Bacon's Rebellion Final Draft

The definition of a rebellion is the act of defying authority by a person or a group of people. This is what Bacon’s Rebellion was. It affected many people, colonists and Native Americans alike. The rebellion had disastrous consequences for both sides. No one really won, but everything was lost for one group of people. Colonists were fighting for their rights while Native American rights were lost. The consequences of Bacon’s Rebellion are visible throughout the generations.

Bacon’s Rebellion was a revolt by a group of poor settlers, former indentured servants, and slaves fighting against corruption in government and against Native Americans. “Bacon’s Rebellion was the result of discontent among back-country farmers against corruption in the government.” (Bacon’s Rebellion. wikipedia.com). A young settler named Nathaniel Bacon led the revolt in 1676 Virginia. While most of the people helping Bacon had very little money, Bacon himself wasn’t poor. He came from an elite family and received acres of land when he first arrived in Virginia. He was very well connected in the colony and his cousin was the governor. Although they were family, Berkeley and Bacon often had disagreements and didn’t get along very well. Governor William Berkeley had a great deal to do with Bacon’s Rebellion. Some would even say he was the cause of it.

Bacon repeatedly went to Berkeley to gain commission to fight against the Native Americans. Each time the governor refused. “Berkeley’s policy was to preserve the friendship of tributary Indians” (The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia, pg. 22). One implication of Governor Berkeley’s policy when it came to Native Americans is that he wanted peace with them so that it wouldn’t affect their trade agreements. This was the only reason he wouldn’t allow commissions for attacks against them. Native Americans would often attack and raid the colony. The colonists wanted to get back at them and harm them because of it. Colonists claimed that the government was favoring the Native Americans over them. It angered many colonists that their own governor refused to protect them against the Native Americans. They were not only fighting for policies about Native Americans to change. Colonists wanted lower taxes and all of the corruption within the government gone. Throughout all of this, Native Americans were treated harshly.

Before Bacon’s Rebellion even occurred, Native Americans were being misused and mishandled. Colonists wanted land from Native Americans. They took advantage of the Indians and did whatever they could to get it from them. Colonists would often misuse the friendships they had with natives so that they could get what they wanted. Colonial governments slowly became more controlling of native tribes and began to direct everything that they did. “Living on assigned lands at the will and direction of the provincial governments” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 76). Although Puglisi does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that colonists wanted the Native Americans to live on as little land as possible so that they could have more of it. Some Native Americans still trusted the colonists so they listened when they were told where to live. Native Americans trusted settlers even as their land got smaller and smaller. Colonists used different methods to gain control of Native Americans.

Colonial governments sometimes made peace treaties with Native Americans to get something or to make natives do something. A peace treaty was an agreement between a native tribe and colonists agreeing that neither would attack nor in any way harm the other group. Colonists often used these if they wanted something. If they got what they wanted, the treaties were broken soon after. “The…peace treaty between colonists and natives…stripped Powhatans of their independence…lands…freedom of movement” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 76). Although Puglisi does not say so directly, it seems that colonial governments tried to restrict what Native Americans did in any way they could. Native Americans were occasionally forced to work for the colonists. Most of the natives that were used were the ones that colonists still considered slightly trustworthy and who still trusted colonists. “Praying Indians…had served as spies, scouts, and soldiers” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 82). The tasks that colonists forced Indians to perform often put them in danger. It also made that tribe an enemy of other tribes who considered them traitors by working with colonists. While it appeared that colonists trusted certain native groups, tribes were rarely completed trusted by them.

Most colonists and their governments didn’t trust the Native Americans and were prejudiced against them. Colonists assumed that if one tribe acted one way then that’s how all Native Americans acted. Native Americans would sometimes be accused and persecuted for crimes that they didn’t commit. “Nathaniel Bacon disregarded the Governor’s direct orders by seizing some friendly Appomattox Indians for “allegedly” stealing corn” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm). Colonists would sometimes assume that if a tribe was in the area at the time the crime was committed then they were the ones that committed the crime. Common sense seems to indicate that Native Americans would be accused even if there was no evidence. Colonists often didn’t trust Native American tribes even if they were on good terms with them. Those tribes would still be looked upon with suspicion even if they had done nothing wrong. The tribes that were at times on good terms with the colonists were sometimes the ones that suffered the most. “In a dispute over the nonpayment of some items…”[it led to]“a retaliatory strike by the colonists, they attacked the wrong Indians” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm). Many people would assume that colonists would attack Native Americans if they didn’t like how they acted or if tribes did something that the settlers found disrespectful. Mistreatment of Native Americans became worse when Bacon’s Rebellion occurred.

In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon and his followers attacked Jamestown and Native American tribes in the area. Their goal was to drive the governor out and to slaughter Native Americans. His forces spared no one. Native men, women, and children were brutally killed. “The natives suffered heavy losses, including their chief” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 77). They even attacked natives that they got along well with. “The English shot as many as they could…Col. Mason…ran amongst his Men, Crying out, ‘For the Lords sake Shoot no more, these are our friends the Susque-hanoughs” (Document #3, Thomas Matthews, The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon’s Rebellion, 1675-1676). They attacked without commission from the government, which was part of the reason why they attacked Jamestown in the first place. Native Americans were treated viciously and the attacks hardly lightened up even when Bacon died suddenly. Bacon’s death stopped the rebellion and allowed the government to take control again. Governor Berkeley may have taken back Jamestown but the treatment of Native Americans didn’t change at all.

When it comes to the topic of Bacon’s Rebellion, most of us will readily agree that it was an act of civil disobedience against a corrupt government and against Native Americans who were despised. Where this agreement ends, however, is on the question of whether the treatment of the Native Americans was justified or not. Whereas some are convinced that they deserved what happened to them, others maintain that what happened to them wasn’t right or fair. While some people think that Native Americans deserved what happened to them, Native Americans suffered at Virginian colonists’ hands after Bacon’s Rebellion.

Native Americans have always been treated severely, but after Bacon’s Rebellion it reached an all-time high. Before the rebellion occurred colonists would limit the amount of land natives could live on. This was so that colonists could have more land and the natives would be as far away from then as possible. After the rebellion colonial governments began to limit the natives’ land even more. “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen…” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 83). Native Americans were placed in towns and settlements, by colonial governments, which separated them from the colonists. The government claimed it was for “security” but it didn’t make a difference, safety wise. Neither colonists nor Native Americans were any safer after natives were placed in separate towns. After Bacon’s Rebellion colonists started using the small land that Native Americans were forced to live on for their own purposes. “Some military leaders suggested fortifying the Praying Towns ‘as a wall of defence’ for the colony…that…strategy would have protected more populous towns from attack” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 79). Colonists used towns where natives were living as a defense blockage in case they were ever attacked by outside forces. When this planned was carried out, many Native Americans were killed. Colonists were willing to sacrifice natives, even the ones they got along with, as long as it meant they were safe. Colonial governments’ control of Native Americans became even harsher after Bacon’s Rebellion occurred.

After the rebellion colonial governments became more controlling over what Native Americans did for them. Colonists would force tribes to provide them with warriors for their militia. Many of the tribes that were asked had suffered heavy losses at colonists’ hands. “Tottopottomoy’s widow…was…pressed on the issue of supplying men to support the militia” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 78). It is unbelievable to think that colonists would even consider doing this when they had just slaughtered so many people from the tribes they were asking. The colonial government thought that it wasn’t enough for Native Americans to be living in separate towns. They thought natives should be moved somewhere else completely. “‘For their own & country’s security.’ the Praying Indians should be moved to islands in Boston Harbor” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 80). Colonists wanted to move the Native Americans away from the land that they had known their entire lives. “Torn from their livelihoods and left with no means to provide for themselves” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 81). Colonists left the natives on an island where they had no food or shelter. They were unfamiliar with the new landscape so they didn’t know where or if they could hunt for food. While the Native Americans were living in those islands, they almost starved. Even though the colonists forced the Native Americans to live somewhere else completely and almost starved because of it, the natives still acted kind and humble. They never complained about anything that was happening to them. They just accepted it. The way that colonists were treating the Native Americans was inhumane.

While attacks on Native Americans by colonists were common before the rebellion, after the revolt occurred they became more harsh and frequent. After Bacon’s Rebellion, colonists found new ways to attack the Native Americans. “A series of unfounded indictments against Praying Indians by their white neighbors” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 79). Colonists were accusing and putting natives on trial for crimes that they did not commit. Most of the accusations had no evidence that a Native American had anything to do with it at all. Native Americans were suffering for mistakes made in the past. Mistakes that they were often encouraged to make by the colonial government. “Governor Berkeley’s policy…encouraging the Indians to terrorize the frontier” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2191476). Before Bacon’s Rebellion took place, Governor Berkeley would encourage attacks on the colony by Native Americans. Native Americans were suffering for something that wasn’t entirely their fault. Colonists also used different methods to attack the natives. “Colonists added racist words of attack to the weapons of war” (Michael J. Puglisi, pg. 79). They began to attack Native Americans not only physically, but also verbally and psychologically as well. Colonists made fun of Native Americans and demeaned them using racial slanders. Native Americans suffered more than ever after Bacon’s Rebellion.

Nathaniel Bacon isn’t the big hero that many people think he is. He manipulated and used countless people just to get what he wanted. While Bacon made it seem like all he wanted to do was help the oppressed settlers, he also had ulterior motives. “Bacon…probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor” (Howard Zinn, pg. 37). Bacon hated Native Americans and he twisted the colonists’ anger so that he could get the chance to kill them. Bacon is the hero of nothing. He saved no one and helped no one. Nothing for the colonists changed after the rebellion. The taxes didn’t change and some Native American tribes continued to attack them. It almost seems like they fought for nothing.

My sources for this essay are very credible. Some of my information were from the handouts I received in class. My other information came from a reliable database. Other information I received was from the Internet. Information from my sources are logical and free of fallacies.

Bacon’s Rebellion had a disastrous effect for all Native Americans after it occurred. The rebellion led to assumptions made about Indians that weren’t true. It also cast an aura of suspicion around all Native Americans, even the ones that were previously considered trustworthy by colonists. Men, women, and children were slaughtered during the rebellion and the ones that remained suffered greatly because of the colonists. They were forced off their land, forced to work, and almost starved because of the colonial government. One person isn’t to blame for what happened. It is the colony and their governments’ fault. So many people suffered because of what they did. Bacon's Rebellion also had implications on today's society as well. “Historians considered the Virginia Rebellion of 1676 to be the first stirring of revolutionary sentiment in America, which culminated in the American Revolution” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm). The American Revolution was a major rebellion that occurred after Bacon's Rebellion. Bacon's Rebellion led to a chain of rebellions that affected society then and now. If the American Revolution had never occurred our world would be a very different place than it is now. If the English colonists had never fought against the British government, we might still be under their control. The Declaration of Independence might never have been created and our country wouldn't be the great nation it is today. We might not have been able to enjoy all the freedoms that we have now. Further research needs to be done about what else colonists forced natives to do. I want to know what else happened besides Native Americans being forced to live on separate land and a completely new area. It needs to be made clearer that Native Americans were the real victims of the rebellion, not unhappy colonists. Native Americans did nothing wrong, but the colonists killed and terrorized them anyway.

Works Cited:

1. Bacon’s Rebellion. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm,
October 15, 2008
2. Bacon’s Rebellion. http://www.wikipedia.com, October 2, 2008
3. Howard Zinn. “Who Were the Colonists?.” A Young People’s History of the
United States Columbus to the Spanish-American War Vol. 1: pg. 37
4. Michael J. Puglisi. ““Whether They Be Friends or Foes:” The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts”.
5. Title: Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Lester J. Cappon
Reviewed Title(s): Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon's Rebellion and Its Leader.
Reviewed Authors(s): Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker
Source: The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1941), pp. 245-246
Publisher(s): Southern Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2191476
6. Title: Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Susie M. Ames
Reviewed Title(s): The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia
Reviewed Authors(s): Wilcomb E. Washburn
Source: The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jun., 1958), pp. 122-123
Publisher(s): Organization of American Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1886705



Rhetorical Analysis of http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm:

The title of the article, on the website http://www.globalsecurity.org/military
/ops/bacon.htm, is Bacon’s Rebellion. I’m not sure who the author(s) is because it is not stated anywhere. I would infer that the author(s) is someone who knows about Bacon’s Rebellion. I don’t mean a history professor or someone who is an expert on the rebellion. I think it is someone who has learned and studied the causes and effects of Bacon’s Rebellion. The audience is anyone who wants to know what Bacon’s Rebellion was and find out information about it. The author(s) uses words and vocabulary that makes this article easy for any person to understand. The vocabulary is relatively simple making it even easier to read. The purpose of this was to explain what Bacon’s Rebellion was, what the cause was, and who was involved. The main idea was that Bacon’s Rebellion was less about a fight against corrupted leaders than about two people wanting all the power. The author(s) was very persuasive in this article. It seems that the author(s) is credible because the details of the rebellion that the article gave is accurate, fair, and unbiased. The emotion that is shown is how Governor Berkeley and Nathaniel Bacon dealt with the other person. It is logical because the author(s) explanation is clear and examples are given to explain why something was said or done.