Portfolio Essay: 1

Leah Vickers

Bacon’s Rebellion: Essay

----- Wars are not just evidence in our history books, some are still going on today. Between countries like the United States and Iraq, miscommunications have lead to attacks and some still believe that President George Bush is responsible for the bombing of the twin towers in New York City on September 11th 2001. The same states of affairs are similarly present in Virginia, 1676 during Bacon’s Rebellion. Some argue that the Governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, was at fault for the attacks on the colonies committed by the Native Americans. The government had made peace treaties with the Indians about what land was rightfully theirs and they both respected their boundaries. But when the poor settlers complained about Indians and the need for land, the government denied them because the Native Americans were useful to the government with their fur trade that made a great income. Just as the Virginians relied on the Indians for trade and wealth, the United States also depends on places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia for our crude oil. Without this our country would not be the same. Peace in America and in Virginia are said to have been destroyed by George Bush and Nathaniel Bacon. The citizens of the United States put their trust in President Bush and believed he would keep them safe. The Virginians also trusted in William Berkeley when it came to government affairs and keeping the colonies protected. Both these men did just what they said they would do, but they had issues with cooperation on the Indian’s and terrorist’s part.

-----The angry colonists of the 17th century were against two groups: the Indians and the colonists' own rich leaders. The colonies were very displeased with the way William Berkeley was running the government. Servants and even blacks joined in the rebellion according to Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff in A Young People's History of the United Sates, "Then white servants and black slaves joined the rebellion. They were angry, too- mostly about the huge gap between rich and poor" (Zinn and Stefoff, 36). The economy of Virginia was horrible because taxes were high and the cost of tobacco was extremely low and by the 1670s rich landowners had possession of a majority of eastern Virginia. The Government wanted to obtain more power and wealth and therefore brought over masses of indentured servants, which then resulted in a need for land. Since Bacon and his band of men received no help from the government, they "rebelled" against it and began planning schemes and methods of attack. As stated by the Quarterly Historical Magazine, "Bacon assumed command of the volunteers, and, being denied a commission from Governor Berkeley, marched out against the Indians without one" (Bacon's Rebellion 1). When it comes to the topic of Bacon's Rebellion, most of us would readily agree that Bacon had a vast amount of farmers, servants, blacks, and colonists on his side. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how the Indians, who were not as intelligent or as big in number, were able to go almost unnoticed and take the lives of so many of them. Whereas some are convinced that Bacon had over five-hundred men, others maintain that he had one-thousand or more. In my own opinion, no matter what the number of troops Bacon had, he was still outnumbered in smarts when it came to the Indian’s overlooked intelligence. According to Document #6, "For the Indians quickly found out where about these Mouse traps were sett, and for what purpose, and so resalved to keepe out of danger; which they might easily enough do, with out any detriment to there designes". Bacon saw the Indians as unpredictable and a threat to the colonies which ignited Bacon’s wrath toward the Indians. In the book, Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael J. Puglisi maintains that, "...suspicions ran high against all Indians, regardless of their status with the colonists" (Puglisi, 78). Because of the Natives' unruly behavior and unnoticeable distinctions between good and bad, Bacon was given more incentive to attack the Indians in an angry rage. As the Royal Commissioners stated in Document #13, "Bacon had gone over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends .... the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies, for at that time it was impossible to distinguish one nation from another, they being deformed with paint of many colors... So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all the Indians ... we will spare none." Retaliation was almost expected by the Natives. According to what the Royal Commissioners said in Document #4 , "... a Party of those abused Sasquahanocks 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." Basically, the Indians killed out of revenge, but the Virginians killed out of voracity. Although the author does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that the Indians ran off in a panic after committing their murders. Without speaking the Virginians language, killing out of revenge was all the Indians could do. In a way, the Indians were mere bystanders, waiting and watching as the Virginians executed their friends and loved ones in fuming incursions. What were they to do? The Indians were never warned as to what was going to occur. The only warning they were given was the first strike of death.
----- In my eyes, accounts of Indian attacks are plainly out of revenge. As far as I can see, the Indians never attacked without incentive. When the Indians didn’t get the pay or respect that they had earned, the only way they knew as “fair” was to strike and kill. According to John Pike, “The trouble began in July 1675 with a raid by the Doeg Indians on the plantation of Thomas Mathews, located in the Northern Neck section of Virginia near the Potomac River. Several of the Doegs were killed in the raid, which began in a dispute over the nonpayment of some items Mathews had apparently obtained from the tribe. The situation became critical when, in a retaliatory strike by the colonists, they attacked the wrong Indians, the Susquehanaugs, which caused large scale Indian raids to begin” (Bacon’s Rebellion 2). Yet again, the Indians are undistinguishable to the colonists, and by mistake they attacked the wrong ones. This is the foremost rationale as to why the raids kept taking place between both the Natives and the Virginians. As Bacon continued his invasions of attack on the Indians and tensions rose, Governor Berkeley's correlation with the Natives was demised. Bacon had demolished the good relations that Berkeley had with the Natives, and thus brought forth further battering. According to the Royal Commissioners in Document #4, "Berkeley had rebuked [Bacon] at the time, mildly but firmly, reminding him that he was the governor of Virginia, and that attacking friendly Indians was just one way to produce what everyone wanted to avoid, namely, [in Berkeley's words] a Generall Combination of all Indians against us." Although others may disagree with me, I believe that the relations between the Indians and colonists, and Iraq and the United States were damaged simply by miscommunications and prejudgment. President Bush had plans to attack Iraq but they beat him to it. In almost the same manner, Bacon had plans to attack the Indians, but the Indians had already started raids against them. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn’t have started the rebellion, would Jamestown have changed as drastically as it did? If President Bush hadn’t have meddled with Iraq relations, would the terrorists have bombed the twin towers and taken the lives of our fellow citizens? In my opinion, the bombing of the twin towers in New York City has strengthened our country and it opened our minds to a state of affairs we were never aware of. I believe that almost the same conditions apply to Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676. The colonies were never able to take any action or speak up about how much they despised the government for not equally distributing wealth until Nathaniel Bacon stepped in. Their eyes were also opened to new beginnings and the colonies weren’t the same after Bacon’s death.
-----All in all, through the clashing and disagreement between Bacon and Berkeley, one thing remained: the Native Americans were left scratching their heads. They were the true, rightful owners of the land, and in my own views of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was wrong in the way that he tried to seize property from them. Alternatives such as agreements and trades would have been more productive. Wars solve nothing and only lead to more conflict. This is obviously apparent in the complicated story of Bacon’s Rebellion. Bacon was only sent to Virginia by his father in hopes that he would mature. Bacon not only matured, but he found himself amongst all the chaos that was previously happening before the rebellion started. According to writer John Pike in his text about Bacon’s Rebellion, “The numerous problems that hit the colony before the Rebellion gave rise to the character of Nathaniel Bacon. Due to the nature of the uprising, Bacon's Rebellion does seem at first glance to be the beginnings of America's quest for Independence. But closer examination of the facts reveals what it really was: a power struggle between two very strong personalities. Between them they almost destroyed Jamestown” (Bacon’s Rebellion 2). If I had to choose one word to describe Bacon’s Rebellion it would be greed. Bacon and Berkeley never actually resolved their issues and I feel great remorse for William Berkeley and think that he handled things the best way he could. His laws were no longer effective when it came to respected policies, and this was all due to Nathaniel Bacon. Some may think that Bacon started something great and momentous, and others may believe that all he did was bring strife and friction to the colonies. But I believe that Bacon did both these things. Although he did cause harm to many, he also proved that anyone can make a stance and change what they believe is going to make things right.

Work Cited:

1.) Title: Bacon's Rebellion 1
Source: The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jul., 1900), pp. 1-10
Publisher(s): Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914836

2.) Title: Bacon’s Rebellion 2
Publisher: John Pike
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm


BR- Rhetorical Analysis for Source 2
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm