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.