous
...A. Provided for them in times of need.
......1. Loans -- Under 'Article 1', in "Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles", there is a list of loans the King has granted the colonies. From 1778-1779, the King granted a total of 4,000,000(livres--French money) in loans.
II. The King is Our Safety Net
...A. We will be stronger as a nation with ties to the British crown.
...B. Without these ties, our nation will be left vulnerable.
III. If we have too much freedom, there will be disorder in the colonies.
...A. We don't have experience with this sort of freedom.
WORK ON MORE LATER...
...A. Provided for them in times of need.
......1. Loans -- Under 'Article 1', in "Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles", there is a list of loans the King has granted the colonies. From 1778-1779, the King granted a total of 4,000,000(livres--French money) in loans.
II. The King is Our Safety Net
...A. We will be stronger as a nation with ties to the British crown.
...B. Without these ties, our nation will be left vulnerable.
III. If we have too much freedom, there will be disorder in the colonies.
...A. We don't have experience with this sort of freedom.
WORK ON MORE LATER...
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Brainstorm/ Begginings of Outline
I'm still not sure about what my argument is as a loyalist, since I would naturally take the patriot side. So, for now, brainstorming is a good thing to do. Trying to put myself in the mindset of a loyalist, by looking at what the patriots believe, and then thinking like a loyalist.
The Patriots didn't like the King because...he was too controlling, NO FREEDOM.
Loyalist thoughts -- We'll have too much freedom if we break off ties with Britain! Our nation will fall apart! The King provides a safety net for us!
Also, from reading documents, I know that the King gave the colonies loans for different purposes, so another loyalist argument could be how the King has provided for them in times of need.
Okay, so what possible points do I have so far?
I. Generous King
II. King as a Safety Net
III. Too much freedom = disorder in the colonies.
Those seem like pretty legit points!
A loyalist could argue that they were used to a monarchical ruling, and won't know how to handle themselves using new forms of government.
The Patriots didn't like the King because...he was too controlling, NO FREEDOM.
Loyalist thoughts -- We'll have too much freedom if we break off ties with Britain! Our nation will fall apart! The King provides a safety net for us!
Also, from reading documents, I know that the King gave the colonies loans for different purposes, so another loyalist argument could be how the King has provided for them in times of need.
Okay, so what possible points do I have so far?
I. Generous King
II. King as a Safety Net
III. Too much freedom = disorder in the colonies.
Those seem like pretty legit points!
A loyalist could argue that they were used to a monarchical ruling, and won't know how to handle themselves using new forms of government.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"
Okay, so I'm pretty sure we're supposed to put up notes/summaries of PDs onto Blogger now. I'm probably behind on that because I haven't put my notes of Thursday's ones up yet, because I turned in the documents and didn't get them back yet because I missed school on Friday...
Anyways, here's my notes of Friday's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"(Patrick Henry). I'll start each post with my annotations, and then finish with a summary.
Annotations(quotes from the document that I highlighted and notes I wrote in on the side):
"...the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." (end of first paragraph) He is God-serving.
"Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we4 shows ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love?" (upper middle third paragraph) It sounds like he's against using violence to get one's way.
"...the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament." (lower middle third paragraph) It seems to me that he dislikes Parliament.
"...if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!" (end of third paragraph) He encourages to fight for their long struggle! But he means non-violently, right? Because earlier I believed that he was opposed to violence.
"Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." (middle of fourth paragraph) He's confident in their power.
"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The is actually begun!" (beginning of last paragraph)
"...give me liberty or give me death!" (end of last paragraph) He values freedom over life.
Summary of Document:
Patrick Henry was getting his fellow colonists riled up for the fight for liberty. He was a patriotic and God-serving man. He tells his fellow gentlemen that they should not cry for peace anymore, because they will have no peace; a war is already upon them. He is confident in their power, and believes that they can do it -- they can win their struggle. In this document, he is trying to build up the same confidence in others, and get people to join together for a similar cause. Though, this document leaves me wondering how he thinks they should fight for this struggle of liberty? I'm supposing it would be verbally, through writing. It appeared to me that he was against taking violent means for the struggle.
Anyways, here's my notes of Friday's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"(Patrick Henry). I'll start each post with my annotations, and then finish with a summary.
Annotations(quotes from the document that I highlighted and notes I wrote in on the side):
"...the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." (end of first paragraph) He is God-serving.
"Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we4 shows ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love?" (upper middle third paragraph) It sounds like he's against using violence to get one's way.
"...the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament." (lower middle third paragraph) It seems to me that he dislikes Parliament.
"...if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!" (end of third paragraph) He encourages to fight for their long struggle! But he means non-violently, right? Because earlier I believed that he was opposed to violence.
"Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." (middle of fourth paragraph) He's confident in their power.
"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The is actually begun!" (beginning of last paragraph)
"...give me liberty or give me death!" (end of last paragraph) He values freedom over life.
Summary of Document:
Patrick Henry was getting his fellow colonists riled up for the fight for liberty. He was a patriotic and God-serving man. He tells his fellow gentlemen that they should not cry for peace anymore, because they will have no peace; a war is already upon them. He is confident in their power, and believes that they can do it -- they can win their struggle. In this document, he is trying to build up the same confidence in others, and get people to join together for a similar cause. Though, this document leaves me wondering how he thinks they should fight for this struggle of liberty? I'm supposing it would be verbally, through writing. It appeared to me that he was against taking violent means for the struggle.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Essay #1 Reflection
Well, I already put up the reflection but that was in class and before I read Craig's email saying "should incorparate a revised writing philosophy". So, I will revise it in this correctly-titled post!
I re-read my writing philosophy and it still spoke true for me, but I thought of one more thing to add that I had learned from reading "They Say / I Say" and writing the Bacon's Rebellion essay.
My writing philosophy is the same except for the one addition that I italicized...
"My Writing Philosophy
I will always put my true thoughts onto paper in the most eloquent way that I can. I will put passion into my writing, and no B.S.. I will be not be close-minded in my writing, because I will keep my mind open to all views and arguments. I will re-read the work that I write many times before the final draft, and always be working on improving my writing skills. Most importantly, I will take pride and joy in my writing."
I re-read my writing philosophy and it still spoke true for me, but I thought of one more thing to add that I had learned from reading "They Say / I Say" and writing the Bacon's Rebellion essay.
My writing philosophy is the same except for the one addition that I italicized...
"My Writing Philosophy
I will always put my true thoughts onto paper in the most eloquent way that I can. I will put passion into my writing, and no B.S.. I will be not be close-minded in my writing, because I will keep my mind open to all views and arguments. I will re-read the work that I write many times before the final draft, and always be working on improving my writing skills. Most importantly, I will take pride and joy in my writing."
My Bad...
I posted my essay reflection to blogger in class so I didn't realize that it should be specifically titled "Essay #1 Reflection"...so...my bad...I called it "Essay Reflection (Bacon's Rebellion)" instead...but that should be pretty straight-forward also...
Essay Reflection (Bacon's Rebellion)
The Bacon's Rebellion started out pretty enjoyable but ended quite stressfully. I really like writing and I was excited to write about a thesis that I got to choose (what I was interested in), on the broad subject of Bacon's Rebellion. However, it was difficult for me because this is the first time I've written an essay with an unspecified length, because last year, almost 100% of the time, I always had to write those dull five-paragraph essays. Thankfully, before we got started on this big essay project, I learned a lot about writing. So far, this year, although I've only been in this class for half of a quarter, I've learned more about writing than I have any year of high school. I actually found the “They Say/ I Say” book very helpful, though I will admit I was quite skeptical about it after I had read the preface and intro. I incorporated the new knowledge and templates I had learned into my Bacon's Rebellion essay, so I think that it is a better essay than anything I wrote in high school. It was very refreshing to be able to write about Bacon's Rebellion on a personal level and not in a certain format, whereas the five paragraph essays I wrote formerly were all impersonal and followed the same exact format every single time...
I did a lot of research for this essay, using only JSTOR searches and no Internet source (which Craig said was okay). I even used Hara Brook as a resource, but that wound up being unhelpful (she really tried though, it just wasn't what I needed). What I learned about writing about history from this essay is that there are so many different views on one issue (Bacon's Rebellion), and to make a good argument, you should include a few of them, but you probably couldn't include all of them considering how many different people have written documents on this single event. I learned writing about history can actually be fun! If you put your opinion into it (a supported and discussed opinion, that is), and put passion into your writing, then, yeah, I think history can be pretty fun to write about.
There was one thing I was disappointed about though. I'm pretty sure I turned everything in onto, until I spaced out on the draft for Craig to see, and I posted it a day late! But I'm pretty sure that was the first mistake I made and Craig said that I was at a 70-75% and “it can only go downhill from there”...that hurt my feelings...And I felt kind of angry, wondering where I went wrong, why was I suddenly doing so badly...I thought I was doing well before, then suddenly it was destroyed...I began my essay feelings pretty good about it, but in the end, I was really nervous to turn it in.
Finally, I have to thank Craig for emailing me back on Saturday, because I was SO worried I wouldn't get feedback, since he had said, “I don't want your weekend stress to become my weekend stress.”
I did a lot of research for this essay, using only JSTOR searches and no Internet source (which Craig said was okay). I even used Hara Brook as a resource, but that wound up being unhelpful (she really tried though, it just wasn't what I needed). What I learned about writing about history from this essay is that there are so many different views on one issue (Bacon's Rebellion), and to make a good argument, you should include a few of them, but you probably couldn't include all of them considering how many different people have written documents on this single event. I learned writing about history can actually be fun! If you put your opinion into it (a supported and discussed opinion, that is), and put passion into your writing, then, yeah, I think history can be pretty fun to write about.
There was one thing I was disappointed about though. I'm pretty sure I turned everything in onto, until I spaced out on the draft for Craig to see, and I posted it a day late! But I'm pretty sure that was the first mistake I made and Craig said that I was at a 70-75% and “it can only go downhill from there”...that hurt my feelings...And I felt kind of angry, wondering where I went wrong, why was I suddenly doing so badly...I thought I was doing well before, then suddenly it was destroyed...I began my essay feelings pretty good about it, but in the end, I was really nervous to turn it in.
Finally, I have to thank Craig for emailing me back on Saturday, because I was SO worried I wouldn't get feedback, since he had said, “I don't want your weekend stress to become my weekend stress.”
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Color Code Probelm
No matter what I try to type in as a color code, the colors won't change! I think something's screwed up with blogger because it was working JUST FINE the other day! So screw the color codes, at least my hard copy will be correctly colored. The turqoise~blue~green final draft was the best I could put up on blogger. Oh well, at least it's in three different colors to distinguish templates instead of all the same...
TO CLARIFY AGAIN
Everything TURQOISE should've been WHITE (plain font~no templates used).
Everything BLUE is correctly BLUE (2nd chap template).
Everything GREEN should've been YELLOW (3rd chap template).
TO CLARIFY AGAIN
Everything TURQOISE should've been WHITE (plain font~no templates used).
Everything BLUE is correctly BLUE (2nd chap template).
Everything GREEN should've been YELLOW (3rd chap template).
GRR
Okay, this is weird...I used the same color codes for my final draft that I did earlier and this time it didn't work! I'll try to fix it but I'm not sure what to do. The only thing that came out correct was the blue. The turqoise should've been white, and the green shoud've been yellow.
BR Essay FINAL DRAFT
In 1676, a rebellion was started by Nathaniel Bacon that would forever change Virginia. Everyone involved in the rebellion, and historians today, have many different views about it, but my personal view is that the rebellion was the fault of Nathaniel Bacon, and the Natives were only the victims. Bacon's own view was that the Indians and the governor, William Berkeley, was the cause of all their problems in Virginia. In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkeley (the governor of Virginia) and the Indians. Bacon accused Berkeley, “For having protected, favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” Bacon managed to persuade all of the lower classes that his word was true, and they joined him in his uprising, but not all were swayed to his side. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkley makes no effort against the Indians when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, "Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers..." Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the natives faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.”
When I stated that the Indians were the only the victims, I meant that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Indians, but the Indians had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reasons to back up my claim that the Indians were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful towards the Indians lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist.
Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Indians had pure and innocent intentions, however, they did take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” The Virginian colonists attempt at somewhat civilizing those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control the Indians. Lawmakers wrote a law in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Native Americans. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more of a stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Indians, and so the Indians found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on paine of death'.”
The Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, saying that, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Indians. The Royal Commissioners observed that “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” It's apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Indians. However, as said earlier, I think that the worst of them would be Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Besides just being cruel to the Natives, Bacon pressured Berkeley and his council with his manipulative ways. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Aseembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the house, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldiers mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” According to Sherwood, Bacon gets a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Bacon. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacreligious hands...”Berkley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credible source (an unbiased standpoint), in The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. I now feel sure that Berkley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his own declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Getting back to my defense of the Indians, I believe that if the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Indians only tried to flee, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” They also write about a time when the Indians successfully sought revenge from the colonists, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” The Indians had a lot of reason to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for fighting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not just short-term, but also long-term effects on the Virginian Indians. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Indians by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Indians. Bacon angrily exaggerates about the Indians, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.” In other words, Bacon believes the cause of everyone's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they get rid of these to things, then life in the American colonies will be fantastic! Secondly, as Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land, and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was a rebellion that was started by a fairly average, but intelligent and immoral, man. The rebellion turned into a disastrous uprising that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion (whether one views it as positive or negative) was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Indians would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
When I stated that the Indians were the only the victims, I meant that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Indians, but the Indians had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reasons to back up my claim that the Indians were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful towards the Indians lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist.
Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Indians had pure and innocent intentions, however, they did take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” The Virginian colonists attempt at somewhat civilizing those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control the Indians. Lawmakers wrote a law in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Native Americans. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more of a stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Indians, and so the Indians found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on paine of death'.”
The Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, saying that, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Indians. The Royal Commissioners observed that “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” It's apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Indians. However, as said earlier, I think that the worst of them would be Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Besides just being cruel to the Natives, Bacon pressured Berkeley and his council with his manipulative ways. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Aseembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the house, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldiers mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” According to Sherwood, Bacon gets a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Bacon. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacreligious hands...”Berkley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credible source (an unbiased standpoint), in The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. I now feel sure that Berkley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his own declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Getting back to my defense of the Indians, I believe that if the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Indians only tried to flee, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” They also write about a time when the Indians successfully sought revenge from the colonists, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” The Indians had a lot of reason to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for fighting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not just short-term, but also long-term effects on the Virginian Indians. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Indians by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Indians. Bacon angrily exaggerates about the Indians, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.” In other words, Bacon believes the cause of everyone's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they get rid of these to things, then life in the American colonies will be fantastic! Secondly, as Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land, and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was a rebellion that was started by a fairly average, but intelligent and immoral, man. The rebellion turned into a disastrous uprising that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion (whether one views it as positive or negative) was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Indians would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Third Draft with Colors
In documents concerning Bacon's Rebellion, one debated issue has been about who really the victims are and who is actually to blame in this rebellion: the Indians or the white colonists; the poor or the rich; Nathaniel Bacon or William Berkley? [Note: “JessicaAckerman” said “Inger, I think that maybe your first sentence is too lengthy, which could cause a reader to be confused, so I would break up that sentence.” I didn't find it confusing, but that doesn't matter because I'm the one who wrote it so of course I understand it. I don't want my essay to be confusing for the reader, but I'm not sure how to change this first sentence while still getting my point across.] In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkley (the governor of Virginia) and the Indians. Bacon accused Berkley, “For having protected, favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” The essence of Bacon's argument is that both Berkley and the Indians are to blame. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkley makes no effort against the Indians when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, "Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers..." Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the natives faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” So, many people that write about Bacon's Rebellion have different views on the matter of who's to blame and what really went on, and most of them contradict Bacon. My own view on this is that part of the blame would have to be shared amongst everyone involved in the ordeal, but most of the ruckus was caused by the manipulative Nathaniel Bacon, and the true victims were the Indians, because they were an innocent and naive people whose lands were suddenly being invaded by the ever-increasing strangers that were the colonists.
I say that the Indians were the true victims, meaning that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Indians, but the Indians had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reasons to back up my claim that the Indians were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful towards the Indians lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist.
Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Indians had pure and innocent intentions, however, they did take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” The Virginian colonists attempt at somewhat civilizing those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control the Indians. Lawmakers wrote a law in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Native Americans. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Indians, and so the Indians found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on paine of death'.”
The Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, saying that, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Indians. The Royal Commissioners observed that “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” It's apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Indians. However, I think that the worst of them, or at least one of the worst, would be Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Please follow me as I sidestep away from the Indians and onto William Berkley for a paragraph, so that I can prove that Nathaniel Bacon was a cruel fellow. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Aseembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the house, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldiers mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” According to Sherwood, Bacon gets a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Bacon. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacreligious hands...”Berkley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credible source (an unbiased standpoint), in The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. I now feel sure that Berkley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Getting back to my defense of the Indians, I believe that if the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Indians only tried to flee, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” They also write about a time when the Indians successfully sought revenge from the colonists, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” The Indians had a lot of reason to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for fighting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not just short-term, but also long-term effects on the Virginian Indians. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Indians by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Indians. Bacon angrily exaggerates about the Indians, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.” In other words, Bacon believes the cause of everyone's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they get rid of these to things, then life in the American colonies will be fantastic! Secondly, as Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land, and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was a rebellion started by a fairly average man that turned into a huge deal that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Indians would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
I say that the Indians were the true victims, meaning that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Indians, but the Indians had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reasons to back up my claim that the Indians were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful towards the Indians lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist.
Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Indians had pure and innocent intentions, however, they did take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” The Virginian colonists attempt at somewhat civilizing those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control the Indians. Lawmakers wrote a law in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Native Americans. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Indians, and so the Indians found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on paine of death'.”
The Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, saying that, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Indians. The Royal Commissioners observed that “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” It's apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Indians. However, I think that the worst of them, or at least one of the worst, would be Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Please follow me as I sidestep away from the Indians and onto William Berkley for a paragraph, so that I can prove that Nathaniel Bacon was a cruel fellow. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Aseembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the house, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldiers mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” According to Sherwood, Bacon gets a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Bacon. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacreligious hands...”Berkley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credible source (an unbiased standpoint), in The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. I now feel sure that Berkley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Getting back to my defense of the Indians, I believe that if the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Indians only tried to flee, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” They also write about a time when the Indians successfully sought revenge from the colonists, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” The Indians had a lot of reason to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for fighting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not just short-term, but also long-term effects on the Virginian Indians. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Indians by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Indians. Bacon angrily exaggerates about the Indians, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.” In other words, Bacon believes the cause of everyone's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they get rid of these to things, then life in the American colonies will be fantastic! Secondly, as Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land, and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was a rebellion started by a fairly average man that turned into a huge deal that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Indians would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
BR Essay Third Draft
In documents concerning Bacon's Rebellion, one debated issue has been about who really the victims are and who is actually to blame in this rebellion: the Indians or the white colonists; the poor or the rich; Nathaniel Bacon or William Berkley? [Note: “JessicaAckerman” said “Inger, I think that maybe your first sentence is too lengthy, which could cause a reader to be confused, so I would break up that sentence.” I didn't find it confusing, but that doesn't matter because I'm the one who wrote it so of course I understand it. I don't want my essay to be confusing for the reader, but I'm not sure how to change this first sentence while still getting my point across.] In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkley (the governor of Virginia) and the Indians. Bacon accused Berkley, “For having protected, favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” The essence of Bacon's argument is that both Berkley and the Indians are to blame. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkley makes no effort against the Indians when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, "Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers..." Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the natives faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” So, many people that write about Bacon's Rebellion have different views on the matter of who's to blame and what really went on, and most of them contradict Bacon. My own view on this is that part of the blame would have to be shared amongst everyone involved in the ordeal, but most of the ruckus was caused by the manipulative Nathaniel Bacon, and the true victims were the Indians, because they were an innocent and naive people whose lands were suddenly being invaded by the ever-increasing strangers that were the colonists.
I say that the Indians were the true victims, meaning that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Indians, but the Indians had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reasons to back up my claim that the Indians were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful towards the Indians lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist.
Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Indians had pure and innocent intentions, however, they did take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” The Virginian colonists attempt at somewhat civilizing those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control the Indians. Lawmakers wrote a law in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Native Americans. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Indians, and so the Indians found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on paine of death'.”
The Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, saying that, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Indians. The Royal Commissioners observed that “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” It's apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Indians. However, I think that the worst of them, or at least one of the worst, would be Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Please follow me as I sidestep away from the Indians and onto William Berkley for a paragraph, so that I can prove that Nathaniel Bacon was a cruel fellow. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Aseembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the house, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldiers mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” According to Sherwood, Bacon gets a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Bacon. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacreligious hands...”Berkley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credible source (an unbiased standpoint), in The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. I now feel sure that Berkley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Getting back to my defense of the Indians, I believe that if the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Indians only tried to flee, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” They also write about a time when the Indians successfully sought revenge from the colonists, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” The Indians had a lot of reason to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for fighting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not just short-term, but also long-term effects on the Virginian Indians. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Indians by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Indians. Bacon angrily exaggerates about the Indians, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.” In other words, Bacon believes the cause of everyone's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they get rid of these to things, then life in the American colonies will be fantastic! Secondly, as Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land, and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was a rebellion started by a fairly average man that turned into a huge deal that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Indians would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
I say that the Indians were the true victims, meaning that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Indians, but the Indians had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reasons to back up my claim that the Indians were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful towards the Indians lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist.
Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Indians had pure and innocent intentions, however, they did take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” The Virginian colonists attempt at somewhat civilizing those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control the Indians. Lawmakers wrote a law in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Native Americans. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Indians, and so the Indians found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on paine of death'.”
The Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, saying that, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Indians. The Royal Commissioners observed that “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” It's apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Indians. However, I think that the worst of them, or at least one of the worst, would be Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Please follow me as I sidestep away from the Indians and onto William Berkley for a paragraph, so that I can prove that Nathaniel Bacon was a cruel fellow. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Aseembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the house, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldiers mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” According to Sherwood, Bacon gets a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Bacon. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacreligious hands...”Berkley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credible source (an unbiased standpoint), in The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. I now feel sure that Berkley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Getting back to my defense of the Indians, I believe that if the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Indians only tried to flee, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” They also write about a time when the Indians successfully sought revenge from the colonists, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” The Indians had a lot of reason to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for fighting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not just short-term, but also long-term effects on the Virginian Indians. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Indians by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Indians. Bacon angrily exaggerates about the Indians, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.” In other words, Bacon believes the cause of everyone's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they get rid of these to things, then life in the American colonies will be fantastic! Secondly, as Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land, and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was a rebellion started by a fairly average man that turned into a huge deal that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Indians would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)