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."
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
Monday, October 20, 2008
BR Essay Second 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.
There is no way that any ethical individual who was well-researched about Nathaniel Bacon could say that he was a good or moral man. His desired genocide of the Natives could be related to more recent events and people. One relatable person that jumps out at me would be Adolf Hitler. Like I said about Bacon, Hitler was a persuasive leader, probably even more than Bacon was. He realized that the Germans would feel better if they had someone to blame for the devastations caused by World War II, just as Bacon realized that the poor colonists would have a group of people to blame for their own hardships. Bacon's Rebellion was on a bitter smaller scale, but he was still just as cold-hearted as Hitler. With power comes corruption for those who do not have the pure heart to stabilize themselves with. Just as the Jews were the victims of Hitler and his followers, the Indians were the victims of Bacon and his crew.
[Note: I still need a scholarly Internet source, because I've been taking all my info from database documents. So I would love it if someone would PLEASE give me an idea as to what other information I could put on here. I was thinking perhaps in the final paragraph I could take a tidbit of info about Hitler from an Internet source, but I was afraid that it would be too off-subject. What do you think?]
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.
There is no way that any ethical individual who was well-researched about Nathaniel Bacon could say that he was a good or moral man. His desired genocide of the Natives could be related to more recent events and people. One relatable person that jumps out at me would be Adolf Hitler. Like I said about Bacon, Hitler was a persuasive leader, probably even more than Bacon was. He realized that the Germans would feel better if they had someone to blame for the devastations caused by World War II, just as Bacon realized that the poor colonists would have a group of people to blame for their own hardships. Bacon's Rebellion was on a bitter smaller scale, but he was still just as cold-hearted as Hitler. With power comes corruption for those who do not have the pure heart to stabilize themselves with. Just as the Jews were the victims of Hitler and his followers, the Indians were the victims of Bacon and his crew.
[Note: I still need a scholarly Internet source, because I've been taking all my info from database documents. So I would love it if someone would PLEASE give me an idea as to what other information I could put on here. I was thinking perhaps in the final paragraph I could take a tidbit of info about Hitler from an Internet source, but I was afraid that it would be too off-subject. What do you think?]
Friday, October 17, 2008
BR Essay Rough 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? Bacon, in his “The Declaration (1676)”, 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.
As an example of a different view, in “A Young People's History of the United States”, Rebecca Stefoff questions the standing of the Indians, but seems to place blame on the upper classes when she suggests, “They [the settlers] wanted the colony's leaders to fight the Indians, but the politicians and big landowners who ran the colony wouldn't fight-- maybe because they were using some of the Indians as spies and allies against the others.” 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. [Note: Should I leave this hanging, and move on, or should I give evidence to support that Bacon also antagonized Berkley?]
If the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunky 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 Pamunky 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.
[This essay still needs a conclusion and one scholarly Internet source...I'll find an Internet source once I figure out what more information exactly this essay needs.]
As an example of a different view, in “A Young People's History of the United States”, Rebecca Stefoff questions the standing of the Indians, but seems to place blame on the upper classes when she suggests, “They [the settlers] wanted the colony's leaders to fight the Indians, but the politicians and big landowners who ran the colony wouldn't fight-- maybe because they were using some of the Indians as spies and allies against the others.” 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. [Note: Should I leave this hanging, and move on, or should I give evidence to support that Bacon also antagonized Berkley?]
If the Indians did fight back at all, it was in self-defense. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunky 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 Pamunky 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.
[This essay still needs a conclusion and one scholarly Internet source...I'll find an Internet source once I figure out what more information exactly this essay needs.]
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thesis: The Indians (Natives) were the true victims of Bacon's Rebellion. (2)
I.The English colonists were disrespectful and closed-minded towards the Natives way of life; trying to force their own way upon them.
A. “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'.” (“Whether They Be Friends or Foes:” The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts by Michael J. Puglisi) They tried to control Indians by forcing them into a strict regime.
B. “In 1672, the Virginia legislature authorized all white colonists to use any necessary force to suppress rebellious slaves, Indians, and servants.” “Lawmakers also encouraged Indians to help apprehend runaways, providing a reward for any fugitives turned over to white authorities.” (The American Promise by James Roark, Michael Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann) “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.” (Document 5, Law Authorizes Force to Suppress Rebellious Slaves, Indians, and Servants, 1672, quoted in The American Promise) A law was actually passed by the Virginia legislature that allowed the white colonists to control the Indians, even using any “necessary force”. Another law actually required Indians to capture runaway slaves and servants and to return them to the authorities, where they would receive a reward.
C. “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.'” (The American Promise) The English often called the Indians by derogatory terms, just because their society wasn't a civilized English colony. This quote is one example where a man harshly insults their food (although he should had nothing to complain about, considering that they would've starved to death if Powhatan hadn't offered to trade corn with them).
II.The colonists were cruel to the Natives, because they did not treat them as equal human beings. This is especially true about Bacon and his followers.
A. “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia by The Royal Commissioners) So, the Indians were humble enough to send five of their best men to make peace with the English. So what did the English do? They took them as prisoners and eventually murdered them.
B. “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia) This speaks of the cruelty towards the Indians by “the vulgar” of Virginia society (meaning the followers of Bacon, which were the lower classes).
C. “...he 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.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia) Bacon was the leader in the cruelties against the Indians.
III. The Natives only fought to defend themselves, not to terrorize the colonists.
A. This quote will demonstrate the innocence and helplessness of the poor Indians: “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunky 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...” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia)
B. This quote shows one time when the Indians did defend themselves: “...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.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia)At least the Indians were doing this in revenge against the colonists when the colonists had already wronged them, versus how white settlers had many times wronged them although the Indians had done nothing against them.
A. “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'.” (“Whether They Be Friends or Foes:” The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts by Michael J. Puglisi) They tried to control Indians by forcing them into a strict regime.
B. “In 1672, the Virginia legislature authorized all white colonists to use any necessary force to suppress rebellious slaves, Indians, and servants.” “Lawmakers also encouraged Indians to help apprehend runaways, providing a reward for any fugitives turned over to white authorities.” (The American Promise by James Roark, Michael Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann) “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.” (Document 5, Law Authorizes Force to Suppress Rebellious Slaves, Indians, and Servants, 1672, quoted in The American Promise) A law was actually passed by the Virginia legislature that allowed the white colonists to control the Indians, even using any “necessary force”. Another law actually required Indians to capture runaway slaves and servants and to return them to the authorities, where they would receive a reward.
C. “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.'” (The American Promise) The English often called the Indians by derogatory terms, just because their society wasn't a civilized English colony. This quote is one example where a man harshly insults their food (although he should had nothing to complain about, considering that they would've starved to death if Powhatan hadn't offered to trade corn with them).
II.The colonists were cruel to the Natives, because they did not treat them as equal human beings. This is especially true about Bacon and his followers.
A. “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia by The Royal Commissioners) So, the Indians were humble enough to send five of their best men to make peace with the English. So what did the English do? They took them as prisoners and eventually murdered them.
B. “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia) This speaks of the cruelty towards the Indians by “the vulgar” of Virginia society (meaning the followers of Bacon, which were the lower classes).
C. “...he 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.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia) Bacon was the leader in the cruelties against the Indians.
III. The Natives only fought to defend themselves, not to terrorize the colonists.
A. This quote will demonstrate the innocence and helplessness of the poor Indians: “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunky 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...” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia)
B. This quote shows one time when the Indians did defend themselves: “...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.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia)At least the Indians were doing this in revenge against the colonists when the colonists had already wronged them, versus how white settlers had many times wronged them although the Indians had done nothing against them.
Thoughts on Passages from Olaudah Equiano's "Interesting Narrative" and Slide-Show Pictures
Here are the thoughts I jotted down during class in response to listening to Ben read passages from "Interesting Narrative" by Olaudah Equiano and seeing drawings of the horrible conditions on slave ships. ...
"There is no doubt about it that the cruelties suffered by these slaves were totally unacceptable. I can't even wrap my mind around how anyone could possibly treat another living thing that way. Heck, I wouldn't even treat a plant that way! No one deserves that. Although slavery is wrong, even if they did get slaves because they were being sold to them and they were valuable or whatever, they could've treated the slaves semi-humanely. I mean, especially if they wanted more and more slaves, then why would they put them in conditions where 15-20% of them died before even coming to America? The slaves had a lot of reasons to loathe the people who were treating them this way. They must of thought the white people who treated them this way were demons or such things, and they had reason to.
One thing I am curious about this, is, did slaves ever jump over-board into the water to kill themselves? I definitely would've...at least the water is clean..."
"There is no doubt about it that the cruelties suffered by these slaves were totally unacceptable. I can't even wrap my mind around how anyone could possibly treat another living thing that way. Heck, I wouldn't even treat a plant that way! No one deserves that. Although slavery is wrong, even if they did get slaves because they were being sold to them and they were valuable or whatever, they could've treated the slaves semi-humanely. I mean, especially if they wanted more and more slaves, then why would they put them in conditions where 15-20% of them died before even coming to America? The slaves had a lot of reasons to loathe the people who were treating them this way. They must of thought the white people who treated them this way were demons or such things, and they had reason to.
One thing I am curious about this, is, did slaves ever jump over-board into the water to kill themselves? I definitely would've...at least the water is clean..."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Text Analysis -- Frame of Government of Pennsylvania -- The Preface
Okay, I turned my hand-written hard copy rubric for the text analysis into a blog post the best I could. My side notes added as an afterthought were put into brackets and italics. Of course, I also made highlights to the actual documents to show specifically where in the document I got my answers from, and I also highlighted extra stuff that I also found significant, or things that I didn't quite understand.
~Who is writing?
--The Governor.
~Who is the audience?
--The freemen of Pennsylvania.
~Who do the writers represent?
--The government.
~What is being said, argued, and/or requested?
--*Government has "divine right" for 2 purposes: to terrify evil-doers and to cherish those that do well. [I suppose that they would define evil-doers versus well-doers using gthe Bible.]
*The government is part of religion itself [He backs this up with Bible verses in the first two paragraphs.]
*The government will support power in reverence with the people and secure people from "the almost of power" [what do they mean by "the almost of power"? the enemy?].
*Liberty without obediance is "confusion". [Would've liked to expand on that. I am wondering what he meant by "confusion".]
~How is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
--To me it sounds...confident, intelligent, and orgnaized. It's also being spoken with religion and spirituality in mind.
~What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the reqest?
--Bible verses are being used as justification. (See first two paragraphs.)
~Who is writing?
--The Governor.
~Who is the audience?
--The freemen of Pennsylvania.
~Who do the writers represent?
--The government.
~What is being said, argued, and/or requested?
--*Government has "divine right" for 2 purposes: to terrify evil-doers and to cherish those that do well. [I suppose that they would define evil-doers versus well-doers using gthe Bible.]
*The government is part of religion itself [He backs this up with Bible verses in the first two paragraphs.]
*The government will support power in reverence with the people and secure people from "the almost of power" [what do they mean by "the almost of power"? the enemy?].
*Liberty without obediance is "confusion". [Would've liked to expand on that. I am wondering what he meant by "confusion".]
~How is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
--To me it sounds...confident, intelligent, and orgnaized. It's also being spoken with religion and spirituality in mind.
~What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the reqest?
--Bible verses are being used as justification. (See first two paragraphs.)
Thesis: The Indians (Natives) were the true victims of Bacon's Rebellion.
I.The colonists were disrespectful and closed-minded towards the Natives way of life.
A. They tried to convert them to their own religion and customs. [Note: I'm not sure if the English actually did this, or if this was only the Spanish, so I will find do research and see if I find quotes to support this.]
B. They insulted the Natives for the way they were.
a., b., etc. Quotes
II.The colonists were cruel to the Natives, because they did not treat them as equal human beings.
A. The colonists encroached on the Natives land, thinking that they could claim it, although they were not there before the Natives.
a., b., etc. Quote(s)
B. The colonists were unnecessarily violent towards the Natives.
a., b., etc. Find a few QUOTES on different occasions of this.
III. The Natives only fought to defend themselves, not to terrorize the colonists.
A. Occasions where the Natives used violence to defend themselves against the colonists.
B. Opposing view of people who claim that the Natives have wronged them without reason.
A. They tried to convert them to their own religion and customs. [Note: I'm not sure if the English actually did this, or if this was only the Spanish, so I will find do research and see if I find quotes to support this.]
B. They insulted the Natives for the way they were.
a., b., etc. Quotes
II.The colonists were cruel to the Natives, because they did not treat them as equal human beings.
A. The colonists encroached on the Natives land, thinking that they could claim it, although they were not there before the Natives.
a., b., etc. Quote(s)
B. The colonists were unnecessarily violent towards the Natives.
a., b., etc. Find a few QUOTES on different occasions of this.
III. The Natives only fought to defend themselves, not to terrorize the colonists.
A. Occasions where the Natives used violence to defend themselves against the colonists.
B. Opposing view of people who claim that the Natives have wronged them without reason.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
JSTOR Search(more)
Oops, I forgot to include citations on my last post...
primary_article Sir William Berkeley's "A History of Our Miseries" Washburn, Wilcomb E. The William and Mary Quarterly 14 3 Third Series Jul., 1957 403-413 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651 00435597 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Copyright © 1957 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
primary_article Indian Policy in Early Virginia Craven, Wesley Frank The William and Mary Quarterly 1 1 Third Series Jan., 1944 65-82 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1922473 00435597 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Copyright © 1944 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
primary_article Bacon's Speech at Green Spring The William and Mary Quarterly 3 2 Oct., 1894 121 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914588 00435597 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Copyright © 1894 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
primary_article Sir William Berkeley's "A History of Our Miseries" Washburn, Wilcomb E. The William and Mary Quarterly 14 3 Third Series Jul., 1957 403-413 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651 00435597 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Copyright © 1957 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
primary_article Indian Policy in Early Virginia Craven, Wesley Frank The William and Mary Quarterly 1 1 Third Series Jan., 1944 65-82 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1922473 00435597 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Copyright © 1944 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
primary_article Bacon's Speech at Green Spring The William and Mary Quarterly 3 2 Oct., 1894 121 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914588 00435597 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Copyright © 1894 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
JSTOR Search
I searched for "Bacon's Rebellion AND Indians", and found an article "Sir William Berkley's 'A History of Our Miseries'", edited by Wilcomb E. Washburn.
Then I did a search just for "Bacon's Rebellion" searching for the title only, not full text, and I only got two documents...what the heck...
I also searched "Virginia AND Indians AND Seventeenth Century" and found an article "Indian Policy in Early Virginia" by Wesley Frank Craven.
Another search I did was simply searching for "Nathaniel Bacon". I got quite excited when I found "Bacon's Speech at the Green Spring".
I did other searches on JSTOR too, but those searches failed, so I didn't bother to mention them...
Then I did a search just for "Bacon's Rebellion" searching for the title only, not full text, and I only got two documents...what the heck...
I also searched "Virginia AND Indians AND Seventeenth Century" and found an article "Indian Policy in Early Virginia" by Wesley Frank Craven.
Another search I did was simply searching for "Nathaniel Bacon". I got quite excited when I found "Bacon's Speech at the Green Spring".
I did other searches on JSTOR too, but those searches failed, so I didn't bother to mention them...
"John Winthrop's Arbella Sermon" Response to 2nd, 3rd, & 4th Quotes
What is in the word new? What did it mean to name the colony NewEngland? Why not come up with some kind of name that denoted complete newness and separation from the Old World? --The Puritans didn't want to entirely separate from England, like the Pilgrims wanted, but they wanted to have sort of the same England but reformed. So, they were making a reformed England.
How did the Puritans, and Winthrop, view their charter for colonization as a spiritual mandate to purify the world of Christendom (or at least the Church of England)? --They made the choice to leave England, and God gave them the tools to do it with, so now that they have put that responsibility upon themselves, it is their duty to fulfill this mission.
How did Winthrop view the MA Bay Co. as an example for future colonists and colonial efforts? --Winthrop wanted Massachusetts Bay Company to be the role model for other people that might come over for similar purposes later. He thought that God would bless their colony, and so when other people saw this blessed colony, they would gain hope for making more Godly colonies.
What does it mean, or what did Winthrop mean, to be a “city upon a hill”? --By “city upon a hill”, he means role model, like I stated in the response to the last question.
How did the Puritans, and Winthrop, view their charter for colonization as a spiritual mandate to purify the world of Christendom (or at least the Church of England)? --They made the choice to leave England, and God gave them the tools to do it with, so now that they have put that responsibility upon themselves, it is their duty to fulfill this mission.
How did Winthrop view the MA Bay Co. as an example for future colonists and colonial efforts? --Winthrop wanted Massachusetts Bay Company to be the role model for other people that might come over for similar purposes later. He thought that God would bless their colony, and so when other people saw this blessed colony, they would gain hope for making more Godly colonies.
What does it mean, or what did Winthrop mean, to be a “city upon a hill”? --By “city upon a hill”, he means role model, like I stated in the response to the last question.
They Say 2: Bacon's Rebellion
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? Bacon, in his “The Declaration (1676)”, 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 accuses 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 J. 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.
As an example of a different view, in “A Young People's History of the United States”, Rebecca Stefoff questions the standing of the Indians, but seems to place blame on the upper classes when she suggests, “They [the settlers] wanted the colony's leaders to fight the Indians, but the politicians and big landowners who ran the colony wouldn't fight-- maybe because they were using some of the Indians as spies and allies against the others.” My own view on this is that part of the blame would have to go to every class of white colonist, and partly to Berkley, and partly to Bacon also, but the true victims were the Indians who were an innocent and naive people whose lands were suddenly being invaded by the ever-increasing strangers that were the colonists. The Royal Commissioners supports this by saying, "...the indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English." Though, I won't pretend that the Indians were completely helpless or nonviolent. The Royal Commissioners also explain, “a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in the Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations...and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the wood.” Therefore, if we look at Bacon's Rebellion as white colonists versus the Indians, I still stand by that the Indians were the victims, and the colonists the enemies. Though, for the matter of Bacon versus Berkley, it is left to be questioned and further researched just who really did cause greater problems, or who was the better leader.
As an example of a different view, in “A Young People's History of the United States”, Rebecca Stefoff questions the standing of the Indians, but seems to place blame on the upper classes when she suggests, “They [the settlers] wanted the colony's leaders to fight the Indians, but the politicians and big landowners who ran the colony wouldn't fight-- maybe because they were using some of the Indians as spies and allies against the others.” My own view on this is that part of the blame would have to go to every class of white colonist, and partly to Berkley, and partly to Bacon also, but the true victims were the Indians who were an innocent and naive people whose lands were suddenly being invaded by the ever-increasing strangers that were the colonists. The Royal Commissioners supports this by saying, "...the indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kept Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English." Though, I won't pretend that the Indians were completely helpless or nonviolent. The Royal Commissioners also explain, “a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in the Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations...and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the wood.” Therefore, if we look at Bacon's Rebellion as white colonists versus the Indians, I still stand by that the Indians were the victims, and the colonists the enemies. Though, for the matter of Bacon versus Berkley, it is left to be questioned and further researched just who really did cause greater problems, or who was the better leader.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Response to “John Winthrop's Arbella Sermon, 1630” -- First Quote
For Winthrop, what is the benefit of a well coordinated (social, spiritual, political) body? --It is the most perfect and best proportioned body bonded by love.
Why might the metaphor of the body make sense to Winthrop's audience? --It could make sense to Winthrop's audience, because during that time, people to come over to America used their bodies for indentured servitude, so bodies could be considered a tool or a valuable thing, a work force. Also, if they were well-versed in the Bible (which I would imagine they were), then they would know that he is relating his sermon to the Bible (they speak of the church as being the body of Christ in the Bible I believe).
How might this union of separate parts create a genuine COMMONWEALTH? --If everyone participates and works together in a bond of love at all times, and comes together to make up the body of the church, the body of Christ, then they will make a perfect commonwealth.
Why might the metaphor of the body make sense to Winthrop's audience? --It could make sense to Winthrop's audience, because during that time, people to come over to America used their bodies for indentured servitude, so bodies could be considered a tool or a valuable thing, a work force. Also, if they were well-versed in the Bible (which I would imagine they were), then they would know that he is relating his sermon to the Bible (they speak of the church as being the body of Christ in the Bible I believe).
How might this union of separate parts create a genuine COMMONWEALTH? --If everyone participates and works together in a bond of love at all times, and comes together to make up the body of the church, the body of Christ, then they will make a perfect commonwealth.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
They Say: Bacon's Rebellion
In documents concerning Bacon's Rebellion, one debated issue has been about who the victims are and who is to blame in this rebellion: the Indians or the white colonists; the poor or the rich; Nathaniel Bacon or William Berkley? Bacon, in his “The Declaration (1676)”, 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 accuses 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.” In “Whether They Be Friends or Foes”, Michael J. Puglisi contradicts Bacon, believing that, “the natives faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attack from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” In “A Young People's History of the United States”, Rebecca Stefoff questions the standing of the Indians, but seems to place blame on the upper classes when she suggests, “They [the settlers] wanted the colony's leaders to fight the Indians, but the politicians and big landowners who ran the colony wouldn't fight-- maybe because they were using some of the Indians as spies and allies against the others.” My own view on this is that part of the blame would have to go to every class of white colonist, and partly to Berkley, and partly to Bacon also, but the true victims were the Indians who were an innocent and naive people whose lands were suddenly being invaded by the ever-increasing strangers that were the colonists.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Third Michel Foucault Quote from "Discipline & Punish"
The condemned man could be a slave. And since they are condemned, they would feel rebellious. So they would try to make themselves as much unlike the King as they can.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
American Tobacco and European Consumers
The huge European craving for tobacco was why seventeenth-century Chesapeake colonies prospered. As the Europeans continued to demand greater amounts of tobacco, the Chesapeake colonies continued to supply more from their ever-increasing crops of tobacco. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, tobacco was an expensive habit, because it was scarce. In 1603, England had only imported about 25,000 pounds of tobacco, but by 1700, England had imported nearly 40 million pounds. This huge increase in the supply of tobacco caused the price of tobacco to become much cheaper. A quantity of tobacco that had been sold for a dollar in 1600 now cost less than two and a half cents by 1700.
Many Europeans became addicted to the intoxicating nature of tobacco, but there were a few who loathed it. One of these few was England's King James I. He delcared that smoking was, "A custome loathsomme to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resmebling the horrible...smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." James did everything he could to stop smoking, but it was a lost cause. Ironically, when the Spaniards first brought tobacco to Europe, physicians praised it as a wonder drug, saying “This precious herb is so general a human need not only for the sick but for the healthy.”
Many Europeans became addicted to the intoxicating nature of tobacco, but there were a few who loathed it. One of these few was England's King James I. He delcared that smoking was, "A custome loathsomme to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resmebling the horrible...smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." James did everything he could to stop smoking, but it was a lost cause. Ironically, when the Spaniards first brought tobacco to Europe, physicians praised it as a wonder drug, saying “This precious herb is so general a human need not only for the sick but for the healthy.”
Respone to Michel Foucault Quote from "Discipline & Punish"
This quote seems to me like it could relate to what we've been reading about in history, indentured servitude. During the 17th century in the Chesapeake colonies, labor was the most valuable resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)