Portfolio: Essay 1

How do you tell the difference between heroes and villains? Some would say the difference is actions, others say about perspectives. Since history is an art of interpretation, it gives us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led the poor and underprivileged to revolt against their malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero... I believe he wasn’t a hero at all.


Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension; all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. It seems implied that the poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people who were robbed of their promised wealth.

First, Bacon claimed in his Declaration that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he led. He sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to execute this plan. Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. He was the first to (briefly) unite blacks and whites in any major political cause. Historymatters.edu agreed, “Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that he wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.




Bacon: A Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute civil disobedience. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people”, as some sources imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?

It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. His attack ruined trust with those and other Native American tribes. The government had placed peace treaties upon their land, which he ignored completely.
Zinn and Steffof emphasize Bacon being merely a leader in their book. They reiterate that the colonists concern was not either the Indians or Government, but a combination of both. They also observe the overall stress inflicted on the colonies by the over-zealous taxation by England. The book acknowledges, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36].
Michael Puglisi elucidates in his article,” Whether they be Friends or foes”, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." [Pg 77]. Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. Both these documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians; that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.



Bacon: What I think
If the sources are to be taken as truth, I believe there were no heroes in Bacon's Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. Each side had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless.

The Indians played a major role in this conflict, but I believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved. For example, in, “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia” by the Royal commissioners, they show the example the following Indian conflict. “…Indians… stealing some hoggs… were pursued by the English on a boate… whereupon the Indians complained to their superiors that they had been… abused and cheated… so they took the hoggs for their own satisfaction” This emphasizes that the Indians did not steal for their own gain, they acted in revenge, which may have been part of their culture, “a eye for and eye” situation. The Indians stole property, attacked, killed, and even tortured settlers. But their actions, though far from being justified, had at least motivation based in a logical place.

The government’s crimes also contributed to the revolution. If we interpret Nathanial Bacon’s Declaration as truth, Governor Berkley was largely at fault. But I am wary of classifying had Declaration as a truism. There are fewer sources stating that the government was at fault for the rebellion, (the higher taxes, the favoring of friends in political positions of power, monopoly of the fur trade ect…). The document that stated Governor Berkeley was guilty of these crimes was a highly official document; signed by many colonists, so it does have credentials. Then again, it was signed by people who were against him and his actions, they were not exactly bipartisan. In any case, the Government was obviously a factor in causing public unrest, and the people were champing at the bit to receive the equality and protection they deserved.

And finally, Nathanial Bacon. I believe his actions were equal to little more than a colonial-age stress ball. I concede that he brought change, and did indeed act as the liberator of the settler’s anger, but I maintain that his actions were little more than cowardice. In anger at the authority, he attacked an uninvolved 3rd party? I see no heroism there. Any man who endorses the destruction of the innocent should not be awarded medals of honor. His lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? I believe a little of both. He was a leader, but he was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, acts as arbiter, aim a gun. That, I believe, is the extent of his leadership capabilities. And that extent is also the extent of his authority.

In conclusion, as I stated before, Nathanial Bacon was not a hero to the early Virginian colonists. The argument that state his intentions were noble is quelled by the fact that his actions were motivated by racism and were completely irrational. There is no denying that he did bring revolutionary ideas, but the long term significance out shadows his reasoning. His revolution foreshadowed the American Revolution, and therein lies Nathanial Bacons heroism in history.


Bibliography

“Bacons Rebellion: The declaration (1676) by Nathanial Bacon” (online) available at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5800

“Nathanial Bacon Declaration, 1676” Reading the American past, pg 55

Puglisi, Michael “Whether they be friends or foes: The roles and reactions of tributary native groups caught in colonial conflicts” Marian College, pg 77

Zinn, Howard and Steffoff, Rebecca. A Young People’s History of the United States. Pg 35-51.