Rough Draft 1

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 was the leader of the rebellion He 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, Native American tribes were consistently attacking many of the poor farmers and frontiersmen. Ironically, these Native attacks were actually provoked by the farmers and frontiersmen who were encroaching on the Native land in the first place. Another cause of the rebellion was that the government repeatedly collected large taxes from the farmers and never told them what was happening to their tax money. Third, the farmers felt as though Governor Berkeley was not making any adequate attempts at stopping the Natives. All of these frustrations finally led to a revolt against the Native Americans and the government. The poor farmers, under the leadership of Bacon, rebelled with political dissent and unlawful violence.

In discussions of Bacon’s Rebellion, one controversial issue has been the happenings and 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. 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. Puglisi realized that Bacon had a bit of 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…” Those Native Americans were “best friends” with the colonists. Regardless, they were still 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, including women and children. 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." This recounting is a prime example of Native American brutality toward innocent colonists. The brutality 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." Elizabeth Bacon felt that the terror being caused by the Native Americans is so cruel, that no human should 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." 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 many times they were just 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. 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.

[Under Construction]