-----From what I have gathered about the prelude to any violent conflict of the American Revolution, it seems that the revolution aspect of it was not intended at all. For many years prior to the American Revolution, the people of America were governing and taxing themselves. Then, along comes the French/Indian War. A lot of this war was fought in America, on the Western and Northern borders of the British colonies in North America. Eventually, British Colonists/ Britain won the French Indian War. Unfortunately, to do so they had to accrue a huge national debt, and to pay it off, they decided to tax the colonists. I can't see a way that this makes sense, as Britain had already been making a substantial profit on America, by limiting the countries that they were allowed to trade with.
-----It seems strange to me that the men who would later be the founding fathers were not thought of as equal to people in Britain. They were men of wealth, and did as much as they could to be like the English aristocrats, but no matter what they did, it was not good enough. This reminds me a lot of High School, where certain cliques look down upon others who try and imitate them. The pre-founding fathers, men such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, were trying their best to be like the English aristocracy, because the colonists revered the British peoples, who they believe they belonged to. This makes just that much stranger when the colonists decided that they would not let Britain tax them.
-----I can see the colonists point of view fairly clearly. They had spent over 100 years governing themselves, developing and maintaining a stable government, capable of taxing themselves responsibly and complying to the British governments laws on trade. When the British Parliament decided that they would tax the colonists, the colonists saw it as a slippery slope, as then Parliament, which was half a world away would have the right to tax them for any and everything. I can also see England's idea on it though. They felt that America was simply a business venture, and that the people of America were in no way British. Also, they seemed to not realize that America was already producing an insane amount of revenue for them aldready, simpley because they could completely control trade with them.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Letter from NY to Boston
The New York committee that had been recently formed is advising Boston to form their own committee in turn. They express sorrow for Boston's predicament, but say that they can do little to help. In turn, they say, in a round about way, that they fully support and agree with the actions Boston took in deposing of the tea that they felt was being unfairly taxed. The committee of New York also apologizes for not taking any sort of direct action, claiming that they could come to no verdict on how best to go about doing so. They finish by restating their request for Boston to form a committee and to ally with the rest of the colonies.
Letter of the Boston Committe
This letter from the New York committee, is complaining of Britain's treatment of Boston's people, post "Boston Tea Party", and warning the other colonies about possible slippery slope situations. They use powerful language to accentuate their point, such as, "They have ordered our port to be entirely shut up, leaving us barely so much of the means of subsistence as to keep us from perishing with cold and hunger", which helps to make people get behind their support of Boston.
It seems to me that this letter is intended to inspire rebellion, or at the very least dissent among the colonists.
The speaker(s) was/were: I believe it was a Boston committee, but I was a tad confused.
Audience: The colonists of America.
Representation: The authors represent all the colonists who feel that the British people were behaving in an unjust manner.
How/What is being said: It is being said that the British were punishing the American distension against the tax (tea tax?), and their subsequent actions taken.
It seems to me that this letter is intended to inspire rebellion, or at the very least dissent among the colonists.
The speaker(s) was/were: I believe it was a Boston committee, but I was a tad confused.
Audience: The colonists of America.
Representation: The authors represent all the colonists who feel that the British people were behaving in an unjust manner.
How/What is being said: It is being said that the British were punishing the American distension against the tax (tea tax?), and their subsequent actions taken.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Essay Reflection 1
I can't figure out if you are talking about our writing philosophies or processions, so here is my process.
My writing process has changed since I first started my Bacon's Rebellion essay. It used to be that I would do a little bit of research and then write an essay based off of what I learned, doing only a BS outline and a mediocre rough draft, and only doing any real work on the final draft. Now though, I spend some time reading the assignment and relevant documents, then I form a thesis. From this thesis, I form an outline that is not complete at first. I slowly develop this outline as I find more information, and I change things in it as I change my interpretations. The midterm essay was a good example of this, as I did quite a bit of editing just from my outline. After I form my outline, I begin writing my essay on paper. For some reason or another, I have a hard time starting my essay out if I am typing it. After I have a rough draft formed, I begin typing, and asking people to critque it. I still have a hard time excepting critisizm, but I am getting better at it. This last step contiues until I feel the essay is finished. When I am writing about history, I tend to ask for more critisizm if it is requested in They Say/I Say format than the "crappy" 5 paragraph format. I have a hard time interjecting my own voice when I am talking about historical matters, but I am getting better at it.
My writing process has changed since I first started my Bacon's Rebellion essay. It used to be that I would do a little bit of research and then write an essay based off of what I learned, doing only a BS outline and a mediocre rough draft, and only doing any real work on the final draft. Now though, I spend some time reading the assignment and relevant documents, then I form a thesis. From this thesis, I form an outline that is not complete at first. I slowly develop this outline as I find more information, and I change things in it as I change my interpretations. The midterm essay was a good example of this, as I did quite a bit of editing just from my outline. After I form my outline, I begin writing my essay on paper. For some reason or another, I have a hard time starting my essay out if I am typing it. After I have a rough draft formed, I begin typing, and asking people to critque it. I still have a hard time excepting critisizm, but I am getting better at it. This last step contiues until I feel the essay is finished. When I am writing about history, I tend to ask for more critisizm if it is requested in They Say/I Say format than the "crappy" 5 paragraph format. I have a hard time interjecting my own voice when I am talking about historical matters, but I am getting better at it.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Final Draft; Now in Color!
-----This year’s presidential election has been full of negative advertisements, advertisements intended to tarnish the other candidate’s reputation and image with the people of America. This is in no way a new or unique occurrence in history. In fact, it was going on even before America gained its freedom from England, some one hundred years before. At the time, two men were doing everything they could to accomplish what they desired. They were named Nathaniel Bacon Jr., who was a wealth plantation owner, and William Berkeley, the corrupt governor of the Chesapeake colony. They named each other traitors to England in attempts to get the populace of the Chesapeake Bay colony behind their policies on things such as taxes and prevention/retaliation against the Native American raids on the colonists settlements, much as current politicians attempt to discredit their opponent by commenting on all the negative things they have done, but with a much bloodier conclusion. Their “disagreement” came to be known as Bacon’s Rebellion. When most people look back at Bacon’s Rebellion, they seem to feel the need to victimize one of these men, and place all the blame for the event on the other. I, however, feel that both Nathaniel Bacon and William Berkeley were equally responsible for inciting and prolonging their brutal and violent war.
-----One example of someone who has chosen a side in the argument is Howard Zinn. In his book A Young People’s History of the United States: Volume One Columbus to the Spanish-American War, he says that “The frontiersmen felt that the colonial government had let them down. They were angry, and they weren’t the only ones. Times were hard. Many Virginians scraped out a living in poverty or worked as servants in terrible conditions. In 1676, these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon”, painting Bacon as a savior of the people, but ignoring the fact that through his leadership, many friendly Indian tribes were decimated by the settlers. I believe that a more apt description of Bacon can be found in an excerpt from A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the Royal Commissioners, 1677, “[Nathanial Bacon was] of a most imperious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their Ignorance and very ambitious and arrogant…For he pretended and boasted what great Service he would do for the country, in destroying the Common Enemy [The Indians]”, and http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon provides us with a quote from a contemporary of Bacon, who said that he was a, “blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant”. These two different persons both pointed out that Bacon was not someone who was truly a capable leader who would have the best intentions of the people at heart. Instead it colors Bacon as someone who is dangerous and more than willing to trick the people of Virginia into doing his will.
-----Yet another reason that I have a difficult time taking Bacon’s side in any sort of historical analysis of Bacon’s Rebellion is that although many people attempt to portray him as the people’s man, someone who had grown up in the same poverty and faced the same unjust taxation, he was not. He had been born in England, and his father was a wealthy land owner, and he later married Elizabeth Duke, against her father’s wishes (which just further points out how disagreeable a person Bacon was), which would settle down most men into the role of the caring and homebound husband. Not Bacon. Instead he became involved in a scheme to defraud an acquaintance of his, and was caught. Bacon’s father was not in any way happy with his son’s illegal activities, and arranged to have him sent to the Chesapeake colony, I would assume in an attempt to restore his families honor. Now, one could make the assumption here that on Bacon’s arrival in Virginia he could have been poor. Once again however, this was not the case. As it turned out, William Berkeley was a distant relative of Bacon, and was more than willing to help his distant cousin out. He helped Bacon buy two plots of land with the substantial sum of money Bacon’s father had given him, and offered him a share in the trade with the Indians. So obviously, Bacon had no financial motives for rebellion, but why then did he choose to wage a war against the Native Americans and William Berkeley? Well, the short answer is for vengeance. During a Native American raid on his plantation, Bacon’s friend and overseer of labor was killed. I can bring myself to understand his anger at this, but his next couple actions baffle me. He sent a request to Berkeley for a military commission to form an army and attack the Native Americans. Not just the tribe that attacked his plantation, but all of the natives. In his arrogance he did not even wait for Berkeley’s reply to build his army and set out on his spree of pillaging and slaughtering of the Indians. I can’t understand why he did not even wait for a reply, or for that matter limit his request, and thus increase his chances of having it approved, to just the tribe that attacked him. All in all, Bacon simply showed more and more through his actions that he was not a fit leader for the people of Chesapeake. He was just a man who refused to allow other people to govern him, a man led only by his own desires.
-----On the other side of the table, there are those who feel that William Berkeley was in the right, and had only the best interests of the colonists in mind. An example of this type of opinion can be shown in The American Promise, page 91 (which just goes to show that even sources that intended to be neutral seem to choose a side on this topic), when they say that Berkeley was “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace on the frontier in 1676, Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a rebel, threatened to punish him for treason, and called for new elections of burgesses who, Berkeley believed would endorse his get-tough policy”. The key phrase here is “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace”, because although this was indeed his objective, it neglects to mention his ulterior motives. Berkeley wanted to have peace with the Native Americans because he had a monopoly on all trading done with them. Those he allowed to trade with them had to pay a tax of every 3rd fox or beaver pelt that they traded for, thus his main reason for not wanting war with the Indians or Bacon was that he would take a hit to his wallet, so instead of allowing Bacon his commission to attack the Indians, he denied the request. Then, upon hearing of Bacon’s continuing with his march against orders, he proclaimed Bacon a traitor and demanded that he turn himself in. This was a stupid decision on Berkeley’s part. All he had to do was demand that Bacon cease his attack on the Indians, and promise to launch an investigation on the attack. This would, I think, have appeased not only Bacon, but also the rest of the colonists, as they would see that the government was taking a proactive stand in defending them.
-----Somewhat surprisingly, Bacon was arrested and put on trial. He was found guilty of being a traitor, but instead of being put to death, he experienced no real punishment, as an army of angry farmers went to Jamestown to demand Bacon’s release. Intimidated, Berkeley held a reelection of officials, in an attempt to re-solidify his power. In a huge upset however, Bacon was voted into the seat of governor, and many of the rich plantation owners were also replaced by less wealthy farmers. After this, Bacon did something that I consider his one redeeming act of his campaign. He enacted a series of laws, later known as Bacon’s Laws, which put restrictions on people having multiple offices in the government, and made it illegal for officeholders to demand bribes to do their jobs, among other things. Although Bacon did do a great thing with the enactment of these laws, he ruined just a little later by stepping away from his seat of governorship to resume his attack on the natives.
-----Bacon’s Rebellion, when boiled down, was a war between two people who could not agree on the correct course of action. Because of this disagreement, hundreds of people died, and many farms and plantations were destroyed. Although Bacon was the one who lost in the end, I do not see either side as a winner. They both killed many people who were fighting for causes different than either Berkeley’s or Bacon’s, and neither got what they truly wanted in the end. If both of these people had died during this insurrection, I would have been quite pleased, as it would have ended much quicker. Those who feel that either side was in the right should really look deeper into their history texts, to see all of the things both sides had done.
-----One example of someone who has chosen a side in the argument is Howard Zinn. In his book A Young People’s History of the United States: Volume One Columbus to the Spanish-American War, he says that “The frontiersmen felt that the colonial government had let them down. They were angry, and they weren’t the only ones. Times were hard. Many Virginians scraped out a living in poverty or worked as servants in terrible conditions. In 1676, these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon”, painting Bacon as a savior of the people, but ignoring the fact that through his leadership, many friendly Indian tribes were decimated by the settlers. I believe that a more apt description of Bacon can be found in an excerpt from A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the Royal Commissioners, 1677, “[Nathanial Bacon was] of a most imperious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their Ignorance and very ambitious and arrogant…For he pretended and boasted what great Service he would do for the country, in destroying the Common Enemy [The Indians]”, and http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon provides us with a quote from a contemporary of Bacon, who said that he was a, “blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant”. These two different persons both pointed out that Bacon was not someone who was truly a capable leader who would have the best intentions of the people at heart. Instead it colors Bacon as someone who is dangerous and more than willing to trick the people of Virginia into doing his will.
-----Yet another reason that I have a difficult time taking Bacon’s side in any sort of historical analysis of Bacon’s Rebellion is that although many people attempt to portray him as the people’s man, someone who had grown up in the same poverty and faced the same unjust taxation, he was not. He had been born in England, and his father was a wealthy land owner, and he later married Elizabeth Duke, against her father’s wishes (which just further points out how disagreeable a person Bacon was), which would settle down most men into the role of the caring and homebound husband. Not Bacon. Instead he became involved in a scheme to defraud an acquaintance of his, and was caught. Bacon’s father was not in any way happy with his son’s illegal activities, and arranged to have him sent to the Chesapeake colony, I would assume in an attempt to restore his families honor. Now, one could make the assumption here that on Bacon’s arrival in Virginia he could have been poor. Once again however, this was not the case. As it turned out, William Berkeley was a distant relative of Bacon, and was more than willing to help his distant cousin out. He helped Bacon buy two plots of land with the substantial sum of money Bacon’s father had given him, and offered him a share in the trade with the Indians. So obviously, Bacon had no financial motives for rebellion, but why then did he choose to wage a war against the Native Americans and William Berkeley? Well, the short answer is for vengeance. During a Native American raid on his plantation, Bacon’s friend and overseer of labor was killed. I can bring myself to understand his anger at this, but his next couple actions baffle me. He sent a request to Berkeley for a military commission to form an army and attack the Native Americans. Not just the tribe that attacked his plantation, but all of the natives. In his arrogance he did not even wait for Berkeley’s reply to build his army and set out on his spree of pillaging and slaughtering of the Indians. I can’t understand why he did not even wait for a reply, or for that matter limit his request, and thus increase his chances of having it approved, to just the tribe that attacked him. All in all, Bacon simply showed more and more through his actions that he was not a fit leader for the people of Chesapeake. He was just a man who refused to allow other people to govern him, a man led only by his own desires.
-----On the other side of the table, there are those who feel that William Berkeley was in the right, and had only the best interests of the colonists in mind. An example of this type of opinion can be shown in The American Promise, page 91 (which just goes to show that even sources that intended to be neutral seem to choose a side on this topic), when they say that Berkeley was “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace on the frontier in 1676, Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a rebel, threatened to punish him for treason, and called for new elections of burgesses who, Berkeley believed would endorse his get-tough policy”. The key phrase here is “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace”, because although this was indeed his objective, it neglects to mention his ulterior motives. Berkeley wanted to have peace with the Native Americans because he had a monopoly on all trading done with them. Those he allowed to trade with them had to pay a tax of every 3rd fox or beaver pelt that they traded for, thus his main reason for not wanting war with the Indians or Bacon was that he would take a hit to his wallet, so instead of allowing Bacon his commission to attack the Indians, he denied the request. Then, upon hearing of Bacon’s continuing with his march against orders, he proclaimed Bacon a traitor and demanded that he turn himself in. This was a stupid decision on Berkeley’s part. All he had to do was demand that Bacon cease his attack on the Indians, and promise to launch an investigation on the attack. This would, I think, have appeased not only Bacon, but also the rest of the colonists, as they would see that the government was taking a proactive stand in defending them.
-----Somewhat surprisingly, Bacon was arrested and put on trial. He was found guilty of being a traitor, but instead of being put to death, he experienced no real punishment, as an army of angry farmers went to Jamestown to demand Bacon’s release. Intimidated, Berkeley held a reelection of officials, in an attempt to re-solidify his power. In a huge upset however, Bacon was voted into the seat of governor, and many of the rich plantation owners were also replaced by less wealthy farmers. After this, Bacon did something that I consider his one redeeming act of his campaign. He enacted a series of laws, later known as Bacon’s Laws, which put restrictions on people having multiple offices in the government, and made it illegal for officeholders to demand bribes to do their jobs, among other things. Although Bacon did do a great thing with the enactment of these laws, he ruined just a little later by stepping away from his seat of governorship to resume his attack on the natives.
-----Bacon’s Rebellion, when boiled down, was a war between two people who could not agree on the correct course of action. Because of this disagreement, hundreds of people died, and many farms and plantations were destroyed. Although Bacon was the one who lost in the end, I do not see either side as a winner. They both killed many people who were fighting for causes different than either Berkeley’s or Bacon’s, and neither got what they truly wanted in the end. If both of these people had died during this insurrection, I would have been quite pleased, as it would have ended much quicker. Those who feel that either side was in the right should really look deeper into their history texts, to see all of the things both sides had done.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Final Draft
-----This year’s presidential election has been full of negative advertisements, advertisements intended to tarnish the other candidate’s reputation and image with the people of America. This is in no way a new or unique occurrence in history. In fact, it was going on even before America gained its freedom from England, some one hundred years before. At the time, two men were doing everything they could to accomplish what they desired. They were named Nathaniel Bacon Jr., who was a wealth plantation owner, and William Berkeley, the corrupt governor of the Chesapeake colony. They named each other traitors to England in attempts to get the populace of the Chesapeake Bay colony behind their policies on things such as taxes and prevention/retaliation against the Native American raids on the colonists settlements, much as current politicians attempt to discredit their opponent by commenting on all the negative things they have done, but with a much bloodier conclusion. Their “disagreement” came to be known as Bacon’s Rebellion. When most people look back at Bacon’s Rebellion, they seem to feel the need to victimize one of these men, and place all the blame for the event on the other. I, however, feel that both Nathaniel Bacon and William Berkeley were equally responsible for inciting and prolonging their brutal and violent war.
-----One example of someone who has chosen a side in the argument is Howard Zinn. In his book A Young People’s History of the United States: Volume One Columbus to the Spanish-American War, he says that “The frontiersmen felt that the colonial government had let them down. They were angry, and they weren’t the only ones. Times were hard. Many Virginians scraped out a living in poverty or worked as servants in terrible conditions. In 1676, these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon”, painting Bacon as a savior of the people, but ignoring the fact that through his leadership, many friendly Indian tribes were decimated by the settlers. I believe that a more apt description of Bacon can be found in an excerpt from A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the Royal Commissioners, 1677, “[Nathanial Bacon was] of a most imperious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their Ignorance and very ambitious and arrogant…For he pretended and boasted what great Service he would do for the country, in destroying the Common Enemy [The Indians]”, and http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon provides us with a quote from a contemporary of Bacon, who said that he was a, “blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant”. These two different persons both pointed out that Bacon was not someone who was truly a capable leader who would have the best intentions of the people at heart. Instead it colors Bacon as someone who is dangerous and more than willing to trick the people of Virginia into doing his will.
-----Yet another reason that I have a difficult time taking Bacon’s side in any sort of historical analysis of Bacon’s Rebellion is that although many people attempt to portray him as the people’s man, someone who had grown up in the same poverty and faced the same unjust taxation, he was not. He had been born in England, and his father was a wealthy land owner, and he later married Elizabeth Duke, against her father’s wishes (which just further points out how disagreeable a person Bacon was), which would settle down most men into the role of the caring and homebound husband. Not Bacon. Instead he became involved in a scheme to defraud an acquaintance of his, and was caught. Bacon’s father was not in any way happy with his son’s illegal activities, and arranged to have him sent to the Chesapeake colony, I would assume in an attempt to restore his families honor. Now, one could make the assumption here that on Bacon’s arrival in Virginia he could have been poor. Once again however, this was not the case. As it turned out, William Berkeley was a distant relative of Bacon, and was more than willing to help his distant cousin out. He helped Bacon buy two plots of land with the substantial sum of money Bacon’s father had given him, and offered him a share in the trade with the Indians. So obviously, Bacon had no financial motives for rebellion, but why then did he choose to wage a war against the Native Americans and William Berkeley? Well, the short answer is for vengeance. During a Native American raid on his plantation, Bacon’s friend and overseer of labor was killed. I can bring myself to understand his anger at this, but his next couple actions baffle me. He sent a request to Berkeley for a military commission to form an army and attack the Native Americans. Not just the tribe that attacked his plantation, but all of the natives. In his arrogance he did not even wait for Berkeley’s reply to build his army and set out on his spree of pillaging and slaughtering of the Indians. I can’t understand why he did not even wait for a reply, or for that matter limit his request, and thus increase his chances of having it approved, to just the tribe that attacked him. All in all, Bacon simply showed more and more through his actions that he was not a fit leader for the people of Chesapeake. He was just a man who refused to allow other people to govern him, a man led only by his own desires.
-----On the other side of the table, there are those who feel that William Berkeley was in the right, and had only the best interests of the colonists in mind. An example of this type of opinion can be shown in The American Promise, page 91 (which just goes to show that even sources that intended to be neutral seem to choose a side on this topic), when they say that Berkeley was “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace on the frontier in 1676, Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a rebel, threatened to punish him for treason, and called for new elections of burgesses who, Berkeley believed would endorse his get-tough policy”. The key phrase here is “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace”, because although this was indeed his objective, it neglects to mention his ulterior motives. Berkeley wanted to have peace with the Native Americans because he had a monopoly on all trading done with them. Those he allowed to trade with them had to pay a tax of every 3rd fox or beaver pelt that they traded for, thus his main reason for not wanting war with the Indians or Bacon was that he would take a hit to his wallet, so instead of allowing Bacon his commission to attack the Indians, he denied the request. Then, upon hearing of Bacon’s continuing with his march against orders, he proclaimed Bacon a traitor and demanded that he turn himself in. This was a stupid decision on Berkeley’s part. All he had to do was demand that Bacon cease his attack on the Indians, and promise to launch an investigation on the attack. This would, I think, have appeased not only Bacon, but also the rest of the colonists, as they would see that the government was taking a proactive stand in defending them.
-----Somewhat surprisingly, Bacon was arrested and put on trial. He was found guilty of being a traitor, but instead of being put to death, he experienced no real punishment, as an army of angry farmers went to Jamestown to demand Bacon’s release. Intimidated, Berkeley held a reelection of officials, in an attempt to re-solidify his power. In a huge upset however, Bacon was voted into the seat of governor, and many of the rich plantation owners were also replaced by less wealthy farmers. After this, Bacon did something that I consider his one redeeming act of his campaign. He enacted a series of laws, later known as Bacon’s Laws, which put restrictions on people having multiple offices in the government, and made it illegal for officeholders to demand bribes to do their jobs, among other things. Although Bacon did do a great thing with the enactment of these laws, he ruined just a little later by stepping away from his seat of governorship to resume his attack on the natives.
-----Bacon’s Rebellion, when boiled down, was a war between two people who could not agree on the correct course of action. Because of this disagreement, hundreds of people died, and many farms and plantations were destroyed. Although Bacon was the one who lost in the end, I do not see either side as a winner. They both killed many people who were fighting for causes different than either Berkeley’s or Bacon’s, and neither got what they truly wanted in the end. If both of these people had died during this insurrection, I would have been quite pleased, as it would have ended much quicker. Those who feel that either side was in the right should really look deeper into their history texts, to see all of the things both sides had done.
Texts used:
The American Promise
http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon
Documents 6, 5
Puglisi’s Essay
Howard Zinn’s, A Young People’s History of the United States: Volume One Columbus to the Spanish-American War
Red text is highlighting a template. Dark red text is highlighting a template immediately following another template.
-----One example of someone who has chosen a side in the argument is Howard Zinn. In his book A Young People’s History of the United States: Volume One Columbus to the Spanish-American War, he says that “The frontiersmen felt that the colonial government had let them down. They were angry, and they weren’t the only ones. Times were hard. Many Virginians scraped out a living in poverty or worked as servants in terrible conditions. In 1676, these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon”, painting Bacon as a savior of the people, but ignoring the fact that through his leadership, many friendly Indian tribes were decimated by the settlers. I believe that a more apt description of Bacon can be found in an excerpt from A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the Royal Commissioners, 1677, “[Nathanial Bacon was] of a most imperious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their Ignorance and very ambitious and arrogant…For he pretended and boasted what great Service he would do for the country, in destroying the Common Enemy [The Indians]”, and http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon provides us with a quote from a contemporary of Bacon, who said that he was a, “blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant”. These two different persons both pointed out that Bacon was not someone who was truly a capable leader who would have the best intentions of the people at heart. Instead it colors Bacon as someone who is dangerous and more than willing to trick the people of Virginia into doing his will.
-----Yet another reason that I have a difficult time taking Bacon’s side in any sort of historical analysis of Bacon’s Rebellion is that although many people attempt to portray him as the people’s man, someone who had grown up in the same poverty and faced the same unjust taxation, he was not. He had been born in England, and his father was a wealthy land owner, and he later married Elizabeth Duke, against her father’s wishes (which just further points out how disagreeable a person Bacon was), which would settle down most men into the role of the caring and homebound husband. Not Bacon. Instead he became involved in a scheme to defraud an acquaintance of his, and was caught. Bacon’s father was not in any way happy with his son’s illegal activities, and arranged to have him sent to the Chesapeake colony, I would assume in an attempt to restore his families honor. Now, one could make the assumption here that on Bacon’s arrival in Virginia he could have been poor. Once again however, this was not the case. As it turned out, William Berkeley was a distant relative of Bacon, and was more than willing to help his distant cousin out. He helped Bacon buy two plots of land with the substantial sum of money Bacon’s father had given him, and offered him a share in the trade with the Indians. So obviously, Bacon had no financial motives for rebellion, but why then did he choose to wage a war against the Native Americans and William Berkeley? Well, the short answer is for vengeance. During a Native American raid on his plantation, Bacon’s friend and overseer of labor was killed. I can bring myself to understand his anger at this, but his next couple actions baffle me. He sent a request to Berkeley for a military commission to form an army and attack the Native Americans. Not just the tribe that attacked his plantation, but all of the natives. In his arrogance he did not even wait for Berkeley’s reply to build his army and set out on his spree of pillaging and slaughtering of the Indians. I can’t understand why he did not even wait for a reply, or for that matter limit his request, and thus increase his chances of having it approved, to just the tribe that attacked him. All in all, Bacon simply showed more and more through his actions that he was not a fit leader for the people of Chesapeake. He was just a man who refused to allow other people to govern him, a man led only by his own desires.
-----On the other side of the table, there are those who feel that William Berkeley was in the right, and had only the best interests of the colonists in mind. An example of this type of opinion can be shown in The American Promise, page 91 (which just goes to show that even sources that intended to be neutral seem to choose a side on this topic), when they say that Berkeley was “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace on the frontier in 1676, Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a rebel, threatened to punish him for treason, and called for new elections of burgesses who, Berkeley believed would endorse his get-tough policy”. The key phrase here is “Hoping to maintain the fragile peace”, because although this was indeed his objective, it neglects to mention his ulterior motives. Berkeley wanted to have peace with the Native Americans because he had a monopoly on all trading done with them. Those he allowed to trade with them had to pay a tax of every 3rd fox or beaver pelt that they traded for, thus his main reason for not wanting war with the Indians or Bacon was that he would take a hit to his wallet, so instead of allowing Bacon his commission to attack the Indians, he denied the request. Then, upon hearing of Bacon’s continuing with his march against orders, he proclaimed Bacon a traitor and demanded that he turn himself in. This was a stupid decision on Berkeley’s part. All he had to do was demand that Bacon cease his attack on the Indians, and promise to launch an investigation on the attack. This would, I think, have appeased not only Bacon, but also the rest of the colonists, as they would see that the government was taking a proactive stand in defending them.
-----Somewhat surprisingly, Bacon was arrested and put on trial. He was found guilty of being a traitor, but instead of being put to death, he experienced no real punishment, as an army of angry farmers went to Jamestown to demand Bacon’s release. Intimidated, Berkeley held a reelection of officials, in an attempt to re-solidify his power. In a huge upset however, Bacon was voted into the seat of governor, and many of the rich plantation owners were also replaced by less wealthy farmers. After this, Bacon did something that I consider his one redeeming act of his campaign. He enacted a series of laws, later known as Bacon’s Laws, which put restrictions on people having multiple offices in the government, and made it illegal for officeholders to demand bribes to do their jobs, among other things. Although Bacon did do a great thing with the enactment of these laws, he ruined just a little later by stepping away from his seat of governorship to resume his attack on the natives.
-----Bacon’s Rebellion, when boiled down, was a war between two people who could not agree on the correct course of action. Because of this disagreement, hundreds of people died, and many farms and plantations were destroyed. Although Bacon was the one who lost in the end, I do not see either side as a winner. They both killed many people who were fighting for causes different than either Berkeley’s or Bacon’s, and neither got what they truly wanted in the end. If both of these people had died during this insurrection, I would have been quite pleased, as it would have ended much quicker. Those who feel that either side was in the right should really look deeper into their history texts, to see all of the things both sides had done.
Texts used:
The American Promise
http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon
Documents 6, 5
Puglisi’s Essay
Howard Zinn’s, A Young People’s History of the United States: Volume One Columbus to the Spanish-American War
Red text is highlighting a template. Dark red text is highlighting a template immediately following another template.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Rough Draft...I have a problem with I say
-----In 1676, two men incited a rebellion that would drag on for several months, causing a huge amount of damage to the farms in the Chesapeake Bay colony and damaging the English colonist’s reputation with the Native Americans irreparably. These men were named Nathaniel Bacon Jr., a man who lived in Virginia for a grand total of 2 years, and William Berkeley, the corrupt governor of Chesapeake, who was in the pockets of the large plantation owners, also known as Grandees. The revolution that these two men of power started and continued is today called Bacon’s Rebellion. Many people have chosen to take a side in examining this important event in early American history. I however, strongly believe that both Bacon and Berkeley were equally responsible for the inciting and prolonging of this brutal and violent war.
-----Nathaniel Bacon had shown a strong distaste for authority at a young age. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, “blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant””(http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). As this person mentions, Bacon was a prideful man, who did not enjoy any sort of authority lording over him. This is shown almost perfectly when he is forced to withdraw from Cambridge University after been caught attempting to defraud an associate. His father was not appreciative of this, and sent Bacon and his (Bacon’s) wife to Chesapeake, sending note to relatives there. He gave Bacon some money to start out, and sent him on his way.
-----Enter William Berkeley. Berkeley was a distant relation of Bacon’s, and he was more than willing to help Bacon out. He helped him (Bacon) buy two plots of land and offered Bacon a part in his (Berkeley’s) control of the trading done with friendly Indian tribes. This seems to paint Berkeley as a pleasant fellow doesn’t it? Sadly, this was not the usual behavior of William Berkeley. At this time, Berkeley had been the governor of Virginia for 14 years, due to the fact that he had not allowed a reelection of governing officials in the same amount of time. He often implemented taxes on the poorer farmers of Virginia that affected the wealthier plantation owners little, as these were the people who were also part of the governing body. When many frontier farmers (farmers who were pushing past the agreed upon limits of English/Native American territory) complained that the government was not doing enough to protect them from Native American “savages”, Berkeley had forts built at the heads of rivers to defend them. Unfortunately for the frontiersmen, and later Berkeley himself, these forts did little to deter the Natives, “For the Indians quickly found out where about these Mouse traps were sett, and for what purpose, and so resalved to keepe out of there danger; which they might easely enough do, with out any detriment to there designes” (unknown author/date, document 6), and the cost of building them was enough to force Berkeley to implement yet another tax. With such an incompetent leader, it seems unsurprising to me that the tensions between the people and the government would eventually boil over, though of course Berkeley would never be able to see it.
-----For almost two years, Bacon had a stable plantation and William Berkeley continued to profit heavily from his monopolization on trade with the Natives. Life for these two individuals, and those of similar economic standing, was not the norm however. With a falling profit yield and higher tax rate, the tobacco crop that most Chesapeake depended on to make ends meet was not enough. As if this was not bad enough, Native American raids on English settlements on the frontier were growing more and more frequent. This caused many colonists to think along the lines of one anonymous individual, who said, “[Then] these Indians draw in others (formerly in subjection to the Verginians) to there aides: which being conjoyed (in separate and united parties) they dayly commited abundance of ungarded and unrevenged murthers, upon the English; which they perpretated in a most barbarous and horid maner….For these brutish and inhumane brutes, least their cruilties might not be thought cruill enough,…through [the ang]uish of there paine, forsaken there tormented bodyes, they [with] there teeth (or som instrument,) teare the nailes of [their fingers and their] toes, which put the poore sufferer to a wo[ful] condition,” (Document # 5, unknown author)I feel that this report on the Native American raids to be unfair and obviously incredibly bias, as this man is ignoring the fact that it was in fact the English colonists that were infringing on a treaty they had with the natives, but it shows us how much the frontiersmen feared the “savages”. It seems unlikely to me that either William Berkeley or Nathaniel Bacon truly felt any need to be threatened by the Indians, or feel the need to take revenge on them for harming so many other people. That is, until Bacon experienced an Indian raid himself.
-----Bacon’s ideas on Indian trade were clear. He wanted nothing to do with it. On June 18, 1676 Bacon wrote a personal account of the Indian troubles, and his feelings on the matter, showing distain for Berkeley and pointing out Berkeley’s responsibility for the Indians talent at raiding the English settlements. “By an Act of State [in March 1676], it was provided for the better security of the country, That no Trade should be held with the Indians, notwithstanding which our present Governor monopolized a trade the Indians and granted licenses to others to trade with them for which he had every 3rd [beaver or fox pelt], which trading with the Indians has proved so fatal to these parts of the world, yet I fear we shall be all lost for this commerce having acquainted the Indians…with our manner of living and discipline of war,”. This was one of the crucial issues that ignited Bacon’s Rebellion. William Berkeley wanted peace with the Indians so that he could continue to make a money from trading with them, while Nathaniel Bacon wanted to cut ties with them and take what they desired by force.
-----In early summer of 1676, an attack on Bacon’s farm cost him the life of his overseer. This must have brought the full realization of what was happening, as Bacon wasted little time in taking command of the various militias that had formed to protect some settlements, and sending a request to Berkeley in Jamestown for a legal military commission to form an army and attack the Indians. I realize that hind sight is 20/20, but it still strikes me as amazing that Bacon could so easily take command of so many people. In his supposed fury, though I believe it to be arrogance, he did not wait for Berkeley’s replay, before he formed “an extra-legal band of over 500 men,” (Pulgisi’s Essay, page 77). I feel that Bacon was considerably foolish to do this, as it only resulted in Berkeley naming him a traitor after he denied the request and found out that Bacon had done it anyway. After this, things began to go downhill for the people of Chesapeake. Bacon wrote and published his “Declaration of the People” in response to Berkeley’s calling of him a traitor. This document in turn named Berkeley a traitor and demanded he step down from his position as governor. Hoping to ease tensions, Berkeley held an election, to re-solidify his standing as governor. This completely and totally backfired on him when Bacon was voted into the seat of governorship instead. I don’t personally believe that Bacon was the proper choice for governor, but as I said earlier, hindsight is 20/20. After implementing some laws (such as forcing officeholders to do their jobs without bribes) that were Bacon’s only redeeming act in my eyes, he left his office and went back to raiding and pillaging Native American (many of whom were innocent of any wrong doings entirely) settlements. Berkeley took the initiative here and re-proclaimed Bacon a traitor. Bacon responded in kind, and the truly violent segment of Bacon’s Rebellion began.
-----Because of William Berkeley and Nathaniel Bacon, many farms and plantations were burned to ashes. Bacon was fighting the losing fight, as he was too stubborn to think about postponing his raids on the Indian settlements so as to more effectively defend against Berkeley’s army. Along with Bacon’s untimely death, the rebellion was crushed, and most of the conspirators were hung. This rebellion wound up causing England to take a stricter hand in governing Chesapeake, but at the cost of hundreds of people’s lives. This rebellion was more of a personal battle between Bacon and Berkeley than it was a revolution, with each side having its fair share of responsibility in it. I believe that if both Bacon and Berkeley had been willing to compromise this might have ended much differently, and with little to no blood spent on rebellion.
-----One could draw many connections between Bacon’s Rebellion and the modern American political system. In the American political system, there are two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Much like Bacon’s Rebellion, one side thinks that it has the answer to all the problems that are presented, and that the other side is incompetent and unwilling to compromise. In both cases (Bacon’s Rebellion and in our political system) each side attempts to paint the other as negatively as they can, while trying to rally as much support behind their own ideas and polices as they can. In the current race for president, both John McCain and Barak Obama are using negative TV adds to quote the other candidate saying things that don’t appeal to the common people of America. A similar thing happened in Chesapeake, but that involved written declarations, not television advertisements. If either side had (or in our time was) willing to compromise, a much better outcome might have been reached.
-----Nathaniel Bacon had shown a strong distaste for authority at a young age. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, “blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant””(http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). As this person mentions, Bacon was a prideful man, who did not enjoy any sort of authority lording over him. This is shown almost perfectly when he is forced to withdraw from Cambridge University after been caught attempting to defraud an associate. His father was not appreciative of this, and sent Bacon and his (Bacon’s) wife to Chesapeake, sending note to relatives there. He gave Bacon some money to start out, and sent him on his way.
-----Enter William Berkeley. Berkeley was a distant relation of Bacon’s, and he was more than willing to help Bacon out. He helped him (Bacon) buy two plots of land and offered Bacon a part in his (Berkeley’s) control of the trading done with friendly Indian tribes. This seems to paint Berkeley as a pleasant fellow doesn’t it? Sadly, this was not the usual behavior of William Berkeley. At this time, Berkeley had been the governor of Virginia for 14 years, due to the fact that he had not allowed a reelection of governing officials in the same amount of time. He often implemented taxes on the poorer farmers of Virginia that affected the wealthier plantation owners little, as these were the people who were also part of the governing body. When many frontier farmers (farmers who were pushing past the agreed upon limits of English/Native American territory) complained that the government was not doing enough to protect them from Native American “savages”, Berkeley had forts built at the heads of rivers to defend them. Unfortunately for the frontiersmen, and later Berkeley himself, these forts did little to deter the Natives, “For the Indians quickly found out where about these Mouse traps were sett, and for what purpose, and so resalved to keepe out of there danger; which they might easely enough do, with out any detriment to there designes” (unknown author/date, document 6), and the cost of building them was enough to force Berkeley to implement yet another tax. With such an incompetent leader, it seems unsurprising to me that the tensions between the people and the government would eventually boil over, though of course Berkeley would never be able to see it.
-----For almost two years, Bacon had a stable plantation and William Berkeley continued to profit heavily from his monopolization on trade with the Natives. Life for these two individuals, and those of similar economic standing, was not the norm however. With a falling profit yield and higher tax rate, the tobacco crop that most Chesapeake depended on to make ends meet was not enough. As if this was not bad enough, Native American raids on English settlements on the frontier were growing more and more frequent. This caused many colonists to think along the lines of one anonymous individual, who said, “[Then] these Indians draw in others (formerly in subjection to the Verginians) to there aides: which being conjoyed (in separate and united parties) they dayly commited abundance of ungarded and unrevenged murthers, upon the English; which they perpretated in a most barbarous and horid maner….For these brutish and inhumane brutes, least their cruilties might not be thought cruill enough,…through [the ang]uish of there paine, forsaken there tormented bodyes, they [with] there teeth (or som instrument,) teare the nailes of [their fingers and their] toes, which put the poore sufferer to a wo[ful] condition,” (Document # 5, unknown author)I feel that this report on the Native American raids to be unfair and obviously incredibly bias, as this man is ignoring the fact that it was in fact the English colonists that were infringing on a treaty they had with the natives, but it shows us how much the frontiersmen feared the “savages”. It seems unlikely to me that either William Berkeley or Nathaniel Bacon truly felt any need to be threatened by the Indians, or feel the need to take revenge on them for harming so many other people. That is, until Bacon experienced an Indian raid himself.
-----Bacon’s ideas on Indian trade were clear. He wanted nothing to do with it. On June 18, 1676 Bacon wrote a personal account of the Indian troubles, and his feelings on the matter, showing distain for Berkeley and pointing out Berkeley’s responsibility for the Indians talent at raiding the English settlements. “By an Act of State [in March 1676], it was provided for the better security of the country, That no Trade should be held with the Indians, notwithstanding which our present Governor monopolized a trade the Indians and granted licenses to others to trade with them for which he had every 3rd [beaver or fox pelt], which trading with the Indians has proved so fatal to these parts of the world, yet I fear we shall be all lost for this commerce having acquainted the Indians…with our manner of living and discipline of war,”. This was one of the crucial issues that ignited Bacon’s Rebellion. William Berkeley wanted peace with the Indians so that he could continue to make a money from trading with them, while Nathaniel Bacon wanted to cut ties with them and take what they desired by force.
-----In early summer of 1676, an attack on Bacon’s farm cost him the life of his overseer. This must have brought the full realization of what was happening, as Bacon wasted little time in taking command of the various militias that had formed to protect some settlements, and sending a request to Berkeley in Jamestown for a legal military commission to form an army and attack the Indians. I realize that hind sight is 20/20, but it still strikes me as amazing that Bacon could so easily take command of so many people. In his supposed fury, though I believe it to be arrogance, he did not wait for Berkeley’s replay, before he formed “an extra-legal band of over 500 men,” (Pulgisi’s Essay, page 77). I feel that Bacon was considerably foolish to do this, as it only resulted in Berkeley naming him a traitor after he denied the request and found out that Bacon had done it anyway. After this, things began to go downhill for the people of Chesapeake. Bacon wrote and published his “Declaration of the People” in response to Berkeley’s calling of him a traitor. This document in turn named Berkeley a traitor and demanded he step down from his position as governor. Hoping to ease tensions, Berkeley held an election, to re-solidify his standing as governor. This completely and totally backfired on him when Bacon was voted into the seat of governorship instead. I don’t personally believe that Bacon was the proper choice for governor, but as I said earlier, hindsight is 20/20. After implementing some laws (such as forcing officeholders to do their jobs without bribes) that were Bacon’s only redeeming act in my eyes, he left his office and went back to raiding and pillaging Native American (many of whom were innocent of any wrong doings entirely) settlements. Berkeley took the initiative here and re-proclaimed Bacon a traitor. Bacon responded in kind, and the truly violent segment of Bacon’s Rebellion began.
-----Because of William Berkeley and Nathaniel Bacon, many farms and plantations were burned to ashes. Bacon was fighting the losing fight, as he was too stubborn to think about postponing his raids on the Indian settlements so as to more effectively defend against Berkeley’s army. Along with Bacon’s untimely death, the rebellion was crushed, and most of the conspirators were hung. This rebellion wound up causing England to take a stricter hand in governing Chesapeake, but at the cost of hundreds of people’s lives. This rebellion was more of a personal battle between Bacon and Berkeley than it was a revolution, with each side having its fair share of responsibility in it. I believe that if both Bacon and Berkeley had been willing to compromise this might have ended much differently, and with little to no blood spent on rebellion.
-----One could draw many connections between Bacon’s Rebellion and the modern American political system. In the American political system, there are two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Much like Bacon’s Rebellion, one side thinks that it has the answer to all the problems that are presented, and that the other side is incompetent and unwilling to compromise. In both cases (Bacon’s Rebellion and in our political system) each side attempts to paint the other as negatively as they can, while trying to rally as much support behind their own ideas and polices as they can. In the current race for president, both John McCain and Barak Obama are using negative TV adds to quote the other candidate saying things that don’t appeal to the common people of America. A similar thing happened in Chesapeake, but that involved written declarations, not television advertisements. If either side had (or in our time was) willing to compromise, a much better outcome might have been reached.
Somewhat Rough Draft number 1 v1.0
In the summer of 1676, a revolution began in the colony of Virginia that changed England’s policies for governing its colonies forever. This revolution was a battle of two individuals using various excuses, such as unfair taxation and Indian policy, to get the people of Virginia behind their ideas of what should be done to make their colony a utopia. The war was later called Bacon’s Rebellion, named after Nathaniel Bacon Jr., the renegade leader of the people rebelling against William Berkeley, the corrupt governor of Virginia. These two men were very influential in the Virginia colony, and they both were deeply entrenched in their views about how the Indian threat should be handled. Sadly, they could in no way agree on how it should be handled. Bacon thought that all trade and land agreements with the local tribes should be forgone and the colonists should slaughter the Indians, to stop the attacks from the hostile Indians, while Berkeley wanted to maintain the peace with the Indians and follow the laws that had been set in place, so as to keep benefiting from the pelt trade that was making him one of the richest people in America at the time. Sadly, Berkeley’s policy came at the cost of not allowing the frontiersmen the ability to adequately defend themselves from the tribes that were in fact hostile, while Bacon’s plan of destroying all the hostile Indians did not leave any room for the friendly Indian tribes. Thus, this as well as several other issues such as unfair taxation and low profits from the tobacco being grown in the Chesapeake area, turned into a prolonged rebellion, with both sides labeling the other as a traitor to the crown of England. Though it seems a common occurrence for people who read about Bacon’s Rebellion to take Bacon’s side in their historical analysis, I find too many faults in both Bacon and Berkeley to feel comfortable saying that either person had the correct ideas of how the situation should have been handled. I believe that both Nathaniel Bacon and William Berkeley were responsible for inciting and prolonging Bacon’s Rebellion.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted. As if to further my point, Bacon had to leave Cambridge University after being caught attempting to defraud an acquaintance there. He was given a chance at a new beginning when his father and brother-in-law sent him to Virginia in hopes of him maturing, giving him a large sum of money to start up his own plantation. Upon his arrival, William Berkeley helped Bacon buy two estates with which to start up his farm. Later, Berkeley even gave Bacon the honorary seat on the council, saying “Gentlemen of your quality come very rarely into this country, and therefore when they do come are used by me with all respect," (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). Berkeley even gave Bacon permission to trade with the Indians, a privilege he allowed only a few people in Virginia.
One might think that with all the help he was given once he got to America Bacon might have settled down and lived a comfortable life as a plantation owner, but that would not be the case. About two years after arriving and building up his plantation, Bacon’s overseer was killed in a raid by a local Indian tribe. I do not know whether Bacon had truly despised the Indian tribes before this (as many of the frontiersmen did, most with little to no reason), but after this incident he surely did. It was soon after this incident that he sent notice to William Berkeley, requesting a military commission allowing him to form a militia that could legally attack the local Indian tribes. Without waiting for a response, he formed an “extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission” (Puglisi’s Essay, page 77), and began his campaign against the tribes.
When William Berkeley got this notice he denied Bacon’s request, as it was against the law that had been in place for decades. I assume that it was not long after his denying of Bacon’s request (more of a demand really) that he received reports of an army of frontier farmers was destroying Indian settlements indiscriminately. Berkeley now had two choices. He could attempt to appease the people under his governorship by talking and compromising with Bacon and allowing him to in fact receive a limited military commission, or he could declare Bacon a traitor and demand that he disband his army and go home. Not surprisingly he chose the latter option. Once he had done this, he demanded that Bacon be arrested, which he was. (From Wikipedia, so a grain of salt should be taken with it), “On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his makeshift army issued a Declaration of the People of Virginia,[4] demanding that natives in the area be killed or removed, and an end of the rule of "parasites."[2] The declaration also criticized Berkeley's administration, accusing him of levying unfair taxes, of appointing friends to high positions, and of failing to protect outlying farmers from Indian attack.” This explanation of Bacon’s “Declaration of the People” is almost exactly how I understood it, and I agree with most of Bacon’s attacks on William Berkeley’s character. After he realized that the common people of Virginia did not like their hero called a traitor and rebel, he was intimidated into hosting a reelection, in hopes of appeasing the people. This completely backfired on him however, when Bacon was elected into the seat of governor, and many of the Grandees were replaced.
While Bacon was in his seat of power, he enacted laws that I consider one of the few things that he did that I might call good. These were known as Bacon’s Laws, and they had several positive effects and fixes to the old governing system of the Virginian government of the time. The history book (The American Promise) has this to say on the laws, “Among other changes, the laws gave local settlers a voice in setting tax levies, forbade officeholders from demanding bribes or other extra fees for carrying out their duties, placed limits on holding multiple offices, and restored the vote to all freemen.” As I mentioned earlier, these laws were an excellent thing for Bacon to do, and one of his few redeeming acts of his rebellion. Unfortunately for the colonists of Virginia and the hope that Bacon’s Rebellion would come to a close quickly, Bacon was not content to simply govern the people of Virginia. Instead of allowing the frontier farmers to properly defend and retaliate against Indian offensives, he abandoned his seat of government in favor of leading his army to attack the Indians in a more direct manner.
The Grandees who had been removed from power decided to seize this opportunity, and demanded that Berkeley re-declare Bacon a traitor. Not surprisingly, Bacon took this poorly. He also re-declared Berkeley a traitor, and once again the two factions were fighting, Bacon against Berkeley and the Indians, Berkeley against some 500 angry frontier settlers who burned down many of the large plantations. Sadly, this time Bacon would die of dysentery before he could do anything to redeem his actions that tore the breach of the rich Grandees and the poor frontier farmers wide. With no leader, the rebel farmers were quickly caught and hung by William Berkeley, after he received around 1300 reinforcements from England.
In the aftermath of this terrible, bloody, failed revolution, the English king launched an investigation into what happened in Virginia. Once the investigator’s reports got back to the king, he decided to do several things. These included having a governor of his choice rule Virginia, and implementing a new tax on Virginia to pay for all the damage that was done. If anything, life for the frontier farmers was made harder, instead of Bacon’s apparent motive of giving them more power and William Berkeley lost his control over the government that he had held for so long. In the end, the two people that were responsible for all the bloodshed during the revolution were either dead or removed from their seat of power, not leading a army seeking vengeance against the Indians or maintaining their monopoly on Indian trading as the case may have been.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted. As if to further my point, Bacon had to leave Cambridge University after being caught attempting to defraud an acquaintance there. He was given a chance at a new beginning when his father and brother-in-law sent him to Virginia in hopes of him maturing, giving him a large sum of money to start up his own plantation. Upon his arrival, William Berkeley helped Bacon buy two estates with which to start up his farm. Later, Berkeley even gave Bacon the honorary seat on the council, saying “Gentlemen of your quality come very rarely into this country, and therefore when they do come are used by me with all respect," (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). Berkeley even gave Bacon permission to trade with the Indians, a privilege he allowed only a few people in Virginia.
One might think that with all the help he was given once he got to America Bacon might have settled down and lived a comfortable life as a plantation owner, but that would not be the case. About two years after arriving and building up his plantation, Bacon’s overseer was killed in a raid by a local Indian tribe. I do not know whether Bacon had truly despised the Indian tribes before this (as many of the frontiersmen did, most with little to no reason), but after this incident he surely did. It was soon after this incident that he sent notice to William Berkeley, requesting a military commission allowing him to form a militia that could legally attack the local Indian tribes. Without waiting for a response, he formed an “extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission” (Puglisi’s Essay, page 77), and began his campaign against the tribes.
When William Berkeley got this notice he denied Bacon’s request, as it was against the law that had been in place for decades. I assume that it was not long after his denying of Bacon’s request (more of a demand really) that he received reports of an army of frontier farmers was destroying Indian settlements indiscriminately. Berkeley now had two choices. He could attempt to appease the people under his governorship by talking and compromising with Bacon and allowing him to in fact receive a limited military commission, or he could declare Bacon a traitor and demand that he disband his army and go home. Not surprisingly he chose the latter option. Once he had done this, he demanded that Bacon be arrested, which he was. (From Wikipedia, so a grain of salt should be taken with it), “On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his makeshift army issued a Declaration of the People of Virginia,[4] demanding that natives in the area be killed or removed, and an end of the rule of "parasites."[2] The declaration also criticized Berkeley's administration, accusing him of levying unfair taxes, of appointing friends to high positions, and of failing to protect outlying farmers from Indian attack.” This explanation of Bacon’s “Declaration of the People” is almost exactly how I understood it, and I agree with most of Bacon’s attacks on William Berkeley’s character. After he realized that the common people of Virginia did not like their hero called a traitor and rebel, he was intimidated into hosting a reelection, in hopes of appeasing the people. This completely backfired on him however, when Bacon was elected into the seat of governor, and many of the Grandees were replaced.
While Bacon was in his seat of power, he enacted laws that I consider one of the few things that he did that I might call good. These were known as Bacon’s Laws, and they had several positive effects and fixes to the old governing system of the Virginian government of the time. The history book (The American Promise) has this to say on the laws, “Among other changes, the laws gave local settlers a voice in setting tax levies, forbade officeholders from demanding bribes or other extra fees for carrying out their duties, placed limits on holding multiple offices, and restored the vote to all freemen.” As I mentioned earlier, these laws were an excellent thing for Bacon to do, and one of his few redeeming acts of his rebellion. Unfortunately for the colonists of Virginia and the hope that Bacon’s Rebellion would come to a close quickly, Bacon was not content to simply govern the people of Virginia. Instead of allowing the frontier farmers to properly defend and retaliate against Indian offensives, he abandoned his seat of government in favor of leading his army to attack the Indians in a more direct manner.
The Grandees who had been removed from power decided to seize this opportunity, and demanded that Berkeley re-declare Bacon a traitor. Not surprisingly, Bacon took this poorly. He also re-declared Berkeley a traitor, and once again the two factions were fighting, Bacon against Berkeley and the Indians, Berkeley against some 500 angry frontier settlers who burned down many of the large plantations. Sadly, this time Bacon would die of dysentery before he could do anything to redeem his actions that tore the breach of the rich Grandees and the poor frontier farmers wide. With no leader, the rebel farmers were quickly caught and hung by William Berkeley, after he received around 1300 reinforcements from England.
In the aftermath of this terrible, bloody, failed revolution, the English king launched an investigation into what happened in Virginia. Once the investigator’s reports got back to the king, he decided to do several things. These included having a governor of his choice rule Virginia, and implementing a new tax on Virginia to pay for all the damage that was done. If anything, life for the frontier farmers was made harder, instead of Bacon’s apparent motive of giving them more power and William Berkeley lost his control over the government that he had held for so long. In the end, the two people that were responsible for all the bloodshed during the revolution were either dead or removed from their seat of power, not leading a army seeking vengeance against the Indians or maintaining their monopoly on Indian trading as the case may have been.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Rough Draft number 1 v1.2
In the summer of 1676, a revolution began in the colony of Virginia that changed England’s policies for governing it’s colonies for ever. This revolution was a battle of two individuals using various excuses, such as unfair taxation and Indian policy, to get the people of Virginia behind their ideas of what should be done to make their colony a place of their own personal utopia. The revolution was later called Bacon’s Rebellion, named after Nathaniel Bacon Jr., the renegade leader of the people rebelling against William Berkeley, the corrupt governor of Virginia for 15 years. These two men were very influential in the Virginia colony, and they both were deeply entrenched in their views about how the “encroaching” Indian threat should be handled. Unfortunately they could in no way agree on how it should be handled. Bacon thought that all trade and land agreements with the local tribes should be forgone and the colonists should slaughter the Indians, so as to prevent any further retaliatory attacks from them, while Berkeley wanted to maintain the peace with the Indians and follow the laws that had been set in place for a long time, so as to keep benefiting from the beaver pelt trade that was making him one of the richest people in America at the time. Sadly, Berkeley’s policy came at the cost of not allowing the frontiersmen the ability to adequately defend themselves from the tribes that were in fact hostile, and to add insult to injury (or vice versa as the case may be) he had forts built in less than ideal locations, using extra taxes to pay for them. Thus, this as well as several other issues such as unfair taxation and low profits from the tobacco being grown in the Chesapeake area, turned into a prolonged rebellion, with both sides labeling the other as a traitor to the crown of England. Though it seems a common occurrence for people who read about Bacon’s Rebellion to take Bacon’s side in their historical analysis, I find too many faults in both Bacon as well as Berkeley to feel comfortable saying that either person had the correct ideas of how the situation should have been handled. I believe that both Nathaniel Bacon and William Berkeley were equally responsible for inciting Bacon’s Rebellion.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted. To further exemplify this, he had to leave Cambridge University after being caught attempting to defraud an acquaintance there. He was given a chance at a new beginning when his father and brother-in-law sent him to Virginia, giving him a large sum of money to start up his own plantation. Upon his arrival, William Berkeley helped Bacon buy two estates with which to start up his farm. Later, Berkeley even gave Bacon the honorary seat on the council, saying “Gentlemen of your quality come very rarely into this country, and therefore when they do come are used by me with all respect," (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). Berkeley even gave Bacon permission to trade with the Indians, a privilege he allowed only a few people in Virginia. Bacon would later throw this in his face, once he had decided that any dealing with the Indians was a traitorous act.
William Berkeley was not an innocent bystander by any accounts, no matter how bad a person Bacon was. He had delayed having a re-election of the council, or of course his own seat as governor, for 16 years. Because of this, he had a strong monopoly of the trade with the Indians, allowing only a select few to also participate in such dealings as the beaver pelt business, which was insanely lucrative during the 1600-mid 1800s (and is indeed still a fairly productive trade). With all of his money and influence as governor, Berkeley put into effect many taxes that took money from people, often with little to no gain for said payees. One example of this was when he ordered the construction of several forts at the heads of various rivers in response to the complaints of the farmers of Indian attacks on their farms. This was in fact a heavy factor in inciting Bacon’s Rebellion, as it was one of the things that caused common farmers to form their own community militias that Bacon took control of.
It is quite clear when you look at any historical document that it was indeed Bacon who fired the proverbial first shot in Bacon’s Rebellion, but why is a controversial topic. I personally believe that he was motivated solely by his desire to destroy the local Indian tribes that he held responsible for the death of his overseer on his plantation. This is proven by his sending of a letter to Berkeley requesting permission to form an army to attack the Indians, but without waiting for a reply, Bacon formed an “extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission”(Puglisi’s Essay, page 77). This history book gives us a quote from Bacon himself, "Bacon proclaimed his 'Design not only to ruine and extirpate all Indians in Generall but all Manner of Trade and Commerce with them’”. In the second example, he throws Berkeley’s surprising generosity in his face; by disowning any former trade agreements he had previously been given. Although it seems his motives were quite clear, Bacon did not hesitate to use the common farmer’s anger at things that had only benefited Bacon, such as tax policies that taxed the poorer farmers and not the richer “Grandees”, to rally them behind his cause and to attack the Indians. Bacon realized however, that to keep the people behind him, he would have to satisfy their demands for a reform of the political and economic system, so published his “Declaration of the People” in July of 1676. In this declaration, he claimed that William Berkeley was corrupt, and wanted peace with the Indians for his own personal gain. By doing this, he made sure that the people he had under his command were loyal to him, so that he could continue his own campaign.
Although Bacon was the one who is easiest to blame for starting the rebellion, William Berkeley played no small part in inciting it. When Bacon sent his request for a military commission to attack the Indian tribes, Berkeley denied it because he was afraid that the friendly Indian tribes would also be destroyed. Although this seems noble, it is also fairly naive. Instead of banning all attacks against the Indians, he could have demanded that only certain tribes be attacked, or had the friendly Indians get out of the area. This would have appeased much of the frontiersmen’s anger, as opposed to fueling it even more by not allowing them to defend against the Indian attacks adequately or retaliating at all. To make matters worse, when he found out that Bacon had gone ahead with his attack against the Indians, he proclaimed Bacon, the hero of the people, a traitor to England. With this proclamation, he essentially ensured that the people of Virginia would rally behind their hero against the corrupt Grandee led government. When Bacon returned the favor by naming Berkeley a traitor to England, Berkeley realized that he had put himself in a dangerous position, and he attempted to re-establish his standing as governor by have the first election in 16 years. Unfortunately for him, the election backfired severely, and Bacon was voted into the governor’s seat, and most of the Grandees lost their places on the council.
When Bacon gained his seat as governor by vote of Virginia, he enacted several laws in quick succession, which are known as Bacon’s Laws. “…the laws gave local settlers a voice in setting tax levies, forbade officeholders from demanding bribes or their extra fees for carrying out their duties, placed limits on holding multiple offices, and restored the vote to all freemen.”(History book, 92). I have to congratulate Bacon on these laws, as they seem to be the precursor to our system of checks and balances in our American government, but that does not change the fact that soon after establishing these laws he left his office to go attack the Indians again. Not long after he left, the Grandees convinced Berkeley to re-declare Bacon a traitor. Needless to say, Bacon did not take this very well. He declared war on Berkeley and the Grandees, and the two factions fought for three months. Bacon was not fighting the winning fight however, as he refused to spot fighting the Indians while fighting Berkeley. His forces were raiding Indian homes while at the same time sacking the Grandees plantations, and attacking Jamestown, showing just how desperate he was to get vengeance from the Indians for killing his overseer. Berkeley eventually won the war, once Bacon died suddenly of a disease and some 1300 British soldiers came to reinforce Berkeley, and he promptly hung most of Bacon’s supporters.
I hope that this verbose essay has shown you that both Bacon and Berkeley were equally responsible for inciting a terrible rebellion. Through their reckless actions, they left many people with ruined farms and homes, and decimated the local Indian tribes. This is all because neither was willing to back down from their position and realize that what they were doing was not necessarily for the people of the Virginia colony as it was for themselves.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted. To further exemplify this, he had to leave Cambridge University after being caught attempting to defraud an acquaintance there. He was given a chance at a new beginning when his father and brother-in-law sent him to Virginia, giving him a large sum of money to start up his own plantation. Upon his arrival, William Berkeley helped Bacon buy two estates with which to start up his farm. Later, Berkeley even gave Bacon the honorary seat on the council, saying “Gentlemen of your quality come very rarely into this country, and therefore when they do come are used by me with all respect," (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). Berkeley even gave Bacon permission to trade with the Indians, a privilege he allowed only a few people in Virginia. Bacon would later throw this in his face, once he had decided that any dealing with the Indians was a traitorous act.
William Berkeley was not an innocent bystander by any accounts, no matter how bad a person Bacon was. He had delayed having a re-election of the council, or of course his own seat as governor, for 16 years. Because of this, he had a strong monopoly of the trade with the Indians, allowing only a select few to also participate in such dealings as the beaver pelt business, which was insanely lucrative during the 1600-mid 1800s (and is indeed still a fairly productive trade). With all of his money and influence as governor, Berkeley put into effect many taxes that took money from people, often with little to no gain for said payees. One example of this was when he ordered the construction of several forts at the heads of various rivers in response to the complaints of the farmers of Indian attacks on their farms. This was in fact a heavy factor in inciting Bacon’s Rebellion, as it was one of the things that caused common farmers to form their own community militias that Bacon took control of.
It is quite clear when you look at any historical document that it was indeed Bacon who fired the proverbial first shot in Bacon’s Rebellion, but why is a controversial topic. I personally believe that he was motivated solely by his desire to destroy the local Indian tribes that he held responsible for the death of his overseer on his plantation. This is proven by his sending of a letter to Berkeley requesting permission to form an army to attack the Indians, but without waiting for a reply, Bacon formed an “extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission”(Puglisi’s Essay, page 77). This history book gives us a quote from Bacon himself, "Bacon proclaimed his 'Design not only to ruine and extirpate all Indians in Generall but all Manner of Trade and Commerce with them’”. In the second example, he throws Berkeley’s surprising generosity in his face; by disowning any former trade agreements he had previously been given. Although it seems his motives were quite clear, Bacon did not hesitate to use the common farmer’s anger at things that had only benefited Bacon, such as tax policies that taxed the poorer farmers and not the richer “Grandees”, to rally them behind his cause and to attack the Indians. Bacon realized however, that to keep the people behind him, he would have to satisfy their demands for a reform of the political and economic system, so published his “Declaration of the People” in July of 1676. In this declaration, he claimed that William Berkeley was corrupt, and wanted peace with the Indians for his own personal gain. By doing this, he made sure that the people he had under his command were loyal to him, so that he could continue his own campaign.
Although Bacon was the one who is easiest to blame for starting the rebellion, William Berkeley played no small part in inciting it. When Bacon sent his request for a military commission to attack the Indian tribes, Berkeley denied it because he was afraid that the friendly Indian tribes would also be destroyed. Although this seems noble, it is also fairly naive. Instead of banning all attacks against the Indians, he could have demanded that only certain tribes be attacked, or had the friendly Indians get out of the area. This would have appeased much of the frontiersmen’s anger, as opposed to fueling it even more by not allowing them to defend against the Indian attacks adequately or retaliating at all. To make matters worse, when he found out that Bacon had gone ahead with his attack against the Indians, he proclaimed Bacon, the hero of the people, a traitor to England. With this proclamation, he essentially ensured that the people of Virginia would rally behind their hero against the corrupt Grandee led government. When Bacon returned the favor by naming Berkeley a traitor to England, Berkeley realized that he had put himself in a dangerous position, and he attempted to re-establish his standing as governor by have the first election in 16 years. Unfortunately for him, the election backfired severely, and Bacon was voted into the governor’s seat, and most of the Grandees lost their places on the council.
When Bacon gained his seat as governor by vote of Virginia, he enacted several laws in quick succession, which are known as Bacon’s Laws. “…the laws gave local settlers a voice in setting tax levies, forbade officeholders from demanding bribes or their extra fees for carrying out their duties, placed limits on holding multiple offices, and restored the vote to all freemen.”(History book, 92). I have to congratulate Bacon on these laws, as they seem to be the precursor to our system of checks and balances in our American government, but that does not change the fact that soon after establishing these laws he left his office to go attack the Indians again. Not long after he left, the Grandees convinced Berkeley to re-declare Bacon a traitor. Needless to say, Bacon did not take this very well. He declared war on Berkeley and the Grandees, and the two factions fought for three months. Bacon was not fighting the winning fight however, as he refused to spot fighting the Indians while fighting Berkeley. His forces were raiding Indian homes while at the same time sacking the Grandees plantations, and attacking Jamestown, showing just how desperate he was to get vengeance from the Indians for killing his overseer. Berkeley eventually won the war, once Bacon died suddenly of a disease and some 1300 British soldiers came to reinforce Berkeley, and he promptly hung most of Bacon’s supporters.
I hope that this verbose essay has shown you that both Bacon and Berkeley were equally responsible for inciting a terrible rebellion. Through their reckless actions, they left many people with ruined farms and homes, and decimated the local Indian tribes. This is all because neither was willing to back down from their position and realize that what they were doing was not necessarily for the people of the Virginia colony as it was for themselves.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Rough Draft Number 1 v1.1
In the summer of 1676, a revolution began in the colony of Virginia that changed England’s policies for governing it’s colonies for ever. This revolution was a battle of two individuals using various excuses, such as unfair taxation and Indian policy, to get the people of Virginia behind their ideas of what should be done to make their colony a place of their own personal utopia. The revolution was later called Bacon’s Rebellion, named after Nathaniel Bacon Jr., the renegade leader of the people rebelling against William Berkeley, the corrupt governor of Virginia for 15 years. These two men were very influential in the Virginia colony, and they both were deeply entrenched in their views about how the “encroaching” Indian threat should be handled. Unfortunately they could in no way agree on how it should be handled. Bacon thought that all trade and land agreements with the local tribes should be forgone and the colonists should slaughter the Indians, so as to prevent any further retaliatory attacks from them, while Berkeley wanted to maintain the peace with the Indians and follow the laws that had been set in place for a long time, so as to keep benefiting from the beaver pelt trade that was making him one of the richest people in America at the time. Sadly, Berkeley’s policy came at the cost of not allowing the frontiersmen the ability to adequately defend themselves from the tribes that were in fact hostile, and to add insult to injury (or vice versa as the case may be) he had forts built in less than ideal locations, using extra taxes to pay for them. Thus, this as well as several other issues such as unfair taxation and low profits from the tobacco being grown in the Chesapeake area, turned into a prolonged rebellion, with both sides labeling the other as a traitor to the crown of England. Though it seems a common occurrence for people who read about Bacon’s Rebellion to take Bacon’s side in their historical analysis, I find too many faults in both Bacon as well as Berkeley to feel comfortable saying that either person had the correct ideas of how the situation should have been handled. I believe that both Nathaniel Bacon and William Berkeley were equally responsible for inciting Bacon’s Rebellion.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted. To further exemplify this, he had to leave Cambridge University after being caught attempting to defraud an acquaintance there. He was given a chance at a new beginning when his father and brother-in-law sent him to Virginia, giving him £1800 to start up his own plantation. Upon his arrival, William Berkeley helped Bacon buy two estates with which to start up his farm. Later, Berkeley even gave Bacon the honorary seat on the council, saying “Gentlemen of your quality come very rarely into this country, and therefore when they do come are used by me with all respect," (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). Berkeley even gave Bacon permission to trade with the Indians, a privilege he allowed only a few people in Virginia. Bacon would later throw this in his face, once he had decided that any dealing with the Indians was a traitorous act.
Berkeley was not an innocent bystander by any accounts, no matter how bad a person Bacon was. He had delayed having a re-election of the council, or of course his own seat as governor, for 16 years. Because of this, he had a strong monopoly of the trade with the Indians, allowing only a select few to also participate in such dealings as the beaver pelt business, which was insanely lucrative during the 1600-mid 1800s (and is indeed still a fairly productive trade). With all of his money and influence as governor, Berkeley put into effect many taxes that took money from people, often with little to no gain for said payees. One example of this was when he ordered the construction of several forts at the heads of various rivers in response to the complaints of the farmers of Indian attacks on their farms. This was in fact a heavy factor in inciting Bacon’s Rebellion, as it was one of the things that caused common farmers to form their own community militias that Bacon took over.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted. To further exemplify this, he had to leave Cambridge University after being caught attempting to defraud an acquaintance there. He was given a chance at a new beginning when his father and brother-in-law sent him to Virginia, giving him £1800 to start up his own plantation. Upon his arrival, William Berkeley helped Bacon buy two estates with which to start up his farm. Later, Berkeley even gave Bacon the honorary seat on the council, saying “Gentlemen of your quality come very rarely into this country, and therefore when they do come are used by me with all respect," (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon). Berkeley even gave Bacon permission to trade with the Indians, a privilege he allowed only a few people in Virginia. Bacon would later throw this in his face, once he had decided that any dealing with the Indians was a traitorous act.
Berkeley was not an innocent bystander by any accounts, no matter how bad a person Bacon was. He had delayed having a re-election of the council, or of course his own seat as governor, for 16 years. Because of this, he had a strong monopoly of the trade with the Indians, allowing only a select few to also participate in such dealings as the beaver pelt business, which was insanely lucrative during the 1600-mid 1800s (and is indeed still a fairly productive trade). With all of his money and influence as governor, Berkeley put into effect many taxes that took money from people, often with little to no gain for said payees. One example of this was when he ordered the construction of several forts at the heads of various rivers in response to the complaints of the farmers of Indian attacks on their farms. This was in fact a heavy factor in inciting Bacon’s Rebellion, as it was one of the things that caused common farmers to form their own community militias that Bacon took over.
Liberty of the Press, November, 1733:
Author: The author of the article, Liberty of the Press, is not given in the document, but he was likely influenced by the trial of John Peter Zinger, who was the editor of the newspaper that this article was published.
Audience: This document was intended to be read and interpreted by anyone who is confused as to why liberty of the press is such a crucial idea in our society, and to those who feel that it is not a requirement for freemen to also have freedom of the press. It makes this argument by equating liberty of the press to prevention of slavery of the people.
Who is the writer representing: The writer is representing everyone involved in journalism, printed or digital, as well as the free people of the various countries/colonies that have or want freedom of the press.
What/how is he saying, arguing, and/or representing: The author is saying in the two articles that the writers of articles meant to inform have a duty and right to say the truth, without the government being able to censor any of the content of the articles. He makes this argument by saying in his second article, “No nation ancient or modern every lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves. LIBERTY and SLAVERY! how amiable is one! how odious and abominable the other!”
Audience: This document was intended to be read and interpreted by anyone who is confused as to why liberty of the press is such a crucial idea in our society, and to those who feel that it is not a requirement for freemen to also have freedom of the press. It makes this argument by equating liberty of the press to prevention of slavery of the people.
Who is the writer representing: The writer is representing everyone involved in journalism, printed or digital, as well as the free people of the various countries/colonies that have or want freedom of the press.
What/how is he saying, arguing, and/or representing: The author is saying in the two articles that the writers of articles meant to inform have a duty and right to say the truth, without the government being able to censor any of the content of the articles. He makes this argument by saying in his second article, “No nation ancient or modern every lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves. LIBERTY and SLAVERY! how amiable is one! how odious and abominable the other!”
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Slavery Images
I thought that the pictures were very evocative. They showed the horrible conditions that the African slaves endured, and the biography of the event you read to us in class only proved even more the cruel treatment that they faced.
Rough Draft Number 1v1.0
In the summer of 1676, a revolution began in the colony of Virginia. This revolution was a battle of two individuals using various excuses to get the people of Virginia behind their policies and ideas of what should be done to make their colony a place of their own personal utopia. The revolution was later called Bacon’s Rebellion, named after Nathaniel Bacon Jr., the leader of the people rebelling against William Berkeley, the governor of Virginia for 15 years. These two men were very influential in the Virginia colony, and they both were stubborn in their views about how the “encroaching” Indian threat should be handled. Unfortunately they could in no way agree on how it should be handled. Bacon thought that all trade and land agreements with the local tribes should be forgone and the colonists should attack the Indians, while Berkeley wanted to maintain the peace with the Indians and follow the laws that had been in place for a long time, so as to keep benefiting from the beaver pelt trade that was making him one of the richest people in America at the time. Unfortunately, Berkeley’s policy came at the cost of not allowing the frontiersmen the ability to adequately defend themselves from the tribes that were in fact hostile. Thus, this as well as several other issues such as unfair taxation and low profits from the tobacco being grown in the Chesapeake area, turned into a prolonged rebellion, with both sides labeling the other as a traitor to the crown of England. Though it seems a common occurrence for people who read about Bacon’s Rebellion to take Bacon’s side in their historical analysis, I find too many faults in both Bacon as well as Berkeley to feel comfortable saying that either person had the correct ideas of how the situation should have been handled. I believe that both Nathaniel Bacon and William Berkeley were equally responsible for inciting Bacon’s Rebellion.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted.
Bacon had a history of disobeying the laws before he ever even arrived in Virginia. “A contemporary remembered him as being tall and slender, ‘blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon), which paints Bacon as a man who did not want any sort of authority over him, and would do whatever he needed to get what he wanted.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Both William Berkely and Nathaniel Bacon incited the event known as Bacon's Rebellion
I. Nathaniel Bacon was a trouble maker in England.
--A.He got kicked out of Cambridge for fraud.
----1.http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon, "Nathaniel Bacon was born on Jan. 2, 1647, at Friston Hall, Suffolk, England. He was the only son of Thomas Bacon, a wealthy landowner....'blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.' These traits of character were evident in Bacon's withdrawal from Cambridge without completing a degree. Upon his marriage to Elizabeth Duke,the bride's father rejected the match and disinherited his daughter....Shortly thereafter, the impetuous Bacon became involved in a scheme to defraud an acquaintance."
------a.This is relevant because it sets a precedent for civil disobedience.
II. Berkeley was not allowing for a re-election of government officials.
--A.Berkeley put into affect many taxes benefiting only "Grandees", and he stayed in office from 1661 to 1676.
----1. I am looking for the source where I found this information.
------a. If this was the precedent of the time, he was asking for the common people to be unhappy.
III. Bacon's motive was to kill the natives, not to protect the common people.
--A.Bacon formed an "extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission." "Bacon proclaimed his 'Design not only to ruine and extirpate all Indians in Generall but all Manner of Trade and Commerce with them'"
----1. I will be using information from Puglisi's essay on Indian repression, on page 77, paragraph 2. I will also be using information from the history book, from page 91.
------a. If Bacon only wanted to attack the natives, then he was tricking the common people.
IV.Berkely declared Bacon a traitor only to discredit him with the people, and possibly to hid his dipping into public funds.
--A. He declared him a traitor only when he denounced the government, not before he had attacked the natives.
----1. I will look in Puglisi's essay. Evidence found in the quote from the book, "Bacon also urged the colonists to 'see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure'...Hoping to maintain the fragile peace on the frontier in 1676, Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a rebel".
------a. Since he declared him a traitor only when he was intimidated, it shows that he was only willing to act once he was in danger of losing total control of the government.
V. Bacon's Rebellion can be tied into today with modern day politics.
--A. One side will always think that they are right on all accounts, while the other will disagree with almost everything, and both sidtes will try to turn the population against the other.
----1. CNN news, on going.
------a. Both Obama and McCain are trying to turn the people of America against the other faction using negative adds and attacks on the other candidates leadership capabilities.
--A.He got kicked out of Cambridge for fraud.
----1.http://www.answers.com/topic/nathaniel-bacon, "Nathaniel Bacon was born on Jan. 2, 1647, at Friston Hall, Suffolk, England. He was the only son of Thomas Bacon, a wealthy landowner....'blackhair'd and of an ominous, pensive melancholy Aspect … not much given to talk, … of a most imperious and dangerous Pride of heart, despising the wiser of his neighbours for their Ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.' These traits of character were evident in Bacon's withdrawal from Cambridge without completing a degree. Upon his marriage to Elizabeth Duke,the bride's father rejected the match and disinherited his daughter....Shortly thereafter, the impetuous Bacon became involved in a scheme to defraud an acquaintance."
------a.This is relevant because it sets a precedent for civil disobedience.
II. Berkeley was not allowing for a re-election of government officials.
--A.Berkeley put into affect many taxes benefiting only "Grandees", and he stayed in office from 1661 to 1676.
----1. I am looking for the source where I found this information.
------a. If this was the precedent of the time, he was asking for the common people to be unhappy.
III. Bacon's motive was to kill the natives, not to protect the common people.
--A.Bacon formed an "extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission." "Bacon proclaimed his 'Design not only to ruine and extirpate all Indians in Generall but all Manner of Trade and Commerce with them'"
----1. I will be using information from Puglisi's essay on Indian repression, on page 77, paragraph 2. I will also be using information from the history book, from page 91.
------a. If Bacon only wanted to attack the natives, then he was tricking the common people.
IV.Berkely declared Bacon a traitor only to discredit him with the people, and possibly to hid his dipping into public funds.
--A. He declared him a traitor only when he denounced the government, not before he had attacked the natives.
----1. I will look in Puglisi's essay. Evidence found in the quote from the book, "Bacon also urged the colonists to 'see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure'...Hoping to maintain the fragile peace on the frontier in 1676, Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a rebel".
------a. Since he declared him a traitor only when he was intimidated, it shows that he was only willing to act once he was in danger of losing total control of the government.
V. Bacon's Rebellion can be tied into today with modern day politics.
--A. One side will always think that they are right on all accounts, while the other will disagree with almost everything, and both sidtes will try to turn the population against the other.
----1. CNN news, on going.
------a. Both Obama and McCain are trying to turn the people of America against the other faction using negative adds and attacks on the other candidates leadership capabilities.
Monday, October 13, 2008
hypothesis/thesis
I.Both William Berkely and Nathaniel Bacon incited the violent event known as Bacon's Rebellion. Notes on why I think this, but not using direct evidence other than one or two quotes.
II. I will mention that Bacon was kicked out of Cambridge, because of fraud charges. Berkely refused to allow a new election of government officials. Use a quote from the book or from the 47 documents to support my idea that these were both dangerous individuals.
III. Bacon started the rebellion by forming an "extra-legal army of 500 men" (from Puglisi). Attacking the Natives without a military commission. Opinion on his motives, such as the "Grandees" elitism, natives attacking.
IV.This may not have turned out to be a rebellion against Virginia, had Berkely not called Bacon a traitor. Opinion on his lack of leadership capabilities. Refusal to help the people of Virginia with the Native Americans, instead making them build less than useful forts (47 documents).
V. The fallout of these poor actions. Farms being pillaged by both sides, and William Berkely calling for a re-election where Bacon took the seat of governor. Bacon's Laws (use info. from the book). Bacon leaving power to go attack Indians. Use info. from the Investigations in the 47 documents.
VI. Bacon dying and then some 1300 English troops arriving to support Berkely. Bacon's rebellion over. Berkely hanging many of Bacon's supporters. Royal investigation called for more direct control from England.
VII. Conclusion. Restate thesis, and use some evidence to support it from the body.
II. I will mention that Bacon was kicked out of Cambridge, because of fraud charges. Berkely refused to allow a new election of government officials. Use a quote from the book or from the 47 documents to support my idea that these were both dangerous individuals.
III. Bacon started the rebellion by forming an "extra-legal army of 500 men" (from Puglisi). Attacking the Natives without a military commission. Opinion on his motives, such as the "Grandees" elitism, natives attacking.
IV.This may not have turned out to be a rebellion against Virginia, had Berkely not called Bacon a traitor. Opinion on his lack of leadership capabilities. Refusal to help the people of Virginia with the Native Americans, instead making them build less than useful forts (47 documents).
V. The fallout of these poor actions. Farms being pillaged by both sides, and William Berkely calling for a re-election where Bacon took the seat of governor. Bacon's Laws (use info. from the book). Bacon leaving power to go attack Indians. Use info. from the Investigations in the 47 documents.
VI. Bacon dying and then some 1300 English troops arriving to support Berkely. Bacon's rebellion over. Berkely hanging many of Bacon's supporters. Royal investigation called for more direct control from England.
VII. Conclusion. Restate thesis, and use some evidence to support it from the body.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
This goes out to you Ben
Quote, the first: I found the first quote from John Winthrope to be the most confusing, until it was explained to me. I now believe that this speech was given to grant hope to these people who were leaving everything they had ever known on a gamble that they could eek out a living in a land they had never seen before. It also served the purpose of telling the people to stick together so that they could remain strong.
Quote, the second: This was considerably easier to understand. Winthrope is saying that this is a new start for the Puritans, so that they could improve on the Protestant and Catholic religions they were leaving behind.
Quote, the third: In this part of his sermon, Winthrope is saying that the charter from the king to settle in America is a gift from God, a sign telling them to live by their 'pure' rules.
Quote, the fourth: Winthrope is essentially saying that New England will be the guiding light for future Puritans to take note of and use as an example to form their societies.
Quote, the second: This was considerably easier to understand. Winthrope is saying that this is a new start for the Puritans, so that they could improve on the Protestant and Catholic religions they were leaving behind.
Quote, the third: In this part of his sermon, Winthrope is saying that the charter from the king to settle in America is a gift from God, a sign telling them to live by their 'pure' rules.
Quote, the fourth: Winthrope is essentially saying that New England will be the guiding light for future Puritans to take note of and use as an example to form their societies.
This was not fun
I spent a really long time trying to get JSTOR to work, but I finally did. Unfortunately much that time was wasted, as much of the information I received from it was information I had already learned in other documents we had received. I searched by narrowing down the search parameters down until the information I was getting was only what I wanted, using keywords such as "Bacon's Rebellion", "William Berkely", "Nathaniel Bacon", and 1676. In the future I might try more than JSTOR and google. I found only articles of little to no use on google, and most of the JSTOR information was buried so deep in documents that were hard to translate into language I can easily read.
I forgot to add my citation of the two things I looked up on JSTOR.
Bacon's Rebellion
The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jul., 1900), pp. 1-10
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Isle of Wight County: Papers Relating to Bacon's Rebellion
Lyon G. Tyler
The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Oct., 1895), pp. 111-115
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
I forgot to add my citation of the two things I looked up on JSTOR.
Bacon's Rebellion
The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jul., 1900), pp. 1-10
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Isle of Wight County: Papers Relating to Bacon's Rebellion
Lyon G. Tyler
The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Oct., 1895), pp. 111-115
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Col 100 Z0/\/\G, /\/00B!
1)To gain a broad perspective relative to the different types of colleges, campuses, and programs, provide the name and a brief description of the following:
A public college: Highline: The school we go to! They offer up to a bachelor's degree in computer sciences, and are well known throughout the USA (or so I'm told)
A private college: Digipen A digital college! They offer a computer science class, with a focus on game programming. They offer online instruction programs.
Southern Oregon University: A small college, in Southern Oregon... not much information was to be gleaned from the guy we talked to.
A traditional large university: University of Washington Seattle: a LOT of students, with most of their classes having 50+ students.
A small alternative college: Evergreen State College, a strange college where you choose to major in one thing, and are required to take 2-3 other "disciplines", that tie into your major's classes.
2) Select a college major that you might be interesting in pursuing. Find three colleges that are known to offer quality programs in that major. You may choose only one of the three colleges from within the stat of Washington. Briefly describe what impressed you about each of these colleges. Then finally, describe how your overall educational experience might differ if you were to choosed one college over the others. In making your comparisons, be sure to consider some [of] the issues raised in the "suggested questions' above.
Southern Oregon University: I was impressed with the tiny class sizes. If I were to go here, I would not be able to live at home, or even near home, so much of my early college experience would be spent meeting new people and learning the lay of the land.
University of Washington, Tacoma: I was very impressed by the knowledge their person I talked to at their boothe displayed. I could live at home, or near home, if I went here, and since the class sizes are fairly small, I would be able to get a good amount of help from the professors (hopefully).
University of Advanced Technology: I liked their presentation at the college fair. If I went here, I would most likely be led by the ear into computer programming, and and further pressured to take classes in game programming. They offer online classes, so I could spend a lot of time not at school.
3) Attend at least one of the workshops during your time at the Fair. Briefly describe the content of the workshop and evaluate the information received.
This workshop was about financial aid help for those who are going to college. There was a lot of information presented, but it was presented so poorly that much of it was lost on me.
4)Write a personal evaluation of your experience of attending the National College Fair. Share whatever thoughts you have, but be sure to include a discussion of the following:
- What information was the most useful?
- What questions are still unanswered?
- What should now e included in the next phase of your educational and career planning process?
My first thought when I walked into the convention hall was one of amazed horror at the idea of choosing from all of the colleges available. I quickly found out that it was useful to know what colleges you wanted to look at first, and to look at the map for where to find them. I still don't know where to go on most web-sites to find accurate tuition costs. I should start emailing the school heads of attendance, as well as the heads of the computer science departments to find out the requirements for their classes. I also need to make sure that I can afford to take these classes.
A public college: Highline: The school we go to! They offer up to a bachelor's degree in computer sciences, and are well known throughout the USA (or so I'm told)
A private college: Digipen A digital college! They offer a computer science class, with a focus on game programming. They offer online instruction programs.
Southern Oregon University: A small college, in Southern Oregon... not much information was to be gleaned from the guy we talked to.
A traditional large university: University of Washington Seattle: a LOT of students, with most of their classes having 50+ students.
A small alternative college: Evergreen State College, a strange college where you choose to major in one thing, and are required to take 2-3 other "disciplines", that tie into your major's classes.
2) Select a college major that you might be interesting in pursuing. Find three colleges that are known to offer quality programs in that major. You may choose only one of the three colleges from within the stat of Washington. Briefly describe what impressed you about each of these colleges. Then finally, describe how your overall educational experience might differ if you were to choosed one college over the others. In making your comparisons, be sure to consider some [of] the issues raised in the "suggested questions' above.
Southern Oregon University: I was impressed with the tiny class sizes. If I were to go here, I would not be able to live at home, or even near home, so much of my early college experience would be spent meeting new people and learning the lay of the land.
University of Washington, Tacoma: I was very impressed by the knowledge their person I talked to at their boothe displayed. I could live at home, or near home, if I went here, and since the class sizes are fairly small, I would be able to get a good amount of help from the professors (hopefully).
University of Advanced Technology: I liked their presentation at the college fair. If I went here, I would most likely be led by the ear into computer programming, and and further pressured to take classes in game programming. They offer online classes, so I could spend a lot of time not at school.
3) Attend at least one of the workshops during your time at the Fair. Briefly describe the content of the workshop and evaluate the information received.
This workshop was about financial aid help for those who are going to college. There was a lot of information presented, but it was presented so poorly that much of it was lost on me.
4)Write a personal evaluation of your experience of attending the National College Fair. Share whatever thoughts you have, but be sure to include a discussion of the following:
- What information was the most useful?
- What questions are still unanswered?
- What should now e included in the next phase of your educational and career planning process?
My first thought when I walked into the convention hall was one of amazed horror at the idea of choosing from all of the colleges available. I quickly found out that it was useful to know what colleges you wanted to look at first, and to look at the map for where to find them. I still don't know where to go on most web-sites to find accurate tuition costs. I should start emailing the school heads of attendance, as well as the heads of the computer science departments to find out the requirements for their classes. I also need to make sure that I can afford to take these classes.
The second installment of our epic story: Bacon's Rebellion
The history of Bacon's Rebellion is one that has two clear points of view. One paints Nathaniel Bacon (for which the rebellion was later named) as a hero of the people, a man who was willing to leave his comfortable plantation in order to fight against a government which he saw as unjust towards its people. The other view points to Bacon's darker motives, those of slaughtering the Native Americans who lived near the frontier of the English owned land in America.The article titled 'Whether They Be Friends or Foes.' The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts, written by Michael J. Puglisi of Marian College, is evidence of the latter point of view, pointing out that Bacon, "arose to lead an extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission". The former view point is exemplified in this quote from Howard Zinn's A Young People's History of the United States: Volume One; Columbus to the Spanish-American War, "The frontiersmen felt that the colonial government had let them down. They were angry, and they weren't the only ones. Times were hard. Many Virginians scraped out a living in poverty or worked as servants in terrible conditions. In 1676, these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon."
In continuence with the former point of view of Bacon's motives for rebelling, an article titled The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion, 1676 shows what many of the frontiersmen thought of the native Americans, with the author saying, "For in a very short time [in January 1676, the Susquehannahs] had, in a most inhumane maner, murthered no less than60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any actuall injury don to these disarning, brutish heathen...". One might counter this argument with several other accounts by witnesses or investigators, numbering those killed by the Indians to be 36, many of whom did in fact provoke the natives attack by attempting to cheat them in trading. The latter hypothesis as to Bacon's motives is shown in this quote from A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, written by the Royal Commissioners sent by the King to investigate the Rebellion, "[Sometime in April 1676]...Bacon had got over the River with his Forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best friends...". This shows that many of the natives that Bacon decided to slaughter were in fact allies of the colonists, and were totally innocent of any wrong doings by other tribes. Unfortunately, this was not overly uncommon, as many of the people of Virginia and other colonies did not see any significant differences between the various Native American tribes.
In continuence with the former point of view of Bacon's motives for rebelling, an article titled The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion, 1676 shows what many of the frontiersmen thought of the native Americans, with the author saying, "For in a very short time [in January 1676, the Susquehannahs] had, in a most inhumane maner, murthered no less than60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any actuall injury don to these disarning, brutish heathen...". One might counter this argument with several other accounts by witnesses or investigators, numbering those killed by the Indians to be 36, many of whom did in fact provoke the natives attack by attempting to cheat them in trading. The latter hypothesis as to Bacon's motives is shown in this quote from A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, written by the Royal Commissioners sent by the King to investigate the Rebellion, "[Sometime in April 1676]...Bacon had got over the River with his Forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best friends...". This shows that many of the natives that Bacon decided to slaughter were in fact allies of the colonists, and were totally innocent of any wrong doings by other tribes. Unfortunately, this was not overly uncommon, as many of the people of Virginia and other colonies did not see any significant differences between the various Native American tribes.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
They Say: Bacon's Rebellion
The history of Bacon's Rebellion is one that has two clear points of view. One paints Nathaniel Bacon (for which the rebellion was later named) as a hero of the people, a man who was willing to leave his comfortable plantation in order to fight against a government which he saw as unjust towards its people. The other view points to Bacon's darker motives, those of slaughtering the Native Americans who lived near the frontier of the English owned land in America.The article titled 'Whether They Be Friends or Foes.' The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts, written by Michael J. Puglisi of Marian College, is evidence of the latter point of view, pointing out that Bacon, "arose to lead an extra-legal band of over 500 men, without commission". The former view point is exemplified in this quote from Howard Zinn's A Young People's History of the United States: Volume One; Columbus to the Spanish-American War, "The frontiersmen felt that the colonial government had let them down. They were angry, and they weren't the only ones. Times were hard. Many Virginians scraped out a living in poverty or worked as servants in terrible conditions. In 1676, these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon."
Thursday, October 2, 2008
I Had No Idea Freewrite
• “[T]he body is . . . directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.” (25)
The body equals the economy. This quote is about how the people who have money make the economy do what they want. They might be talking about the body being and indentured servant, or the government.
• “[I]t is largely as a force of production that the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labour power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection . . . the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body.” (26)
In this quote the body seems to definitely refer to the government, which is being portrayed as useless except when everything falls into place exactly how it is designed, with no margin for error. The beginning of the quote seems to call it corrupt.
• “In the darkest region of the political field the condemned man represents the symmetrical , inverted figure of the king.” (29)
I believe that darkest does not refer to evil, but represents the people who are not heard. The condemned man is the commoner who is not listened to, although he is the one who has actual experience of what the country needs. By “inverted figure of the king”, they are showing how the king is everything the common man is not.
The body equals the economy. This quote is about how the people who have money make the economy do what they want. They might be talking about the body being and indentured servant, or the government.
• “[I]t is largely as a force of production that the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labour power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection . . . the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body.” (26)
In this quote the body seems to definitely refer to the government, which is being portrayed as useless except when everything falls into place exactly how it is designed, with no margin for error. The beginning of the quote seems to call it corrupt.
• “In the darkest region of the political field the condemned man represents the symmetrical , inverted figure of the king.” (29)
I believe that darkest does not refer to evil, but represents the people who are not heard. The condemned man is the commoner who is not listened to, although he is the one who has actual experience of what the country needs. By “inverted figure of the king”, they are showing how the king is everything the common man is not.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Summary of A.T.E.C
In the document American Tobacco and European Consumers, the author makes the point obvious that the largest reason England continued to ship people to American was the tobacco produced in Virginia. The original purpose for the venture into America was for gold, but settlers found that they could make a much better living growing the native tobacco and selling it to people in England for a tidy sum. Originally the tobacco shipped from Virginia cost so much that only the nobles and royalty of England could afford to indulge in it, but eventually plantations in America produced so much as to drive the price down enough to allow the common folk of England to be able to afford this drug. There were some who opposed the use of tobacco, such as King James I, but even more considered it a sort of miracle drug saying, “to seek to tell the virtues and greatness of this holy herb, the ailments which can by cured by it, and have been, the evils from which it has saved thousands would be to go on to infinity…This precious herb is so general a human need {that it is} not only for the sick but for the health.” The tobacco created many new jobs, such as pipe-making, which provided many people of England with jobs. Tobacco could be imbibed many ways, but the two most common were smoking and snuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
