Portfolio: Bacon's Rebellion Essay Re-Write

The Abuse of the Natives Committed by Nathaniel Bacon and his Followers in the Rebellion of Virginia

In 1676, a rebellion was started by Nathaniel Bacon that would forever change Virginia. Everyone involved in the rebellion, and historians today, have many different views about it. My person view is that the major antagonist was Nathaniel Bacon, and that the Natives were the victims. However, Bacon's view was that the Indians and the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, were the cause of all the problems in Virginia. In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkeley and the Natives. Bacon accused Berkeley, “For having protected favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” (Bacon 1)

Bacon managed to persuade all of the lower classes that his word was true, and they joined him in his uprising, but not all were swayed to his side. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkeley makes no effort against the Natives when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after the Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, “Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers...” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkeley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the native faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” (Puglisi 83)

By saying that the Natives were only the victims, I mean that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Natives, but the Natives had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reason to back up my claim that the Natives were being terrorized by the white colonists.

From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful toward the Natives lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” (Roark and Johnson 73) This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist. Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” (Craven 67)

This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Natives had pure and innocent intentions. Though, they began to take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” (Craven 69) The Virginian colonists attempts to civilize those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control them. A law was passed in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians does and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” (Roark and Johnson 85) I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Natives. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more of a stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Natives, and so the Natives found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on pained of death'.” (Puglisi 83)

The white Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, when he writes, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” (Craven 68) Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Natives. The Royal Commissioners observed that, “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kepy Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 106)

It is apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Natives. However, as I stated firstly, I think that the worst of them was Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” (123) When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.

Besides just being cruel to the Natives, bacon pressured Berkeley and his council with his manipulative ways. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkeley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and he draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Assembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldier mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” (Sherwood) According to Sherwood, Bacon got a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Berkeley. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkeley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacrilegious hands...” (Berkeley) Berkeley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credibly source with an unbiased standing, The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. (Mathews) I now feel sure that Berkeley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his own declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” (Bacon 2) I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.

Back to my defense for the Natives, I believe that when the Natives did fight back at all, it was for self-defense. The Royal Commissioners wrote, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Though they did not always fight back. Sometimes they would simply flee in terror of the white man. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Natives only tried to run, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” (127) The Natives had a lot of reasons to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for righting the Indians at all.

Bacon's Rebellion had not only short-term effects on the Virginian Indians, but long-term ones too. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Natives by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Natives. Bacon angrily exaggerated about the Natives, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all placed, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.”(Bacon 1) In other words, Bacon believes the cause of every Virginian colonist's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they had gotten rid of these two factors, then life in the American colonies would have been much better, in Bacon's opinion. Another long-term effect on the Natives from that time is the reservations that still exist today. Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” (Roark and Johnson 91) This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.

Bacon's Rebellion was started by a fairly average, yet intelligent, and also immoral, man. The rebellion turned into a disastrous uprising that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion (whether one views it as positive or negative) was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Natives would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.

Works Cited

Bacon, Nathaniel. "The Declaration." (1676): 1.

The Royal Commissioners, and Jameson, Franklin. A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia. 1st ed. American Historical Association, 1915.

Puglisi, Michael. ""Whether They Be Friends or Foes:" The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." Marian College 70(2001): 83.

Roark, James, and Johnson, Michael. The American Promise. '4th ed'. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009.

Craven, Wesley. "Indian Policy in Early Virginia." The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 1(1944): 67-69.

Sherwood, William. "Letter to Sir Joseph Williamson." (1676):

Berkely, William. “Letter to Henry Coventry.” (1677):

Mathews, Thomas. "The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676." (1835):