They say 2; Bacon's rebellion

In the various articles there are concerning Bacon’s rebellion, there seem to be conflicting views of Nathanial Bacon. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led to poor and underprivileged to revolt against the malign government. 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”.

Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero. The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader, which in every respect he was. 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?


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 save or make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.