-------Some say that Nathaniel Bacon was a murderer. Others call him a hero. While many recognize him as a revolutionary. Different people have had different opinions throughout the different time periods. Nathaniel Bacon was the starter and leader of Bacon’s Rebellion, and has been the subject of many discussions. His actions during the rebellion are very controversial. He’s known to have rallied colonists against Governor William Berkeley and vie for justice in Virginia. But one important aspect of his rebellion that is often times overlooked is his attitude and treatment toward Native Americans. It is evident that Bacon harbored much animosity toward Native Americans, and this animosity was shown in his acts of hostility and violence. Also, many fail to recognize the unlawfulness of Bacon and his rebellion. Not only did he break the laws of Virginia, but he attacked Jamestown and several of the colonists that lived there. Bacon's violence didn’t stop there either. Bacon also attacked and killed masses of Native Americans, many of whom had never done anything hostile toward him. So in reality, Bacon’s Rebellion was essentially a crusade of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of hundreds.
-------Bacon’s Rebellion was an uprising of poor farmers and former indentured servants in the Virginia colonies. It took place in the autumn of 1676, a time when Virginia was under the authority of an English governor named William Berkeley. Nathaniel Bacon rallied the inhabitants of Virginia against Governor Berkeley and rich plantation owners, and helped lead several attacks on various Native American tribes. There were a number of causes of this violent rebellion. For one, the Virginia government repeatedly collected large taxes from the farmers and never told them what was happening to their tax money. Another cause of the rebellion was that Native American tribes were consistently attacking many of the poor farmers and frontiersmen in Virginia. And poor farmers felt as though Governor Berkeley was not making any adequate attempts at stopping the Natives American attacks. Ironically, these Native American attacks were actually provoked by the poor farmers and frontiersmen who were encroaching on the Native American land in the first place. All of these frustrations finally led to a revolt against the Native Americans and the Virginia government. The poor farmers, under the leadership of Nathaniel Bacon, rebelled with political dissent and unlawful violence. They attacked and seized Jamestown, fought and killed many Native Americans, and sacked the plantations of wealthy farmers. Governor Berkeley and his troops fought back, and eventually recaptured Jamestown. The fighting continued for three months. Then Bacon suddenly died of dysentery. His death was a big stumbling block for the rebellion. Presently, several English ships, which were full of English soldiers, arrived in Virginia to reinforce Governor Berkeley. At this time, the rebellion was all but defeated. Governor Berkeley put an end to the rebellion by hanging Bacon’s allies and destroying farms that belonged to Bacon’s supporters. And that was the official conclusion of Bacon’s Rebellion. Ultimately, the rebellion failed. It didn’t produce any changes that Bacon and the rebels had been hoping for. But it did have some effects on the attitudes and mindsets of the inhabitants of Virginia during that time period. And even today, Americans are still intrigued by the story, and continue to converse and debate about the significance of such an event.
-------In discussions of Bacon’s Rebellion, one controversial issue has been the happenings and interactions between the violent rebels and the Native Americans. On the one hand, some contend that the rebel attacks on Native Americans were overly cruel and unjustified. Events recorded by writers like Michael J Puglisi shed on some of the violence that occurred during Bacon’s Rebellion. On page seventy-eight of his article, "Whether They be Friends or Foes," Puglisi recounts that "Bacon's extra-legal army, bent on revenge, attacked the peaceful Indian village, located in the Dragon Swamp, 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." In making this comment, Puglisi is illustrating the inhumanity of Bacon and his actions. Bacon and his forces attacked a settlement of Native Americans that had never done any harm to them. Puglisi goes on to say, "The natives, including their leader, fled. Bacon and his forces followed, killing and taking them prisoners, and looking for... Plunder." Basically, Puglisi is showing how Bacon and his supporters unfairly and needlessly terrorized the Native Americans. The Natives were the victims here, and the rebels killed as many Natives as they could and ransacked their possessions. Puglisi realized that Bacon had an unreasonable thirst for revenge on the Native Americans. And this vengefulness was one of the main motivating factors for Bacon's barbarous actions. The writer Howard Zinn agrees on page thirty-seven of his book, "A Young People's History of the United States", when he writes about Bacon: "he probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor." And it’s clear that when Bacon was killing Native Americans, he didn’t care about whether or not the Natives were hostile or friendly. Observe the quote by the Royal Commissioners in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia which says, “Bacon had got 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…” Bacon and the rebels hastily went into Native American territory and killed Native Americans that were “best friends” with the colonists. This is a prime example of Bacon’s ruthless backstabbing on the Native Americans. Even though those Natives were not enemies, they were still hunted and killed at the hands of Nathaniel Bacon.
-------But on the other hand, some argue that Bacon and his rebels were justified in their attacks against Native Americans. There were, in fact, many instances where Native Americans would attack and kill defenseless white colonists. Even women and children would get killed. Bacon's solution was to no longer be defenseless, but to instead take up arms and repel the savage attacks. An anonymous Virginia resident who was present during Bacon’s Rebellion wrote, "for in a very short time [in January 1676, the Susquehannahs] had, in a most inhumane manner, [murdered] no less than 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any [actual] injury [done] to these ill disarning, brutish heathen," (document #5). An interesting parallel to Bacon’s killings, the Susquhannah Indians attacked and killed sixty innocent colonists in a “most inhumane manner.” This recounting is a key example of Native American brutality toward innocent colonists. The cruelty of the Native Americans is expounded by the writings of Elizabeth Bacon, who was Nathaniel Bacon's wife. In a letter to Nathaniel Bacon's sister in London, Elizabeth Bacon writes, "I pray God keep the worst Enemy I have from ever being in such a sad condition as I have been in since my (previous letter to you), occasioned by the troublesome Indians,"(document #9). Elizabeth Bacon felt that the terror being caused by the Native Americans was so cruel, that no human should ever have to experience it. Not even her "worst enemy," which in this case would probably be the Native Americans themselves. So Elizabeth Bacon—and probably many other colonists at that time—were not hell-bent on taking vengeance on the Native Americans. Instead, there seemed to be a longing for some relief, restitution, and change. And this is exactly what Nathaniel Bacon had hoped to bring to the Virginia colonies. As Bacon stated in his very own words, "finding that the country was basely for a small and sordid gain betrayed, and the lives and fortunes of the poor inhabitants wretchedly sacrificed, [I] resolved to stand up in this ruinous gap, and rather expose my life and fortune to all hazards than basely desert my post and by so bad an example make desolate a whole country in which no one dared to stir against the common Enemy," (document #12). These words convey Bacon’s devotion to his people and his desire for the safety of those who could not defend themselves. Basically, Bacon wanted to bring a positive change to the Virginia colonies. He understood that his life would be at stake, but he still refused to stand idly by as his fellow colonists continued to suffer.
-------Bacon and his followers attacked and killed many Native Americans-hands down. It’s history. I personally do not like the killing of human beings. In my mind, human lives are one of the most valuable things in this world, and they shouldn’t be sacrificed needlessly. There are certainly some instances where human bloodshed is necessary, but I believe that there are usually alternate solutions that do not involve the loss of human life. The killings of all those Native Americans were unnecessary, and at many times they were plain murder. However, there are many that would probably disagree with my assertions. Seeing that, in a war, there’s always going to be a certain amount of death and bloodshed. Well that’s true, unless you’re talking about a cold war or a political war. But still, we all know that Bacon’s Rebellion was both a political war and a physical war. Well then, a question that I bring up is whether or not Bacon’s Rebellion needed to be anything more than political. Could Bacon and his rebels have accomplished just as much without all of the violence? In my opinion, anything is possible. But in Bacon’s case, I would agree that his rebellion required some violent behavior. We know that there were several Native American tribes that were regularly attacking the colonists. And Governor Berkeley did little to stop the attacks. So Bacon was in the right to defend himself and his people. In fact, I think it would be wrong for Bacon to sit idly by and do nothing while those around him were being brutally murdered. But the problem is that Bacon did much more than just defend the colonists. He, in the midst of his animosity and vengefulness, did exactly what the “barbarous” Natives had been doing in the first place. Bacon and his rebels went out and ruthlessly killed scores of innocent Native Americans. They invaded friendly Native villages, raping the women, killing both women and children, and plundering any valuables they could find. Those were definitely horrifying acts. There’s no justice in murdering innocent women and children. There’s no justice in taking away someone’s father just because they’re a Native American. If Bacon and his rebels would have merely attacked the violent Native Americans with the intent on keeping the colonists safe, it would have been a more justifiable warfare. But that was not the case. So yes, in a war, death, defense, and attack are often times required. But what Bacon did was certainly much too brutal and unnecessary to be considered reasonable warfare. It was more than just warfare; it was a campaign of terrorism on Native Americans. And this Bacon’s terror was not exclusive to the Native Americans. Bacon’s form of terrorism stretched all the way to Governor Berkeley and the rich farmers in Virginia.
------- Americans today tend to believe that Governor Berkeley was a sort of anti-hero, and that Nathaniel Bacon was a hero that acted when he was needed. It is often said that Governor Berkeley consistently appeased the violent Native Americans while the colonists continued to suffer. Elizabeth Bacon agrees in a letter to Nathaniel Bacon, in which she writes, “If you had been here, it would have grieved your heart to hear the pitiful complaints of the people, the Indians killing the people, the Governor not taking any notice of it for to hinder them, but let them daily do all the mischief they can,” (document #9) Elizabeth Bacon’s point is that, while the colonists were being victimized by the Native Americans, Governor Berkeley was not doing anything at all to try to stop violence. From this we can understand that, in Virginia, the government was not doing nearly enough to protect the colonists. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative, Mrs. William Bird testifies about Bacon’s Rebellion. She states, “[T]hat before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the Governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them, till Mr. Bacon went out against them,” (document #14). According to this statement, Governor Berkeley was notified daily of the Native American attacks. And, regardless of the turmoil, Berkeley was consistent in his inactiveness. Basically, William Bird is saying that Governor Berkeley was well aware of the Native American violence, but he still refused to do anything about it. And that’s exactly why Nathaniel Bacon stepped in when he did. He did what Governor Berkeley refrained from doing; he went out and fought the Native Americans. Colonists were being slaughtered every day, and Bacon decided that he was going to try to defend them. Nathaniel Bacon himself writes about his own intentions, “I sent to the Governor for a commission to fall upon them, but being from time to time denied, and finding that the country was basely for a small and sordid gain betrayed, and the lives and fortunes of the poor inhabitants wretchedly sacrificed, resolved to stand up in this ruinous gap, and rather expose my life and fortune to all hazards than basely desert my post and by so bad an example make desolate a whole country in which no one dared to stir against the common Enemy,” (document # 12).. In other words, Bacon is saying that he’s not going to stand idly by while his countrymen need him. Governor Berkeley was persistent with his appeasement, so Bacon had to step up to the plate. And, of course, stopping the Native Americans would be awfully dangerous. Nevertheless, Bacon was willing to risk his life and livelihood in order to make a change.
-------Many people assume that Governor Berkeley was some sort of corrupted villain during Bacon’s Rebellion. And, in contrast, Nathaniel Bacon was some kind of revolutionary defender. But there are many others who might imply quite the opposite. There are some out there that view Governor Berkeley as an upright man that was a victim of Bacon’s lawlessness. In The History and Present State of Virginia, Robert Beverly writes, “For it cannot be imagined, that upon the Instigation of Two or Three Traitors, did not only hazard their Necks by Rebellion: But endeavored to ruin a Governour, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; a Gentleman who had devoted his whole Life and Estate to the Service of his Country; and against whom in Thirty Five Years Experience there had never been one single complaint,” (document #1).. In making this comment, Beverly argues that Governor Berkeley was indeed a noble man that was well-liked by the colonists. It was merely a few traitors, like Nathaniel Bacon, that stirred up contention, dissension, and hostility toward the governor. Beverly also mentions that there had not been a single complaint in the thirty-five years before Bacon’s Rebellion. In other words, the corruption lay with Bacon, and not the governor. William Sherwood, who was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, wrote, “A nation of Indians called [Susquahannahs] having killed some of the inhabitants of this Country [in the fall of 1675] were pursued and several destroyed by the English and Sir William Berkeley our honorable Governor who hath had long experience of war with the Indians that he might provide for the safety of this Country caused by our Assembly….to…enact that forts should be built at the heads of several rivers, being the most way for security of our frontier plantations,” (document #15).. According to this account, Governor Berkeley was certainly not inactive during the Native American attacks. It is said that he had been fighting with the Native Americans for a long while, and had recently killed several of the violent ones. In addition to that, Sherwood states that Governor Berkeley built forts at the heads of various rivers to help prevent attacks on the colonists. While the previous quotes give praise for Governor Berkeley, the following shows a darker side to Nathaniel Bacon’s character. In A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, the Royal Commissioners give a short description of Nathaniel Bacon, “Nathaniel Bacon was of a most imperious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their Ignorance and very ambitious and arrogant. But all these things lay hid in him till after he was a councilor and until he became powerful and popular," (document #18). According to this depiction, Bacon was not exactly the most stand-up guy. He apparently had a few character flaws, and it sounds like he had some attributes of a corrupt politician.
-------I think that Governor Berkeley gets a bad rep nowadays. Often times, Berkeley is portrayed as the antagonist, and Bacon is portrayed as the protagonist underdog. But that’s not an entirely factual representation. Nathaniel Bacon wasn’t much of an underdog himself. Sure, he was rebelling against a wealthy governor, but Bacon had his own fair share of wealth too. He owned a successful plantation, and could be considered one of the wealthier farmers in Virginia. And while it may seem that his motives were for the well-being of his fellow colonists, Bacon seemed to have a few personal incentives of his own. Keep in mind that Bacon was merely a human, and that all humans lie. He may have expressed intentions of defending the colonists and bringing improvement to Virginia, but he could have easily had ulterior motives. For one, he might have simply wanted to kill Native Americans, and used “defense” as an excuse to rally more support. Second, he could have merely wanted to damage wealthy plantations so that he himself would have less competition. Third, he may have even wanted to be the new governor himself. Don’t misunderstand me though. I’m not trying to totally portray Bacon as a man without virtue. Many of his actions were indeed noble. He was a man of courage that risked his life many times. But in the midst of all his heroism, there was also some evil. It’s no secret that he hindered Native American attacks on colonist, but he also murdered many innocent and friendly Native Americans. He pushed for lower taxes and more accountability, but he also unlawfully attacked Jamestown and plundered wealthy plantations. He stirred up dissent among the citizens of Virginia, and he influenced the people to rebel against their established government. So Bacon certainly did several things to help improve the Virginia colonies, but really he was just a man with his own intentions. And the fact is that many of those intentions were dissented and corrupted, or at least resulted in deadly, dissented, and corrupted actions.
-------Bacon’s Rebellion conveys an important lesson to today’s population. From the rebellion, we learn and understand that small insurgence and pockets of rebellion don’t work on a national level. We’ve come to an age where nations have the power to destroy entire cities. The nations of this world could, if they all wanted to, destroy the planet. Not that anyone would want to do that, but the fact is that the kingdoms and nations of this day have become much too powerful to simply oppose with violence. Just like in Bacon’s day. The rebellion was able to last three months before it was crushed. The rebels could not successful overturn Governor Berkeley. And the rebels stood no chance at all when a few war ships arrived from mainland England. England, as an empire, had just gotten too strong. There was no way that Bacon and his rebel force could’ve made any real change through their rebellion and violence. Just like in today’s world, the best thing that Bacon could’ve done to make a change would be to act politically. Don’t act in violence, but instead work in the political arena. Use your rights, privileges, and laws to make a change. If Bacon had tried to do it that way, he could have potentially spared hundreds of innocent lives. Bacon’s Rebellion realistically shows us the consequences of not operating properly in our own nation. If someone were to grab a sub-machine gun and go attack the White House with an angry mob, they wouldn’t stand a chance. They would instantly be either arrested, severely wounded, or probably killed. And those exact same results occurred in Bacon’s Rebellion. It just took a little longer than it would nowadays. Bacon died. Most of the rebels were killed off. And, in the end, the rebellion ultimately failed.
-------Bacon’s Rebellion was full of unnecessary deaths. Many innocent Native Americans and colonists were killed needlessly. Bacon and his rebels marched unlawfully on Jamestown, attacking English soldiers and government officials. They marched into Native American lands, killing indiscreetly and plundering for goods. Immense suffering was present both in English lands, and in Native American lands. And the blame doesn’t completely lie with Bacon and his rebels. The evil was two-fold. Bacon and his rebels were, in many ways very barbarous. Likewise, the hostile Native Americans were, in many ways, very barbarous. Those innocent (both white and Native American) were simply caught in the middle of all the carnage, and unfortunately received much of the consequences. It doesn’t matter who started the conflicts. And the intentions may have been good, but the ends don’t always justify the means, especially when you’re dealing with human lives.
Citations
