The moment in American history that has now become known
as Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 offers insight into the psyche of a collective
social consciousness of 17th century settlers in the Virginia
colony. This is achieved not only through actual events that occurred during
this time period recorded through primary sources, but also how these events
were interpreted, throughout all levels of society, creating differing
narratives that place emphasis on the incident’s varying causes, implications
and nuances. A complete exploration of the Virginia colony’s social, political
and economical atmosphere in the years leading up to Bacon’s Rebellion is
necessary for historians to conduct and record true surveys that can be
referenced and learned from as time progresses. As James D. Rice suggests in Tales
from a Revolution, Bacon’s Rebellion should not be understood as a
sensational uprising from a rouge group settlers led by one man, fighting for
change, but rather a pre-Revolutionary example of resiliency and retaliation
from a group of people who believed that their unfavorable conditions were so
overwhelmingly oppressive that a need for rising against it by any means possible
was necessary for the betterment of themselves and the future inhabitants of
the colony. Rice challenges mainstream history’s focus on Bacon and instead
uses him as a composite representative of a revolutionary-driven colonist faced
with challenges that encompassed all areas of society, social, political and
economic.
Late 17th century Virginia was the New World’s
southern hub for trade and the accumulation of revenue and resources for the
Crown. However, the colony was inhabited both by European settlers as well as
displaced native peoples of various tribes responding in different ways to the
presence of the Europeans and how they would affect the survival of the
native’s people and natural resources. The Europeans traded with the Indians
and, at times lived in close proximity with them. Conflict would arise,
however, because of the absence of an effective system serving to protect the
integrity of these interactions often leading to whatever arty who was wronged
taken justice into its own hands and creating further tension. Rice gives an
example of this type of conflict with Thomas Matthew. Matthew, a planter at
Cherry Point had some of his livestock taken from him by Doeg Indians as a
response to him cheating them out of what was owed for a transaction (Rice, 5).
This heist led to retaliation by Matthew and some of his fellow Englishmen going
after and attacking the Doegs. Evidence of such vigilance against the natives as
well as the overall clash between the two cultures shows how much of an impact
it had on the eventual uprising in Virginia. Natives and Europeans attacked and
pillaged from one another under no effective structure of the government. The settlers felt that this hands-off
approach from their government regarding attacks by natives was highly
unjustified and corrupt. In addition to the settlers’ distrust in their
government’s lack of protection, Governor William Berkeley’ identification of
any type of militia formed against the natives as mutinous rebels create an
irreparable rift between the working class and their governing body (44). The
increase in the amount of attacks and the governor’s failure to address the
issue effectively in the way the settlers wanted was a root cause in the
uprising. Fear of the natives and the social rhetoric of savage beasts ravaging
the land and killing innocent Englishmen promoted the need for retaliation for
those who may not have been directly involved by such matters.
Taking fear of the natives and a strong disconnect
between the government and the people and combining it with the poor economic
state of the colony at that time created such a heightened level of distress
that change was necessary. Virginia’s dependence on tobacco farming created a
period plagued with substantial drop in price for the commodity as well as high
taxes being imposed in order to pay for structures and systems not necessarily
beneficial to a working class Virginian. “Additional taxes to pay the
legislators’ (the Burgesses) general expense allowances during frequent
assemblies were bitterly resented (15)…a growing chorus of complaints blamed
the commissioners of Virginia’s county governments for levying such heavy
taxes, which heavily burdened small planters who grew little tobacco or had
little to spare” (16).
Tobacco farming required substantially
large amounts of time land and labor before the profits of the 13th
month harvesting process could be reaped; all factors that Virginia could not
expend. This economically distressed state further agitated the mentality of
the average Virginia who could no longer live in prosperity and provide for the
security of his family nor feel that he was being rewarded for the amount of
work he put in. This was a time of desperation and a need for action. Figures
such as Bacon, with his call to battle against injustice appealed to the
oppressed and provided for the motivationally driven force of ‘soldiers’.
More can be learned about the motivation behind Bacon’s
Rebellion by addressing the primary sources directly, especially those from
Bacon himself as well as his supporters. In regards to what Bacon identified as
“the Indian troubles”, one learns that the trade system was a primary issue
behind the need for ratification. “…no Trade should be held with the Indians,
notwithstanding Which our present Governor monopolized trade with the Indians
and granted licenses to others to trade with them…I fear we shall be all lost
for this commerce having acquainted the Indians…(Bacon 1676). Bacon addresses
the Governor’s blatant protection of the interest of the interest while
seemingly putting the settlers’ issues aside. He believes that the governor
personal benefits from these diplomatic arrangements and that Berkeley’s
attitude towards his own people is characteristically traitorous to the
colonists. In Bacon’s Declaration, he lists a series of grievances against the
governor and the current state of affairs including Berkeley taking advantage
of magistrates for personal interests, his monopolization of beaver trade and
showing favor towards the natives, and the governor’s essential blocking of
Bacon or any other settlers to assemble militias to not only protect themselves
but to eradicate the threat of natives altogether (Declaration, 1676). Perhaps
even more important to understanding the causes for the Rebellion is the
testimony ad declaration from the people themselves. Had Bacon been the only
representative of a class bent on revolution, the reliability of its causes
would be scrutinized much more, however, sources exist from petitions of grievances
from the people of Surry and Isle of Wight counties a year after Bacon’s
Declaration expressing many of the same grievances he outlined. The people
condemn the governor for unfairly taxing the planter class and exempting large
landowners as well as their seasonally increasing tax money not being able to
be accounted for. Criticisms dealing with the political and judicial systems
are also made residents calling for ratifications in term lengths for officers
and, more importantly, public Court proceedings to be held (Surry, 1677). In a
similar address of grievances from residents of the Isle of Wight county calls
for “continuous war” with natives in order to eliminate them as a force
entirely. This is important to understanding relations between settlers and
natives because this county laid on the frontier, an area closer to native
tribal lands therefore they were more affected by hostility and conflict
between the two groups than citizens of more centralized localities. These
citizens, as well as Bacon and his associates, make note that what was taking
place in Virginia under Berkeley was not conductive with proceedings in England
under the king. A ‘good vs. evil’ mentality is utilized throughout the
corresponding documents juxtaposing the benevolently prudent intentions of the
rebels with the evilness and savagery of natives who aim to kill and plunder
with no remorse under the protection of the corrupted and immoral governor Berkeley.
The Isle of Wight County inhabitants further state their actions as an
uprising, “…not that we rose in any ways of a Rebellion against our most [dear]
Sovereign Lord the King as our actions may appear…”(Isle of Wight, 1677). This
is a significant acknowledgement and is necessary for the understanding of what
Bacon’s Rebellion truly was; a collective of settlers aimed at the protection
of their interests and the integrity of their moral values taking it upon
themselves to directly challenge and attack the forces prohibiting ideological
prosperity.
Revolutionary moments in time are subject to subjective
criticism as there is never one side to such an event. In most cases, each side
participating in a conflict believes that they are right and the defeat of
their opposition is objectively justifiable. In the case of Bacon’s Rebellion,
one individual serves as the main focus, both as protagonist and antagonist.
From the Berkeley administration’s standpoint, Bacon was nothing more than a
voice that spread his seditious propaganda enough that it reached the attention
of impressionable men who chose to rebel against authority whereas Bacon’s
supporters would have seen him as a transformative organizer and leader for the
just cause of revolution. Perceptions aside, labeling this event Bacon’s
Rebellion may take away from all the factors involved that led to the uprising.
The issues of violence, corrupt and opaque political practices, and a heavily
expressed economical system are indispensable to the understanding of this
event. Identifying such moments of population-driven revolution with distinct
namesakes or monikers devalues the information that can be learned from them
and likens them to offshoot, arbitrary incidents. These issues have occurred
and could potentially arise in any given society, at any given moment in time;
therefore, the causes of such events and the context of the time and state they
occur must be thoroughly evaluated before being labeled blanketed titles hurt
their historical and societal significance.
Works Cited
Bacon, Nathaniel. "Nathaniel Bacon's Account of the Indian
Troubles." Virginia. 18 June 1676. Declaration.
The Declaration (1676) (testimony of Nathaniel Bacon). Print.
"Petition of Grievance by the Inhabitantt of Surry County."
Virginia, Surry County. March or April. 1677. Petition.
Rice, James D. Tales from a
Revolution: Bacon's Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America. New
York City: Oxford University Press, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment