Essay Update

History can give 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 to poor and underprivileged settlers, servants and slaves to revolt against the malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero.


Bacon: A Hero
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. 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”.

The poor people, the indentured servants, the slaves both black and white were desperate for change. They urgently needed protection; fearing for their lives, hiding in their houses or abandoning them altogether in fear of Indian attacks. Then Bacon comes along with his message of fighting back, it would inspire them, giving them an outlet for their frustrations. The issue was, the outlet was not the correct one, neither was his intention noble at all.
But he would seem so to the people, and why not? They had no other option, who else would fight for their rights? Certainly not the wealthy; and their own government was treating them with indifference. (All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.)
He was also willing to break social rank to fight the Indians, which was also a attractive quality for the settlers. He would not be a hypocrite, sitting behind his desk, cheering them on while accepting handouts from the government. He fought alongside his followers in many battles with the Natives.
Next, it should be said that the Indians were not as innocent as they are portrayed. They attacks, stole, murdered, kidnapped and even tortured settlers. The inland sett;ers were in constant danger of attck.


Bacon: a Martyr
Forenote: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.” The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? 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 lack of a middle class, 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. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.

So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?



If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also 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 personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.