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.]