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
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. They were being taxed into poverty; and then neglected by the same government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people. First, He claimed 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 lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. 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 a 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 there 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 seem to 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. Why would they launch an attack on these villages? And once they say that

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.





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.

who were robbed of their promised wealth

I think his lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality.