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?]