Friday, November 18, 2005
History: The Man Who Made Himself a General: Nathaniel Bacon and his 1676 Rebellion in Virginia.
Blog introduction: A look back at an early American colony rebellion. From a paper written for college.
Michael S. Briggs
April 23, 1998
Table of Contents
Home
Introduction
Bacon Before the War
Berkeley Before the War
Reasons for the War
Bacon’s Motivation - Ambition vs. Real Concern for the People
The War (Rebellion)
Consequences of Bacon’s Death before the End of the War
Results of the War
What would have Happened if Bacon had Won the Rebellion?
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Three hundred and twenty-two years after Nathaniel Bacon led his band of Virginia colonists on the Indian warpath that became a rebellion, I will reconstruct what the rebellion was about and why the rebellion occurred. I will examine both of the main characters, Bacon and Berkeley, before they became entangled in the conflict. I will then briefly examine some of the reasons for the rebellion, and I will consider if Bacon actually cared about these reasons or used them to advance himself. I will examine if anything was accomplished by the results of the rebellion. Lastly, I will examine what might have happened if Bacon had been successful in capturing the Virginia colony with his small band of troops. Could the colony have tried to become independent a hundred years prior to the actual independence? Would Bacon even have considered independence, or was he too much of an Englishman? Who was Bacon and what was he like before the war?
Back Home
Bacon Before the War
According to Mary Newton Standard, a star comes at the right point in history that “other men turn as to a savior, vowing to follow his guidance to the death; upon his head women call down Heaven’s blessings while in their hearts they enshrine him as something akin to a god” ( Standard, Mary Newton. The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion. The Neale Publishing House, New York; 1907; page 40). In the Virginia conflict of 1676, Nathaniel Bacon is history’s star (so much so, that when he died, the rebellion fell apart). Who is this “star”?
Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., was born on January 2, 1647 at Friston Hall England, to Thomas and Elizabeth Bacon ( Standard, page 42). Bacon’s family had long been an aristocratic family of country gentry. While Bacon’s family had long been aristocrats, they had also long been “rebellious” in thought, and tended to take controversial sides in conflicts. According to Charles Willard Hoskins Warner, “the Bacon’s were a family noted for freedom of thought and for a desire to explore controversial topics and beliefs” ( Warner, Charles Willard Hoskins. Road to Revolution. Garrett and Massie, Publishers, Richmond; 1961; page 7). Nathaniel Bacon’s grandfather sided with Parliament in the conflict between Parliament and Charles I (Warner). Thus, Bacon comes from a line of both aristocrats and rebels.
Between the ages of 14 and 21, Bacon attended Cambridge, and traveled around Europe. At 21 he finally acquired a masters degree from Cambridge. Two years before the rebellion, he married Elizabeth Duke, daughter of Sir Edward Duke. Seeking to make his fortune, Bacon and his wife set sail for Jamestown that same year (1674). Immediately upon arriving, Bacon’s “magnetic personality” and high connections led to speedy distinction in Virginia, where he quickly become a member of his Majesty’s Council, and became known as “the most accomplished man in the colony” (Standard, page 44).
Bacon, coming from an aristocratic and rebellious family, was also known to have had a fiery personality and a very stubborn backbone. According to Standard, Bacon’s heart was with the people, and when they told him of their problems he was sympathetic and “a mighty wrath . . . took possession of his impetuous soul.” He made an oath to “harry” the “redskins” if they meddle with him (Standard) When the “redskins” killed his overseer, to whom he was warmly attached, the stage was set for conflict, as he “proved himself to be a man as good as his word” (Standard). Bacon’s “oath” and desire to keep his oath, came about at a very “ripe” time, as “the whole country [was] ripe for rebellion” and he became their guiding light (Standard). At the age of 29, Bacon was ready to come into conflict with his “nearly seventy years old” cousin, who was “a veteran of the English civil Wars and of Virginia’s Indian wars,” Virginia Governor Sir William Berkeley ( Washburn, Wilcomb E. The Governor and the Rebel. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill; 1957; page 17).
Back Home
Berkeley Before the War
Sir William Berkeley is said to have been a very popular governor during his first two long terms, which were marked by his “attractive personality and intellectual gifts” (Standard, page 14). Standard goes on to say that Berkeley was “every inch a gallant soldier, every inch a gentleman, yet haughty, unsympathetic and unlovable; narrow in mind and heart . . . his slightest whim was holy; to question his motives or the rightness and wisdom of his commands was little short of blasphemy” ( Standard, page 16). In his first term, in 1642, Sir William Berkely overcame an Indian attack that killed hundreds and defeated the Indians, bringing lasting peace. Berkeley also “gave his assent to an act to make the Assembly“ (Wertenbaker, page 15). Wertenbaker mentions that Berkeley played the ideal role of being the official governor and popular leader, and this strengthened the “ties of affection for England . . . and won the loyal support of the colony” (Wertenbaker, page 15). Following a period when Berkeley was not governor, he was appointed to a third term. A change came over Berkeley in his third term, and he rapidly changed from a popular leader to a hated and feared governor. This change drove the people to search for someone else to become a popular leader, and eventually led to an open rebellion. The change has been explained in many ways, including the follies of taking a young wife, and possible senility. Wertenbaker believes that the change was caused by the English Civil war which resulted in the royalist’s defeat, the King’s death, and the forced acceptance of Cromwell’s people in Virginia (forcing out Berkeley). For the duration of the Cromwell years, Berkeley was a bitter private citizen, but then Richard Cromwell resigned and the Virginia assembly made Berkeley governor again, wherein he “tyrannically” ruled for another seventeen years.
Back Home
Reasons for the War
According to Robert Beverly, there were four reasons for the war. The first reason for the war was the very low price of tobacco and the “ill usage of the planters in the exchange of goods for it.” The second reason involved the splitting of the colony (wooded land and improved land) by the new King to give land to his supporters, and the large amount of taxes Virginians had to pay to send a commission to England to try to get the matter reversed. The third reason that Beverly gives is the heavy restrictions on trade made by Parliament, wherein trade between plantations was taxed but the taxes received were never used to help the plantations but instead into the tax collectors’ pockets. The fourth reason, in the order that Beverly noted the causes/reasons for the rebellion/war, was the Indian problem. Surprisingly, two reasons that most other people give are either not included or are given the last place. One of the main reasons that Bacon even started to get into trouble with Berkeley was that he wanted to run off and fight the Indians whether or not he had a commission to fight them. Another of the main reasons that are given by most other historians, is the problem of the oppressive government, and the unpopular governor. As Beverly appears to be someone who can only see the two administrations in which Berkeley was “a darling of the people” and does not recognize that Berkeley was rather disliked in his third term, then it is not a surprise that Beverly tries to overlook this issue.
The first thing that Wetenbaker says is that Bacon “protested against the repressive measures of the mother country, took up arms against the royal governor, drove him from his capital, defeated his troops and stood ready to give battle to the Redcoats sent over to suppress him” (Wertenbaker, page 3).
According to Standard, the low tobacco prices hurt the colony severely because it was the chief money crop. The government tried to diversify the economy and set up tanneries and towns, but these attempts failed, and these failed attempts were paid for by higher taxes (Standard, page 20). Another problem Standard notes, is that the Virginia Assembly had been sitting for thirteen years, and no longer represented the people but instead represented the Governor (Standard, page 21). As they represented the Governor, Berkeley was able to increase taxes however much he wanted to, and the proceeds went to pay the salaries and privileges of the Burgesses (including 2 horses, a manservant and other privileges). After the King came back into power, he “was pleased to grant away the whole colony, with very few restrictions, to Lords Arlington and Culpeper,” and the power they were given included the power to receive the “quit-rents and escheats,” grant lands, and collect all other taxes (Standard, page 24). The Indian problem was compounded by the monopoly that the Governor and his friends enjoyed over all trade relations with the Indians. The Governor did not want to have his profits lowered, so he did not try to stop the Indians from attacking and massacring the colonists (Standard, page 27). As the people were being driven away from their formerly popular governor, who did they look toward? The charismatic Nathaniel Bacon became the new popular leader, but was he right for them?
Back Home
Bacon’s Motivation - Ambition vs. Real Concern for the People
The question of whether or not Nathaniel Bacon really cared about the causes of the
people’s problems, or if he was just ambitious and used the people’s concerns to try to advance himself is unclear after these many centuries. It is true that he came from a family of aristocrats, which, in that time period, by definition, saw themselves as superior to the commoners. People of our era need to remember that Bacon came from a earlier era with a different viewpoint of life, and a different understanding of class differences. Whether or not Bacon believed that he himself was better than the commoners, is hard to say, but he did grow up in this kind of social milieu. Bacon, no matter how he viewed the commoners, could very well have been interested in improving their lot, but that does not necessarily mean that he wanted more equality. It is also true that Bacon came from a family with a history of freedom of thought, controversial opinions and rebellious kinsmen. Thomas Bacon, Nathaniel’s own father, protested the king’s policies on the matters of “taxes, church conduct, laws and arbitrary government” (Warner, page 7). These protests might or might not have been on behave of all people, or just on behave of aristocrats.
According to Washburn, “there is no evidence to show that he was at all interested in political reform in this period, although he is frequently credited with such an attitude” (Washburn, page 19). According to Standard, Bacon’s heart was with the people, and “his pity for their helpless and hopeless condition a mighty wrath against Governor Berkeley took possession of his impetuous soul” (Standard, page 44). Robert Beverley, a person who was very partial to Governor Berkeley, proclaimed that Bacon was very ambitious and wanted to become a General, so he used the Indian problems to advance himself and “pretended that he accepted of their [the people’s] command with no other intention but to do them and the country service, in which he was willing to encounter the greatest difficulties and dangers” (Robert Beverly. “Robert Beverley on Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704”). Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, on the other hand, seems to paint a picture that is less “fraud” (falsely pretending as mentioned by Beverley) and more “people’s campaign:” “he believed himself, as undoubtedly he was, the champion of the people against misrule and oppression, and he was embittered that he should be forced into the position of a rebel for freeing the colony of the deadly Indian menace” (Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker. Torchbearer of the Revolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1940; page 163). Almost everyone that has examined the issue have come to differing conclusions on Bacon and what he was really trying to do, and what he really believed. Most of the authors that were researched picture Bacon one way or another, biased more on their own desired thesis than on anything else. They might picture Bacon favorably so that they can use him as a forerunner to the 1776 Independence, or they might picture him badly to try to boost Governor Sir Berkeley’s position in history. Primary sources may seem to provide raw information but may have been biased by second hand reports of the time. In other cases, the primary soures might be overwhelmed by simply having meet the celebraty (“This Surprising Accostment Skockt me . . .”) (Matthew). Such things seem to hide the man more than reveal him. There are many different views of Bacon, and it is hard to see which ones are biased, and which ones are true.
Warner, though, does provide some very impressive evidence that Nathaniel Bacon really was concerned for people’s causes, including how Bacon used his army to force Bacon’s Laws (discussed below). Warner also points out that Bacon was “not only regarded as a popular leader of great influence in his day, but also a century later” when President Thomas Jefferson “and his party saw in the man a spirit of freedom in which they believed and one which they admired” (Warner, page 22). Warner mentions that Bacon’s Laws (which were sympathetic to the people’s causes) were brought before the House of Burgesses by Mr. Thomas Blayton, a neighbor of Bacon’s. Blayton is said to have talked to Bacon immediately before his speech and “there is every evidence here that Blayton spoke [to the assembly] as an agent of Bacon” (Warner, page 23). More on this subject can be found later in this paper in the Results of the War section.
Back Home
The War (Rebellion)
As earlier mentioned, Nathaniel Bacon made an oath to “harry” the “redskins” if they meddle with him. The Indians killed his overseer. People had gathered themselves together ready to fight the Indians after word had spread that a great band of Indians were nearby and on the warpath (Wertenbaker, page 92). When the people saw Bacon, they chanted his name and begged him to lead them. Bacon agreed, and proclaimed that he would not stop until the Indian problem was solved and the “troops” grievances were rectified. Then the “three hundred men-in-arms, set out upon the Indian warpath” (Standard, page 50).
Sir William Berkeley promptly called the leader and his followers “rebels and mutineers, and [Berkeley got] a troop of soldiers together, [and] set out” after Bacon (ibid). On May 10, 1676, after failing to catch up to Bacon, Berkeley removed Bacon from his seat on the Council and “from his office as a magistrate” and he informed Bacon’s wife that Bacon would be hanged when he returned.
In the meantime, Bacon and his men finally reached an island in the Carolinas that was a center for the Ockinagees. Seeing that he was greatly outnumbered, Bacon used a “policy patterned after the savages’ own crafty methods of warfare, he made friends with one tribe and persuaded them to fall upon the other” (ibid, page 53). The Ockinagees then more or less destroyed the Susquehannocks, and then got ready to turn on the pale faces. Bacon’s half-starved men waded up to their shoulders to one of the Ockinagees’ forts and begged for food, but a shot from the mainland signaled battle. Bacon, knowing that the Ockinagees probably had people covering their retreat, led his men up to the fort, out of range of the attackers, and told his men to fire through the stakes of the palisades (ibid, page 54). For two days the battle raged, and with a loss of eleven of Bacon’s men and the destruction of the fort and “vast numbers of the Indians,” Bacon’s men “withdrew from the fray” (ibid, page 55).
As Sir William Berkeley waited for Bacon’s return, “the inhabitants farther down toward Jamestown began to draw into arms, and to proclaim against” Berkeley (ibid, page 56). Having heard Berkeley’s pronouncements against Bacon, Bacon responded: “if after the loss of a great part of his Majesty’s colony, deserted and dispeopled, freely with our lives and estates to endeavor to save the remainders, be treason, Lord Almighty judge and let the guilty die” (ibid, page 57).
Berkeley returned to Jamestown after noting the wrath of the people against him, and wished to appease them. On May 18th, Berkeley ordered the dismantling of the costly forts and the legislature that decided to build them, and called for new elections. The people, showing their democratic colors, chose among the freeholders, people that had just recently been servants. Before the June Assembly, Bacon sent a letter to the Governor through a neighbor that noted that Bacon abhorred rebellion and would have followed Berkeley if he had been there, and that he did not want to go against Berkeley’s authority (ibid, page 60). Standard notes that “Madam Byrd,” who had been driven from her home by Indians, wrote friends in England that Bacon and his troops did not touch anything English (property, lives), and that most of the troops were “substantial householders who bore their own charges in this war” (ibid, page 61). Henrico County sent Nathaniel Bacon as its representative to the new House of Burgesses. Bacon traveled down to take his seat with forty bodyguards in a sloop. After arriving at a bend of the river, Bacon sent a letter to Berkeley, asking if it was safe to take his seat, and Berkeley fired cannons at him. After a night in his sloop, Bacon attempted to travel home, but he was stopped by a boat and taken prisoner. Bacon was brought before Berkeley in front of the new Assembly and both made “friendly” exchanges, in which Bacon pleaded guilty and Berkeley forgave him, and jailed the Captain that on Berkeley’s orders had arrested Bacon. Bacon was restored to the Council, and was allowed to take his House of Burgesses seat. Bacon used the opportunity given to him, as he was now strong in both Burgesses and Council, and restored Universal suffrage, and ordered auditing of the public accounts. Then his party enacted laws requiring frequent election of vestries by the people, and prohibiting all trade with the Indians, long terms of office, excessive fees, and the sale of spirituous liquors, and some of the “most unpopular leaders of the Governor’s party were debarred from holding any public office” (Standard, page 69). Standard notes that “the wisdom of the Rebel’s legislation as to be later set forth by the fact that after his death, when the fascination of a personality which had bent men’s wills to its own was no longer felt, and when his name was held in contempt by many who failed to understand him or his motives, the people of Virginia clamored for the re-establishment of “Bacon’s Laws,” . . .; and in February 1677, many of them were actually re-enacted - with only their titles change[d]” (ibid). Not only did the council enact reforms, but they also built an army of 1,000 for “General Bacon” to fight his Indian campaign.
When all was done except the commission that the Governor promised, friends of Bacon heard that the Governor had ordered Bacon’s arrest or death. Bacon fled and the search was on. When Bacon reached “the up country,” people surrounded him asking what has occurred, and when they heard they swore to follow him back to Jamestown. “Four great guns” and thirty men, the only men that the Governor could get to defend the city, stood ready to face Bacon. Berkeley, disappointed at the poor turnout, decided to try to trap Bacon by removing the defenders (Standard, page 76).
Bacon returned leading an army of four hundred men, and one hundred and twenty horses, demanding his commission after he had secured the streets around the Capital building. Berkeley meet Bacon, called him a traitor, bared his chest and told him to shoot, then removed his sword and demanded to settle it then and there. Bacon responded that he did not desire to hurt a hair on Berkeley’s head and stated that he only wanted his commission. Berkeley fled toward his apartment, and Bacon declared that he would kill Governor, Council and all the Assembly and himself if he didn’t get his commission. The loaded muskets “pointed with steady aim and true toward the white faces in the State House windows” (ibid, page 79). A Burgess waving a white handkerchief proclaimed that he would have the commission. The Burgesses and the Governor argued for a night, but in the end, Bacon ended up with his commission, thirty signed blank commissions, and a letter “to King Charles explaining and excusing Bacon’s course” (ibid, page 81).
On the 25th of June, Indians “swooped down upon two settlements on York River, only twenty-three miles distant . . . and more than forty miles within the bounds of the frontier plantations, and had massacred eight persons” (ibid). The next morning the newly-commissioned General Bacon led his 1,000 troops to attack the Indians. Gloucester County, feeling the effects of some heavy-handed recruiting, petitioned the Governor Berkeley for relief and proclaimed loyalty to him. Berkeley formed an army out of Gloucester County to fight the Indians himself, but really to kill Bacon. Bacon turned his army around and civil war occurred. The Gloucester army, learning of their true purpose, refused to fight Bacon and left the field (ibid, page 91).
Berkeley fled across the Chesapeake to the Eastern Shore with few friends. Protected from the Indians, the people of the Eastern Shore were still loyal to Berkeley. As Berkeley built another army on the Eastern Shore, “Bacon found himself master of all Virginia from the Potomac to Lower Norfolk and from the Chesapeake to the frontier . . . he had become, unexpectedly and against his own wishes, the Cromwell of the Colony” (Wertenbaker, page 129).
Bacon set about consolidating his holdings, by sending his troops out to break up any bands from forming that were loyal to Berkeley. Bacon also had troops arrest all prominent supporters of Berkeley and confined them. Bacon then gathered as many prominent planters as he could, for he knew that “resistance to his authority would come almost entirely from the upper class” so he set about to involve them in his government so they would not feel the need to go against him. News of Berkeley’s actions at the strongest fort, taking all weapons with him for his use, backed up Bacon’s claims that Berkeley cared more about himself than the people, and the planters “affixed their signatures to the oath” (Wertenbaker, page 134). Bacon foreshadowed the “Redcoats” defeats against the French and Indians, when he proclaimed that Virginians could “lay ambuscades . . . hide behind trees to render their discipline of no avail” (ibid). This knowledge might have been useful if Bacon had lived.
Hearing news of Indians slaughtering people around the countryside, Bacon returned to his Indian campaign, but first he seized ships and sent them to arrest Berkeley and sent him home “to stand trial for his demerits toward his Majesty’s subjects of Virginia, and for the likely loss of that colony, for lack of defense against the native savages” (Standard, page 97). Bacon then left Colonel Hansford in control of Jamestown in his absence while Bacon left to go fight the Indians.
At the “freshes of York, Bacon was met and joined by all northern forces, under the command of Colonel Giles Brent.” They marched to the plantations farthest up the York River (Standard, page 100). Bacon then marched around looking for Indians.
While Bacon was away, Berkeley captured the ship sent after him and returned toward Jamestown with seventeen sloops and six hundred troops. The troops were promised 21 years without taxes to follow Berkeley. On September 8, 1676, Sir William Berkeley retook Jamestown after her defenders fled. Bacon returned toward Jamestown with only one hundred and thirty-six “tired-out, soiled, tattered and hungry men” and Indian captives, against the fortified Jamestown with six hundred defenders (ibid, page 114). On the way to Jamestown, Bacon’s army was raised to three hundred. On September 13, 1676, Bacon arrived back at Jamestown ready to fight, behind an earthwork thrown up outside Jamestown. Bacon’s troops were fired at from both the river and the town, but they were protected by the earthworks. The cross-fire continued for three days, with Bacon’s men so well shielded, they “do not seem to have lost a single man” (ibid, 123).
On the third day, Berkeley sent his troops out. The besiegers killed two and the rest scattered. After this Bacon set up the two artillery pieces that he had captured. Jamestown was in an inhospitable, marshy area, which caused most of Berkeley’s troops to desert him. Berkeley had to retreat again with 20 faithful troops. With the Governor just down the river on his boats, and likely to try to retake Jamestown, Bacon decided to burn it from further use. Berkeley continued his flight back to the Eastern shore, and Bacon moved his troops into Berkeley’s plantation, “Green Spring.” After moving in, Bacon denounced Sir William as a traitor to the people’s cause. Bacon tried to exchange prisoners, but Berkeley killed anyone Bacon requested. Bacon did not retailate by killing his prisoners. Just after moving into Gloucester Court House, Bacon received word that Colonel Brent, whom he fought alongside against the Indians, had decided to go back to the Governor’s side, and marched on Bacon with eleven hundred men. Marching out to meet the hostile army, Bacon found most of Brent’s army had deserted to Bacon’s side.
The siege of Jamestown, in which Bacon fought during a week of exposure in Jamestown’s marsh and swamps had “done its deadly work . . . the dauntless and brilliant young General met an unexpected and, for the first time during his career, an unprepared-for enemy in the deadly fever, against which he had no weapon of defense” (Standard, page 143).
On the fist day of October 1676, General Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., died at the “house of Mr. Pate, in Gloucester” (ibid). The followers were faithful after his death, and took his body away from his enemies, and still no one knows his final resting place. Berkeley captured top members of Bacon’s army and killed them, but his attack, led by Colonel Nathaniel Bacon, Sr. (the deceased Bacon’s cousin), and Colonel Ludwell, on a garrison under Major Whaly, “at President [Colonel] Bacon’s own house” was unsuccessful (ibid, 147). The rebellion only lasted a few more days, and twenty of Bacon’s closest friends and officers were hanged.
Governor Sir William Berkeley died not long after Bacon on his trip back to England. The King pardoned everyone involved in the Rebellion, if they offered an oath of allegiance, except for Bacon and Mr. Lawrence who had fled.
Back Home
Consequences of Bacon’s Death before the End of the War
Nathaniel Bacon is said to have been a very enthusiastic and impassioned speaker, and that “he was a man born to sway the hearts of his fellows, which he understood and drew after him with magnetic power” (Standard, page 46). Bacon placed too much of his rebellion onto his deep magnetic connection with the people. The people were “greatly cheered” by him, and they saw in him “the only patron of the country and preserver of their lives and fortunes, so that their whole hearts and hopes were set upon him” (Standard, page 49). When Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., the charismatic 29 year old who inspired a colony to rebellion in 1676 died suddenly without the rebellion resolved, the rebellion died with him. When their charismatic leader died, there was no one who could successfully take his place. The new leadership could not inspire the same amount of fire and devotion in the men that Bacon had been able to produce. The rebellion fell apart.
Back Home
Results of the War
According to Warner: “For many generations the greatest accomplishment of Bacon was considered to be the passage of those statutes known as Bacon’s Laws of 1676” (page 18). Warner mentions that not only was Bacon primarily responsible for Bacon’s Laws, but that the assembly of early 1676 controlled by the strongest conservatives in the colony would never have passed the laws by themselves. The laws were passed because Berkeley was threatened by rebellion, and needed to present himself in a good light, so a new assembly was elected in June 1676, and they passed Bacon’s Laws which “is doubtful that they would have been written but for the threat of his army” which surrounded Jamestown. Warner also counters historians who believe that Bacon was “only an Indian fighter who got caught up in a rebellion.” by pointing out that Bacon sought out the two people in the Assembly who were not interested in Indian Wars, but in Berkeley’s “French despotism”, Lawrence and Drummond (Warner, page 19). Warner points out that even one of Bacon’s biggest detractors, Robert Beverley, whose father supported Berkeley against Bacon during the war, agrees that Bacon was a molder of men’s thinking and that Bacon was in every way qualified to head his army. “He [Beverley] admitted that Nathaniel Bacon was therefore a very persuasive leader and even wrote that he was held “in great honor and Esteem among the people” (Warner, page 20).
Bacon’s Laws were repealed under Berkeley’s influence in February 1677. Copies were made, however, and “one copy came into the possession of Peyton Randolph, Speaker of the House of Burgesses” (Warner, page 24). This copy later came into President Thomas Jefferson’s possession. “Many of the popular ideals involved in Bacon’s Rebellion therefore won a victory. Such a victory helped give birth to the republic” (Warner, page 90).
The House of Burgesses, which had just recently been allies of the Governor, “were now voicing popular sentiments . . . Nathaniel Bacon, having directed his ideas against the governor’s party, had helped to give even the most wealthy a structural framework within which to pursue self-government” (Warner, page 91). Bacon’s rebellion did not succeed in the sense that Berkeley was driven from power, nor in that Bacon lived through the conflict, but it did succeed in that Bacon’s ideas opened up the Virginian colony to greater self-government and a creation of the strongest colonial assembly and government of the colonies.
According to Standard, although the leader was killed by disease, and “many of the bravest of his men paid for their allegiance . . . upon the scaffold, the cause was won - not lost” (Standard, page 162). Most of the grievances that were made against the government were “relieved by the reforms in the administration of the government” and the Indian problem had been solved until settlements were made west of the Blue Ridge (Standard, page 163).
Back Home
What Would have Happened if Bacon had Won the Rebellion?
Neither Bacon’s army, nor Bacon defeated Berkeley and took control of Virginia. Neither did Bacon’s Laws survive even a year (under their original names). Does this mean that Bacon’s ideas were lost? As mentioned before, Bacon did not physically win the rebellion, but his ideas, and some of his law, which were re-enacted under new names and lived on after him. What would have happened if Bacon had physically won the rebellion?
After Bacon’s death, Redcoats arrived to examine the situation in the colonies. If Bacon had won, and if he had wanted to break away from the King, then he would have faced the might of the English Empire. If Bacon had won, then other colonies might have followed his example, and their combined breakaway might have caused enough problems for the English that the breakaway colonies might have succeeded. If only Virginia had decided to try for independence, then the English Empire would have had an easier time taming the rebellious beast.
Would he have really broken from the King? Bacon’s family history, which includes both loyalty and disloyalty to the Kings of England, might lead Bacon in either direction. “If he could have laid his hands on Berkeley he would have kept him under guard until his own and his followers’ case had been put before the King. He would have told of the Indian massacres, of Sir William’s refusal to consent to an expedition to end them . . .” (Wertenbaker, page 129). Later in the war, Goode, who had fought with Bacon until the second of September, wrote a letter to Governor Berkeley stating that Bacon planned to fight the Redcoats, and that he believed that Maryland and Carolina would also “cast off his Majesty’s yoke as soon as they should become strong enough” (Standard, page 139).
Back Home
Conclusion
While it is not clear what Bacon would have done if he had defeated Berkeley, it is clear that Bacon’s campaign is more important than just a minor rebellion. Bacon’s activities forced certain ideas and laws onto Virginia’s government and society. While the laws were repealed in 1677, the ideas still existed, and were inspirations to both Peyton Randolph, Thomas Jefferson and other leaders of the 1776 campaign for independence. While it is not certain that these leaders would not have rebelled if Bacon’s ideas were never expressed, it is certain that the ideas played some part. Did Bacon really care about the “common” man? Most evidence, including an examination of Bacon’s Laws (which Warner proves were actually written, or inspired by Bacon), and Bacon’s family history of rebelling and siding with the commoners, shows that Bacon was ultimately on the commoners side (though they might not necessarily have been trying to be on the common man’s side). Did Bacon’s rebellion have any impact on future Virginia history? If for no other reason than forcing Berkeley to disband the corrupt assembly and call for elections, then Bacon’s rebellion forced an impact on Virginia history. Virginia had the strongest and most advanced colonial government among the thirteen colonies. Bacon’s rebellion failed physically in the short term, but not conceptually, over the long passage of time.
Back Home
Bibliography
Primary:
Beverly, Robert. “Robert Beverley on Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704.” Internet:
http://kuttp.cc.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/usdocs.txt/beverley.html
Matthew, Thomas. The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon’s Rebellion, 1675- 1676. c 1705. Contained inside Narratives of the Insurrections: 1675-1690. editor Charles M. Andrews, Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York; 1915; page 33.
Secondary:
“Bacon’s Rebellion and Racism.” Internet:
http://nunic.nu.edu/~dcunning/gs/his320/unit1/module3/bacon.html (note: does not exist anymore at this address).
Standard, Mary Newton. The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion. The Neale Publishing House, New York; 1907; page 40.
Warner, Charles Willard Hoskins. Road to Revolution. Garrett and Massie, Publishers, Richmond; 1961; page 7.
Washburn, Wilcomb E. The Governor and the Rebel. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill; 1957; page 17.
Wertenbaker, Thomas Jefferson. Torchbearer of the Revolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1940.
Back Home
Michael S. Briggs
April 23, 1998
Table of Contents
Home
Introduction
Bacon Before the War
Berkeley Before the War
Reasons for the War
Bacon’s Motivation - Ambition vs. Real Concern for the People
The War (Rebellion)
Consequences of Bacon’s Death before the End of the War
Results of the War
What would have Happened if Bacon had Won the Rebellion?
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Three hundred and twenty-two years after Nathaniel Bacon led his band of Virginia colonists on the Indian warpath that became a rebellion, I will reconstruct what the rebellion was about and why the rebellion occurred. I will examine both of the main characters, Bacon and Berkeley, before they became entangled in the conflict. I will then briefly examine some of the reasons for the rebellion, and I will consider if Bacon actually cared about these reasons or used them to advance himself. I will examine if anything was accomplished by the results of the rebellion. Lastly, I will examine what might have happened if Bacon had been successful in capturing the Virginia colony with his small band of troops. Could the colony have tried to become independent a hundred years prior to the actual independence? Would Bacon even have considered independence, or was he too much of an Englishman? Who was Bacon and what was he like before the war?
Back Home
Bacon Before the War
According to Mary Newton Standard, a star comes at the right point in history that “other men turn as to a savior, vowing to follow his guidance to the death; upon his head women call down Heaven’s blessings while in their hearts they enshrine him as something akin to a god” ( Standard, Mary Newton. The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion. The Neale Publishing House, New York; 1907; page 40). In the Virginia conflict of 1676, Nathaniel Bacon is history’s star (so much so, that when he died, the rebellion fell apart). Who is this “star”?
Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., was born on January 2, 1647 at Friston Hall England, to Thomas and Elizabeth Bacon ( Standard, page 42). Bacon’s family had long been an aristocratic family of country gentry. While Bacon’s family had long been aristocrats, they had also long been “rebellious” in thought, and tended to take controversial sides in conflicts. According to Charles Willard Hoskins Warner, “the Bacon’s were a family noted for freedom of thought and for a desire to explore controversial topics and beliefs” ( Warner, Charles Willard Hoskins. Road to Revolution. Garrett and Massie, Publishers, Richmond; 1961; page 7). Nathaniel Bacon’s grandfather sided with Parliament in the conflict between Parliament and Charles I (Warner). Thus, Bacon comes from a line of both aristocrats and rebels.
Between the ages of 14 and 21, Bacon attended Cambridge, and traveled around Europe. At 21 he finally acquired a masters degree from Cambridge. Two years before the rebellion, he married Elizabeth Duke, daughter of Sir Edward Duke. Seeking to make his fortune, Bacon and his wife set sail for Jamestown that same year (1674). Immediately upon arriving, Bacon’s “magnetic personality” and high connections led to speedy distinction in Virginia, where he quickly become a member of his Majesty’s Council, and became known as “the most accomplished man in the colony” (Standard, page 44).
Bacon, coming from an aristocratic and rebellious family, was also known to have had a fiery personality and a very stubborn backbone. According to Standard, Bacon’s heart was with the people, and when they told him of their problems he was sympathetic and “a mighty wrath . . . took possession of his impetuous soul.” He made an oath to “harry” the “redskins” if they meddle with him (Standard) When the “redskins” killed his overseer, to whom he was warmly attached, the stage was set for conflict, as he “proved himself to be a man as good as his word” (Standard). Bacon’s “oath” and desire to keep his oath, came about at a very “ripe” time, as “the whole country [was] ripe for rebellion” and he became their guiding light (Standard). At the age of 29, Bacon was ready to come into conflict with his “nearly seventy years old” cousin, who was “a veteran of the English civil Wars and of Virginia’s Indian wars,” Virginia Governor Sir William Berkeley ( Washburn, Wilcomb E. The Governor and the Rebel. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill; 1957; page 17).
Back Home
Berkeley Before the War
Sir William Berkeley is said to have been a very popular governor during his first two long terms, which were marked by his “attractive personality and intellectual gifts” (Standard, page 14). Standard goes on to say that Berkeley was “every inch a gallant soldier, every inch a gentleman, yet haughty, unsympathetic and unlovable; narrow in mind and heart . . . his slightest whim was holy; to question his motives or the rightness and wisdom of his commands was little short of blasphemy” ( Standard, page 16). In his first term, in 1642, Sir William Berkely overcame an Indian attack that killed hundreds and defeated the Indians, bringing lasting peace. Berkeley also “gave his assent to an act to make the Assembly“ (Wertenbaker, page 15). Wertenbaker mentions that Berkeley played the ideal role of being the official governor and popular leader, and this strengthened the “ties of affection for England . . . and won the loyal support of the colony” (Wertenbaker, page 15). Following a period when Berkeley was not governor, he was appointed to a third term. A change came over Berkeley in his third term, and he rapidly changed from a popular leader to a hated and feared governor. This change drove the people to search for someone else to become a popular leader, and eventually led to an open rebellion. The change has been explained in many ways, including the follies of taking a young wife, and possible senility. Wertenbaker believes that the change was caused by the English Civil war which resulted in the royalist’s defeat, the King’s death, and the forced acceptance of Cromwell’s people in Virginia (forcing out Berkeley). For the duration of the Cromwell years, Berkeley was a bitter private citizen, but then Richard Cromwell resigned and the Virginia assembly made Berkeley governor again, wherein he “tyrannically” ruled for another seventeen years.
Back Home
Reasons for the War
According to Robert Beverly, there were four reasons for the war. The first reason for the war was the very low price of tobacco and the “ill usage of the planters in the exchange of goods for it.” The second reason involved the splitting of the colony (wooded land and improved land) by the new King to give land to his supporters, and the large amount of taxes Virginians had to pay to send a commission to England to try to get the matter reversed. The third reason that Beverly gives is the heavy restrictions on trade made by Parliament, wherein trade between plantations was taxed but the taxes received were never used to help the plantations but instead into the tax collectors’ pockets. The fourth reason, in the order that Beverly noted the causes/reasons for the rebellion/war, was the Indian problem. Surprisingly, two reasons that most other people give are either not included or are given the last place. One of the main reasons that Bacon even started to get into trouble with Berkeley was that he wanted to run off and fight the Indians whether or not he had a commission to fight them. Another of the main reasons that are given by most other historians, is the problem of the oppressive government, and the unpopular governor. As Beverly appears to be someone who can only see the two administrations in which Berkeley was “a darling of the people” and does not recognize that Berkeley was rather disliked in his third term, then it is not a surprise that Beverly tries to overlook this issue.
The first thing that Wetenbaker says is that Bacon “protested against the repressive measures of the mother country, took up arms against the royal governor, drove him from his capital, defeated his troops and stood ready to give battle to the Redcoats sent over to suppress him” (Wertenbaker, page 3).
According to Standard, the low tobacco prices hurt the colony severely because it was the chief money crop. The government tried to diversify the economy and set up tanneries and towns, but these attempts failed, and these failed attempts were paid for by higher taxes (Standard, page 20). Another problem Standard notes, is that the Virginia Assembly had been sitting for thirteen years, and no longer represented the people but instead represented the Governor (Standard, page 21). As they represented the Governor, Berkeley was able to increase taxes however much he wanted to, and the proceeds went to pay the salaries and privileges of the Burgesses (including 2 horses, a manservant and other privileges). After the King came back into power, he “was pleased to grant away the whole colony, with very few restrictions, to Lords Arlington and Culpeper,” and the power they were given included the power to receive the “quit-rents and escheats,” grant lands, and collect all other taxes (Standard, page 24). The Indian problem was compounded by the monopoly that the Governor and his friends enjoyed over all trade relations with the Indians. The Governor did not want to have his profits lowered, so he did not try to stop the Indians from attacking and massacring the colonists (Standard, page 27). As the people were being driven away from their formerly popular governor, who did they look toward? The charismatic Nathaniel Bacon became the new popular leader, but was he right for them?
Back Home
Bacon’s Motivation - Ambition vs. Real Concern for the People
The question of whether or not Nathaniel Bacon really cared about the causes of the
people’s problems, or if he was just ambitious and used the people’s concerns to try to advance himself is unclear after these many centuries. It is true that he came from a family of aristocrats, which, in that time period, by definition, saw themselves as superior to the commoners. People of our era need to remember that Bacon came from a earlier era with a different viewpoint of life, and a different understanding of class differences. Whether or not Bacon believed that he himself was better than the commoners, is hard to say, but he did grow up in this kind of social milieu. Bacon, no matter how he viewed the commoners, could very well have been interested in improving their lot, but that does not necessarily mean that he wanted more equality. It is also true that Bacon came from a family with a history of freedom of thought, controversial opinions and rebellious kinsmen. Thomas Bacon, Nathaniel’s own father, protested the king’s policies on the matters of “taxes, church conduct, laws and arbitrary government” (Warner, page 7). These protests might or might not have been on behave of all people, or just on behave of aristocrats.
According to Washburn, “there is no evidence to show that he was at all interested in political reform in this period, although he is frequently credited with such an attitude” (Washburn, page 19). According to Standard, Bacon’s heart was with the people, and “his pity for their helpless and hopeless condition a mighty wrath against Governor Berkeley took possession of his impetuous soul” (Standard, page 44). Robert Beverley, a person who was very partial to Governor Berkeley, proclaimed that Bacon was very ambitious and wanted to become a General, so he used the Indian problems to advance himself and “pretended that he accepted of their [the people’s] command with no other intention but to do them and the country service, in which he was willing to encounter the greatest difficulties and dangers” (Robert Beverly. “Robert Beverley on Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704”). Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, on the other hand, seems to paint a picture that is less “fraud” (falsely pretending as mentioned by Beverley) and more “people’s campaign:” “he believed himself, as undoubtedly he was, the champion of the people against misrule and oppression, and he was embittered that he should be forced into the position of a rebel for freeing the colony of the deadly Indian menace” (Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker. Torchbearer of the Revolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1940; page 163). Almost everyone that has examined the issue have come to differing conclusions on Bacon and what he was really trying to do, and what he really believed. Most of the authors that were researched picture Bacon one way or another, biased more on their own desired thesis than on anything else. They might picture Bacon favorably so that they can use him as a forerunner to the 1776 Independence, or they might picture him badly to try to boost Governor Sir Berkeley’s position in history. Primary sources may seem to provide raw information but may have been biased by second hand reports of the time. In other cases, the primary soures might be overwhelmed by simply having meet the celebraty (“This Surprising Accostment Skockt me . . .”) (Matthew). Such things seem to hide the man more than reveal him. There are many different views of Bacon, and it is hard to see which ones are biased, and which ones are true.
Warner, though, does provide some very impressive evidence that Nathaniel Bacon really was concerned for people’s causes, including how Bacon used his army to force Bacon’s Laws (discussed below). Warner also points out that Bacon was “not only regarded as a popular leader of great influence in his day, but also a century later” when President Thomas Jefferson “and his party saw in the man a spirit of freedom in which they believed and one which they admired” (Warner, page 22). Warner mentions that Bacon’s Laws (which were sympathetic to the people’s causes) were brought before the House of Burgesses by Mr. Thomas Blayton, a neighbor of Bacon’s. Blayton is said to have talked to Bacon immediately before his speech and “there is every evidence here that Blayton spoke [to the assembly] as an agent of Bacon” (Warner, page 23). More on this subject can be found later in this paper in the Results of the War section.
Back Home
The War (Rebellion)
As earlier mentioned, Nathaniel Bacon made an oath to “harry” the “redskins” if they meddle with him. The Indians killed his overseer. People had gathered themselves together ready to fight the Indians after word had spread that a great band of Indians were nearby and on the warpath (Wertenbaker, page 92). When the people saw Bacon, they chanted his name and begged him to lead them. Bacon agreed, and proclaimed that he would not stop until the Indian problem was solved and the “troops” grievances were rectified. Then the “three hundred men-in-arms, set out upon the Indian warpath” (Standard, page 50).
Sir William Berkeley promptly called the leader and his followers “rebels and mutineers, and [Berkeley got] a troop of soldiers together, [and] set out” after Bacon (ibid). On May 10, 1676, after failing to catch up to Bacon, Berkeley removed Bacon from his seat on the Council and “from his office as a magistrate” and he informed Bacon’s wife that Bacon would be hanged when he returned.
In the meantime, Bacon and his men finally reached an island in the Carolinas that was a center for the Ockinagees. Seeing that he was greatly outnumbered, Bacon used a “policy patterned after the savages’ own crafty methods of warfare, he made friends with one tribe and persuaded them to fall upon the other” (ibid, page 53). The Ockinagees then more or less destroyed the Susquehannocks, and then got ready to turn on the pale faces. Bacon’s half-starved men waded up to their shoulders to one of the Ockinagees’ forts and begged for food, but a shot from the mainland signaled battle. Bacon, knowing that the Ockinagees probably had people covering their retreat, led his men up to the fort, out of range of the attackers, and told his men to fire through the stakes of the palisades (ibid, page 54). For two days the battle raged, and with a loss of eleven of Bacon’s men and the destruction of the fort and “vast numbers of the Indians,” Bacon’s men “withdrew from the fray” (ibid, page 55).
As Sir William Berkeley waited for Bacon’s return, “the inhabitants farther down toward Jamestown began to draw into arms, and to proclaim against” Berkeley (ibid, page 56). Having heard Berkeley’s pronouncements against Bacon, Bacon responded: “if after the loss of a great part of his Majesty’s colony, deserted and dispeopled, freely with our lives and estates to endeavor to save the remainders, be treason, Lord Almighty judge and let the guilty die” (ibid, page 57).
Berkeley returned to Jamestown after noting the wrath of the people against him, and wished to appease them. On May 18th, Berkeley ordered the dismantling of the costly forts and the legislature that decided to build them, and called for new elections. The people, showing their democratic colors, chose among the freeholders, people that had just recently been servants. Before the June Assembly, Bacon sent a letter to the Governor through a neighbor that noted that Bacon abhorred rebellion and would have followed Berkeley if he had been there, and that he did not want to go against Berkeley’s authority (ibid, page 60). Standard notes that “Madam Byrd,” who had been driven from her home by Indians, wrote friends in England that Bacon and his troops did not touch anything English (property, lives), and that most of the troops were “substantial householders who bore their own charges in this war” (ibid, page 61). Henrico County sent Nathaniel Bacon as its representative to the new House of Burgesses. Bacon traveled down to take his seat with forty bodyguards in a sloop. After arriving at a bend of the river, Bacon sent a letter to Berkeley, asking if it was safe to take his seat, and Berkeley fired cannons at him. After a night in his sloop, Bacon attempted to travel home, but he was stopped by a boat and taken prisoner. Bacon was brought before Berkeley in front of the new Assembly and both made “friendly” exchanges, in which Bacon pleaded guilty and Berkeley forgave him, and jailed the Captain that on Berkeley’s orders had arrested Bacon. Bacon was restored to the Council, and was allowed to take his House of Burgesses seat. Bacon used the opportunity given to him, as he was now strong in both Burgesses and Council, and restored Universal suffrage, and ordered auditing of the public accounts. Then his party enacted laws requiring frequent election of vestries by the people, and prohibiting all trade with the Indians, long terms of office, excessive fees, and the sale of spirituous liquors, and some of the “most unpopular leaders of the Governor’s party were debarred from holding any public office” (Standard, page 69). Standard notes that “the wisdom of the Rebel’s legislation as to be later set forth by the fact that after his death, when the fascination of a personality which had bent men’s wills to its own was no longer felt, and when his name was held in contempt by many who failed to understand him or his motives, the people of Virginia clamored for the re-establishment of “Bacon’s Laws,” . . .; and in February 1677, many of them were actually re-enacted - with only their titles change[d]” (ibid). Not only did the council enact reforms, but they also built an army of 1,000 for “General Bacon” to fight his Indian campaign.
When all was done except the commission that the Governor promised, friends of Bacon heard that the Governor had ordered Bacon’s arrest or death. Bacon fled and the search was on. When Bacon reached “the up country,” people surrounded him asking what has occurred, and when they heard they swore to follow him back to Jamestown. “Four great guns” and thirty men, the only men that the Governor could get to defend the city, stood ready to face Bacon. Berkeley, disappointed at the poor turnout, decided to try to trap Bacon by removing the defenders (Standard, page 76).
Bacon returned leading an army of four hundred men, and one hundred and twenty horses, demanding his commission after he had secured the streets around the Capital building. Berkeley meet Bacon, called him a traitor, bared his chest and told him to shoot, then removed his sword and demanded to settle it then and there. Bacon responded that he did not desire to hurt a hair on Berkeley’s head and stated that he only wanted his commission. Berkeley fled toward his apartment, and Bacon declared that he would kill Governor, Council and all the Assembly and himself if he didn’t get his commission. The loaded muskets “pointed with steady aim and true toward the white faces in the State House windows” (ibid, page 79). A Burgess waving a white handkerchief proclaimed that he would have the commission. The Burgesses and the Governor argued for a night, but in the end, Bacon ended up with his commission, thirty signed blank commissions, and a letter “to King Charles explaining and excusing Bacon’s course” (ibid, page 81).
On the 25th of June, Indians “swooped down upon two settlements on York River, only twenty-three miles distant . . . and more than forty miles within the bounds of the frontier plantations, and had massacred eight persons” (ibid). The next morning the newly-commissioned General Bacon led his 1,000 troops to attack the Indians. Gloucester County, feeling the effects of some heavy-handed recruiting, petitioned the Governor Berkeley for relief and proclaimed loyalty to him. Berkeley formed an army out of Gloucester County to fight the Indians himself, but really to kill Bacon. Bacon turned his army around and civil war occurred. The Gloucester army, learning of their true purpose, refused to fight Bacon and left the field (ibid, page 91).
Berkeley fled across the Chesapeake to the Eastern Shore with few friends. Protected from the Indians, the people of the Eastern Shore were still loyal to Berkeley. As Berkeley built another army on the Eastern Shore, “Bacon found himself master of all Virginia from the Potomac to Lower Norfolk and from the Chesapeake to the frontier . . . he had become, unexpectedly and against his own wishes, the Cromwell of the Colony” (Wertenbaker, page 129).
Bacon set about consolidating his holdings, by sending his troops out to break up any bands from forming that were loyal to Berkeley. Bacon also had troops arrest all prominent supporters of Berkeley and confined them. Bacon then gathered as many prominent planters as he could, for he knew that “resistance to his authority would come almost entirely from the upper class” so he set about to involve them in his government so they would not feel the need to go against him. News of Berkeley’s actions at the strongest fort, taking all weapons with him for his use, backed up Bacon’s claims that Berkeley cared more about himself than the people, and the planters “affixed their signatures to the oath” (Wertenbaker, page 134). Bacon foreshadowed the “Redcoats” defeats against the French and Indians, when he proclaimed that Virginians could “lay ambuscades . . . hide behind trees to render their discipline of no avail” (ibid). This knowledge might have been useful if Bacon had lived.
Hearing news of Indians slaughtering people around the countryside, Bacon returned to his Indian campaign, but first he seized ships and sent them to arrest Berkeley and sent him home “to stand trial for his demerits toward his Majesty’s subjects of Virginia, and for the likely loss of that colony, for lack of defense against the native savages” (Standard, page 97). Bacon then left Colonel Hansford in control of Jamestown in his absence while Bacon left to go fight the Indians.
At the “freshes of York, Bacon was met and joined by all northern forces, under the command of Colonel Giles Brent.” They marched to the plantations farthest up the York River (Standard, page 100). Bacon then marched around looking for Indians.
While Bacon was away, Berkeley captured the ship sent after him and returned toward Jamestown with seventeen sloops and six hundred troops. The troops were promised 21 years without taxes to follow Berkeley. On September 8, 1676, Sir William Berkeley retook Jamestown after her defenders fled. Bacon returned toward Jamestown with only one hundred and thirty-six “tired-out, soiled, tattered and hungry men” and Indian captives, against the fortified Jamestown with six hundred defenders (ibid, page 114). On the way to Jamestown, Bacon’s army was raised to three hundred. On September 13, 1676, Bacon arrived back at Jamestown ready to fight, behind an earthwork thrown up outside Jamestown. Bacon’s troops were fired at from both the river and the town, but they were protected by the earthworks. The cross-fire continued for three days, with Bacon’s men so well shielded, they “do not seem to have lost a single man” (ibid, 123).
On the third day, Berkeley sent his troops out. The besiegers killed two and the rest scattered. After this Bacon set up the two artillery pieces that he had captured. Jamestown was in an inhospitable, marshy area, which caused most of Berkeley’s troops to desert him. Berkeley had to retreat again with 20 faithful troops. With the Governor just down the river on his boats, and likely to try to retake Jamestown, Bacon decided to burn it from further use. Berkeley continued his flight back to the Eastern shore, and Bacon moved his troops into Berkeley’s plantation, “Green Spring.” After moving in, Bacon denounced Sir William as a traitor to the people’s cause. Bacon tried to exchange prisoners, but Berkeley killed anyone Bacon requested. Bacon did not retailate by killing his prisoners. Just after moving into Gloucester Court House, Bacon received word that Colonel Brent, whom he fought alongside against the Indians, had decided to go back to the Governor’s side, and marched on Bacon with eleven hundred men. Marching out to meet the hostile army, Bacon found most of Brent’s army had deserted to Bacon’s side.
The siege of Jamestown, in which Bacon fought during a week of exposure in Jamestown’s marsh and swamps had “done its deadly work . . . the dauntless and brilliant young General met an unexpected and, for the first time during his career, an unprepared-for enemy in the deadly fever, against which he had no weapon of defense” (Standard, page 143).
On the fist day of October 1676, General Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., died at the “house of Mr. Pate, in Gloucester” (ibid). The followers were faithful after his death, and took his body away from his enemies, and still no one knows his final resting place. Berkeley captured top members of Bacon’s army and killed them, but his attack, led by Colonel Nathaniel Bacon, Sr. (the deceased Bacon’s cousin), and Colonel Ludwell, on a garrison under Major Whaly, “at President [Colonel] Bacon’s own house” was unsuccessful (ibid, 147). The rebellion only lasted a few more days, and twenty of Bacon’s closest friends and officers were hanged.
Governor Sir William Berkeley died not long after Bacon on his trip back to England. The King pardoned everyone involved in the Rebellion, if they offered an oath of allegiance, except for Bacon and Mr. Lawrence who had fled.
Back Home
Consequences of Bacon’s Death before the End of the War
Nathaniel Bacon is said to have been a very enthusiastic and impassioned speaker, and that “he was a man born to sway the hearts of his fellows, which he understood and drew after him with magnetic power” (Standard, page 46). Bacon placed too much of his rebellion onto his deep magnetic connection with the people. The people were “greatly cheered” by him, and they saw in him “the only patron of the country and preserver of their lives and fortunes, so that their whole hearts and hopes were set upon him” (Standard, page 49). When Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., the charismatic 29 year old who inspired a colony to rebellion in 1676 died suddenly without the rebellion resolved, the rebellion died with him. When their charismatic leader died, there was no one who could successfully take his place. The new leadership could not inspire the same amount of fire and devotion in the men that Bacon had been able to produce. The rebellion fell apart.
Back Home
Results of the War
According to Warner: “For many generations the greatest accomplishment of Bacon was considered to be the passage of those statutes known as Bacon’s Laws of 1676” (page 18). Warner mentions that not only was Bacon primarily responsible for Bacon’s Laws, but that the assembly of early 1676 controlled by the strongest conservatives in the colony would never have passed the laws by themselves. The laws were passed because Berkeley was threatened by rebellion, and needed to present himself in a good light, so a new assembly was elected in June 1676, and they passed Bacon’s Laws which “is doubtful that they would have been written but for the threat of his army” which surrounded Jamestown. Warner also counters historians who believe that Bacon was “only an Indian fighter who got caught up in a rebellion.” by pointing out that Bacon sought out the two people in the Assembly who were not interested in Indian Wars, but in Berkeley’s “French despotism”, Lawrence and Drummond (Warner, page 19). Warner points out that even one of Bacon’s biggest detractors, Robert Beverley, whose father supported Berkeley against Bacon during the war, agrees that Bacon was a molder of men’s thinking and that Bacon was in every way qualified to head his army. “He [Beverley] admitted that Nathaniel Bacon was therefore a very persuasive leader and even wrote that he was held “in great honor and Esteem among the people” (Warner, page 20).
Bacon’s Laws were repealed under Berkeley’s influence in February 1677. Copies were made, however, and “one copy came into the possession of Peyton Randolph, Speaker of the House of Burgesses” (Warner, page 24). This copy later came into President Thomas Jefferson’s possession. “Many of the popular ideals involved in Bacon’s Rebellion therefore won a victory. Such a victory helped give birth to the republic” (Warner, page 90).
The House of Burgesses, which had just recently been allies of the Governor, “were now voicing popular sentiments . . . Nathaniel Bacon, having directed his ideas against the governor’s party, had helped to give even the most wealthy a structural framework within which to pursue self-government” (Warner, page 91). Bacon’s rebellion did not succeed in the sense that Berkeley was driven from power, nor in that Bacon lived through the conflict, but it did succeed in that Bacon’s ideas opened up the Virginian colony to greater self-government and a creation of the strongest colonial assembly and government of the colonies.
According to Standard, although the leader was killed by disease, and “many of the bravest of his men paid for their allegiance . . . upon the scaffold, the cause was won - not lost” (Standard, page 162). Most of the grievances that were made against the government were “relieved by the reforms in the administration of the government” and the Indian problem had been solved until settlements were made west of the Blue Ridge (Standard, page 163).
Back Home
What Would have Happened if Bacon had Won the Rebellion?
Neither Bacon’s army, nor Bacon defeated Berkeley and took control of Virginia. Neither did Bacon’s Laws survive even a year (under their original names). Does this mean that Bacon’s ideas were lost? As mentioned before, Bacon did not physically win the rebellion, but his ideas, and some of his law, which were re-enacted under new names and lived on after him. What would have happened if Bacon had physically won the rebellion?
After Bacon’s death, Redcoats arrived to examine the situation in the colonies. If Bacon had won, and if he had wanted to break away from the King, then he would have faced the might of the English Empire. If Bacon had won, then other colonies might have followed his example, and their combined breakaway might have caused enough problems for the English that the breakaway colonies might have succeeded. If only Virginia had decided to try for independence, then the English Empire would have had an easier time taming the rebellious beast.
Would he have really broken from the King? Bacon’s family history, which includes both loyalty and disloyalty to the Kings of England, might lead Bacon in either direction. “If he could have laid his hands on Berkeley he would have kept him under guard until his own and his followers’ case had been put before the King. He would have told of the Indian massacres, of Sir William’s refusal to consent to an expedition to end them . . .” (Wertenbaker, page 129). Later in the war, Goode, who had fought with Bacon until the second of September, wrote a letter to Governor Berkeley stating that Bacon planned to fight the Redcoats, and that he believed that Maryland and Carolina would also “cast off his Majesty’s yoke as soon as they should become strong enough” (Standard, page 139).
Back Home
Conclusion
While it is not clear what Bacon would have done if he had defeated Berkeley, it is clear that Bacon’s campaign is more important than just a minor rebellion. Bacon’s activities forced certain ideas and laws onto Virginia’s government and society. While the laws were repealed in 1677, the ideas still existed, and were inspirations to both Peyton Randolph, Thomas Jefferson and other leaders of the 1776 campaign for independence. While it is not certain that these leaders would not have rebelled if Bacon’s ideas were never expressed, it is certain that the ideas played some part. Did Bacon really care about the “common” man? Most evidence, including an examination of Bacon’s Laws (which Warner proves were actually written, or inspired by Bacon), and Bacon’s family history of rebelling and siding with the commoners, shows that Bacon was ultimately on the commoners side (though they might not necessarily have been trying to be on the common man’s side). Did Bacon’s rebellion have any impact on future Virginia history? If for no other reason than forcing Berkeley to disband the corrupt assembly and call for elections, then Bacon’s rebellion forced an impact on Virginia history. Virginia had the strongest and most advanced colonial government among the thirteen colonies. Bacon’s rebellion failed physically in the short term, but not conceptually, over the long passage of time.
Back Home
Bibliography
Primary:
Beverly, Robert. “Robert Beverley on Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704.” Internet:
http://kuttp.cc.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/usdocs.txt/beverley.html
Matthew, Thomas. The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon’s Rebellion, 1675- 1676. c 1705. Contained inside Narratives of the Insurrections: 1675-1690. editor Charles M. Andrews, Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York; 1915; page 33.
Secondary:
“Bacon’s Rebellion and Racism.” Internet:
http://nunic.nu.edu/~dcunning/gs/his320/unit1/module3/bacon.html (note: does not exist anymore at this address).
Standard, Mary Newton. The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion. The Neale Publishing House, New York; 1907; page 40.
Warner, Charles Willard Hoskins. Road to Revolution. Garrett and Massie, Publishers, Richmond; 1961; page 7.
Washburn, Wilcomb E. The Governor and the Rebel. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill; 1957; page 17.
Wertenbaker, Thomas Jefferson. Torchbearer of the Revolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1940.
Back Home
