They say; Bacons Rebellion

In the articles I have read, there seem to be conflicting views of Nathanial Bacon. In primary document I have read from him, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, and a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell" He plays the long suffering martyr in his own documents.
The other articles I have read aren't so willing to paint him as hero. The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader, witch in every respect he was. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. The people had multiple r4easons for their unrest, their poverty, the growing distinctions between class, the lack of a middle class, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension that was building. As the Puglesi article stated, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." They forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents I have read 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. All sources agree thought that Berkley's interesting protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them was not a product of compassion for them. 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.