Portfolio: Bacon's Rebellion

Bacon, Traitor or Hero?

-----According to Dictionary.com, a hero is "A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities," while rebellion is," Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.” Although there may be everyday heroes like firemen, policemen, or good role models, it is much more common to have heroes among leaders, soldiers, and “freedom fighters” in a time of war, such as a rebellion. In a rebellion, a leader, soldier, or “freedom fighter” must distinguish himself to his government and/or the people of his country. It is also imperative that the people or person he or she is recognized by believes that they have their best interests in mind. In the case of Nathaniel Bacon Jr., having the recognition and respect of the majority of the population meant being a savior to the poor and recently freed colonists, but only at the price of being a traitor to William Berkeley (the governor) and the rich plantation owners (the government).
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Clarifying a shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild presentation when it comes to the dissension between the Indians and the colonists, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he infers the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a sort of Robin Hood. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer clearly was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. The moral justification of the colonists made them see Bacon as a hero and Berkeley as a villain.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though in conflict neither side will agree on who is the hero and who is the villain, there is always a pair for each side in conflict to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,” he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley himself admits that the common poor/free men wanted him dead so that they could take Jamestown for themselves. Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that Bacon had his own agenda; of course he did.

----- On this agenda is to kill or handicap the leadership of Berkeley in order to take over the leadership of the colony. The death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand. Bacon was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people with these new ways. The view that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the Berkeley supporters, though. Thinking of Bacon as a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, they did not see that they were doing the same thing. The bias of the rich and powerful was so great that they believed “[Nathaniel Bacon was] of a most impervious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, […]” (Document 18). Since they only wanted the best for themselves, the rich did not see how much the majority of the population needed a hero and savior, as stated earlier. “No course was taken to secure them [the Indians], til Mr. Bacon went out against them” (Document 14). This is a testimony given by Mrs. William Bird to the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate what happened in Jamestown. Though the polarity of these two accounts is evident, both are true. Bacon changed his reasons many times, using the colonists as a scapegoat for his actions.

-----Written by Bacon, the following letter expresses the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s Rebellion had of losing their lives and their land. “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Accusing the governor of the terrible things that had happened recently, the people betray a sort of panic and fear they had of the Indian threat. This may have sprouted from the constant paranoia that all colonists shared of the Indians joining together in the struggle against them. Since there is an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were likely reacting out of fear without thought of later consequences and not out of a want to overthrow the government. Bacon’s loss of a friend in one of the Indian raids most likely caused him to share this fear of destruction by the Natives, creating a reason for him to enter into the rebellion. Racing to support the rebellion, Bacon did not think of what the long term consequences this decision could have. He only wanted the security of his own militia.

-----As time went on, the original sense of panic that Bacon felt wore off, leaving him with the love of the “mob” and the scorn of the government. Beginning to see the true reasons for the rebellion, Bacon grew into the leader that the colonists had always thought he was. These reasons are later recorded by Bacon himself, where he states his followers’ arguments with the government and the reasons. Known as “Bacon’s Declaration”, the document focuses on the betrayal by the governor and his assembly and the threats of the Natives around them. As Bacon continued to lead the rebellion, his motives changed from finding security to fighting for the common good of the people.

-----Growing rather power hungry later in his “reign”, Bacon became the thing he was fighting against. Replacing his rather recent idea of leading the people, Bacon began to lead for his own benefit. This caused him to see his soldiers as a reflection of his leadership qualities. “Binding their actions to reflect on himself, he not only betake himself to a strict Discipline over his men but also to more moderate courses himself […]”. He considered the men his force and his position as one of power, which actually deceived himself into thinking he was a better leader than he was. Whether he was ready or not, this denotes a time in the rebellion when the priorities of the leader change from the good of the people to the good of himself.

-----As Bacon controlled his followers for his own gain, he began to attack the one place that would give him the power he strove for. He would take the governor’s place and rule the colony. Based on the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear, grew into the role of leader against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny, and was then corrupted be the very thing he as fighting. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he lost that initial feeling of panic and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government to better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government. When his wants and the wants of the people clash, his won out. This was also an effect of the façade that Bacon kept up as the Face of the People. He chose to deceive the mob into thinking of him as a savior while trying to appease his own ambition. This is something that happens all the time throughout history and life. Knowing it may come up is the best weapon we can have against it.

-----Knowledge is the key lesson that can be taken away from this often overlooked event. Learning from the reasons, reactions, and thoughts of the colonists what to or not to do in a very similar situation is the lesson. The Afghanistan Conflict is one recent event where the knowledge gained from Bacon’s rebellion can really benefit the government and the American people. The parallels of the two events include that our community was under constant threat of attack from terrorists (Indians) and that it was a cause of great sadness within the community, as well as a rallying factor. Whether the rallying was out of the anger, revenge, fear, or desperation for change that the people felt, the thoughts and ideas that came from the attack(s) were the same. From this knowledge of Bacon’s Rebellion, the current government chose that it was best for them and American people as a whole to take a completely different direction in retaliation to the attack(s). For current America, this was to declare war and redirect the anger of the American people towards the terrorists and away from internal strife and blame that could have come up. Again, this choice is completely different from that of Berkeley, who chose that it was in the best interest of the rich and the trade company to avoid war with the Indians. He did not take into account what was best for those he governed. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the government would have had the backing of the population and the outcome would have been much different.