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.