Danver Steven L. (Edited). Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Introduction

In one of the most misused quotations in American history, Thomas Jefferson

famously said that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with

the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure” (Jefferson 1955). This

phrase has been used to justify many violent actions throughout the nation’s his -

tory, many of which would be actions t hat might cause Jefferson, as president,

many nights of troubled thought. Its consistent use, however, reﬂects a simple truth

about people in general and Americans in particular. When a situation is perceived

as unacceptable, people take action. Although some pursue change on an individ-

ual basis, when it comes to large social issues, Americans have tended to form

groups of like-minded people to achieve the desired ends. Americans, throughout

their history, have addressed the circumstances of their lives by taking collective

action.

It is not the intent of the essays collected in the volumes of Revolts, Protests,

Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History to argue whether such

actions were justiﬁed. Obviously, in any such situation, there are two sides that

usually see things quite differently. Sometimes, basic morality dictates that one

side is “right” and the other is “wrong.” But determining such things is not our

task. Rather, it is more instructive for historians to look at the situations that

brought about such actions. What were the circumst ances that caused people to

decide that collective action was necessary? Who was involved? Why did people

respond the way they did? What were the events that were the turning points in

such a ctions? By ﬁnding the answers to all these q uestions, we ca n take some

important steps toward understanding how these revolts, protests, and other collec-

tive actions function within American society. To do so, it might be instructive to

look at the different types of events and movements that qualiﬁed for inclusion

in this work.

Among the most basic forms of revolt (not to mention the earliest) are the reac-

tions that American Indian peoples had when their rights, their land, or their cultures

were being taken from them. The Pueblo Revolt, in 1680, was one of the earliest

large-scale uprisings against the encroaching European presence on the continent.

It had many elements: land loss, cultural repression, religious suppression, and

forced labor. Similarly, the Pima Revolt in 1751, Pontiac’s Rebellion in 1763, the

Flight of the Nez Perce

in 1877, the Sioux resistance that culminated in the Wounded

Knee Massacre of 1890, though all different in their expression, shared the common

feature of a group or groups of American Indians taking action, sometimes against

xxi

hopeless odds, to defend different aspects of their way of life. Similarly, a revitalized

“Red Power” movement during the 1960s and 1970s saw a revival of resistance in

the Alcatraz Island Occupation of 1969–1970, the Trail of Broken Treaties protest

in 1972, and the Wounded Knee Occupation in 1973.

Of course, the United States was founded as a result of a collective action that

was, at times, called a revolt or a rebellion. Going back as far as Bacon’s Rebellion

in 1676, those who came over to North Ame rica showed a propensity for taking

action against the government when they felt that it was not serving their interests.

With the onset of the 1760s and the growing debate over taxation in the American

colonies, the pace of revolt quickened. In 1765, the Stamp Act Protests gave the

colonists a common cause. The Boston Massacre in 1770 galvanized the colonists

through the e ffective use of propaganda. The Regula tor Movement in 1771 gave

those theoretical movements some meaning, with the addition of violent action.

The Pine Tree Riot in 1772 again protested the rising royal authority over the col-

onies’ economic lives. The move toward revolution became almost inevitable after

the Boston Tea Party in 1773 led to greater repression by the British government,

which led to greater resistance by the colonies. The onset of the American Revolu-

tion was, largely, the culmination of this particular set of revolts and protests over

the prior 12 years.

But even after the American Revolution ended, the colonists-turned-Americans

were not averse to protesting against the government they had just installed if they

felt that their needs were not being met. Only three years after the end of the Rev-

olution, Shays’ Rebellion demonstrated that the newly elected leaders could not

afford to rest on their laurels at the expense of the common farmers. The Whiskey

Rebellion in 1794, the Dorr Rebellion in 1841, the actions of the Molly Maguires

in the 1870s, the Brooks-Baxter War in 1874, the Black Patch War in 1909, the

Bonus Army protests in 1932, the Battle of Athens in 1946, the Sagebrush Rebel-

lion in 1979, and the World Trade Organization protests in 1999 all had to do with

the discontent different groups of Americans felt over political and economic con-

ditions, and that the governing authorities were to blame.

But one of the most common ways that Americans collectively protested

against economic injustice was through organized labor action. As America’s pop-

ulation grew with the arrival of many immigrants during the late 19th century,

labor activism began to take over as one of the most common forms of revolt.

The Great Railroad Strikes of 1877, the Haymarket Square Riot in 1886, the

Homestead Strike in 1892, the Pullman Strike in 1894, the Ludlow Massacre in

1914, the Boston Police Strike in 1919, the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921, the

Toledo Auto-Lite Strike in 1934, and the West Coast Longshoremen’s Str ike t he

same year all featured organized labor as one of the moving forces in American

xxii Introduction

life, allowing ordinary people to take an active role in advocating for better treat-

ment in society.

American Indians, of cou rse, were not the only ethnic group to take action to

defend their cultural heritage and to ﬁght for the rights they should have been

rightfully accorded in American society. Slave rebellions were also among the ear-

liest collective actions against the imposition of racial power. Africans and African

Americans naturally found slave life intolerable, and resisted their situations in

many ways. Some acted as individuals, slowing their work or breaking the

machines used in their labor. Occasionally, armed insurrection was a more attrac-

tive, more immediate alternative. Sometimes, it was all the people had left. Many

examples can be cited: the Stono Rebellion in 1739, the New York Slave Insurrec-

tion in 1741, Gabriel Prosser’s Virgi nia Uprising in 1799, Charles Deslondes’s

German Coast Uprising in 1811, the abortive effort of white abolitionist George

Boxl ey to spark an insurre ction in 1815, and Denmark Vesey’s uprising in 1822.

All these actions caused Americans, especially southerners, to be extremely vigi-

lant a nd watchful over their slaves’ actions. But non e of these incidents had the

society-wide impact of Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831. In its aftermath, vigilance

committees roamed the South, looking out for possible insurrections. Largely

because of this, John Brown’s takeover of the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry in

1859 with the goal of sparking a large-scale slave insurrection scared white south-

erners to such a degree as to make it one of the factors that contributed to the onset

of the Civil War two years later.

Even after sl avery ended in 1865, African Americans and Americans of many

other minority groups had to take action to have their constitutional and other

social rights recognized by mainstream American society. Women began to advo-

cate for voting rights in the 1830s, with their movement really gaining momentum

by the 1870s. Hispanic Americans included African Americans and membe rs of

other marginalized groups in the Plan de San Diego in 1915. The Zoot Suit Riot

in 1942 showed that even though Mexican Americans were serving in the military

during World War II, they still were not viewed as equal partners i n American

society. Of course, the African American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s–

1960s is one of the most notable examples of the creation of a large-scale move-

ment to achieve some signiﬁcant cha nges. It became the model for many other

later movements, such as the Red Power Movement, the Chicano Movement,

and the Feminist Movement. But even though the Civil Rights Movement

achieved important things in terms of expanding the constitutional rights of all

Americans, it did not address all the issues, such as the economic and social

aspects of life that many people saw as important. As such, the Civil Rights Move-

ment spawned other protests, such as the Watts Riots in 1965, the Detroit Riots in

Introduction xxiii

1967, the Attica Prison Riot in 1971, the Los Angeles Uprising in 1992, and the

“Day without an Immigrant” protests in 2006.

The dark side of protest by ethnic groups in the United States, however, was

always present as a counterpoint. Frequently taking the form of race riots, Ameri-

cans protested and sometimes resorted to violence when they felt their lifestyle

was being threatened by minority ethnic groups . The P hiladelphia Nativist Riots

in 1844 saw many people protest the increasing presence of German America ns,

most of whom were Catholic. A decade later, Bleeding Kansas, although techni-

cally over states’ rights, had a signiﬁcant racial component, as Jayhawkers did

not want slavery in their free-soil territory. The list that follows is almost too long

to believe. A selective recounting would include the Portland Rum Riot in 1855,

the Know-Nothing Riots in 1855–1856, the N ew York Draft Riots in 1863, the

New Orleans Riot of 1866, the Colfax Massacre in 1873, the Seattle Riot in

1886, the Lattimer Massacre in 1897, the New Orleans Race Riot in 1900, the

Atlanta Ra ce Riot in 1906, the Spr ingﬁe ld Race Riot in 1908, the Houston Riot

in 1917, the Red Summer of 1919, and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921.

These are but a few of the reasons that groups of Americans, over the course of

their histories, have chosen to rise up against what they saw as the powers of

repression in their lives. There ar e many othe r reasons why revolts have broken

out. Religion (Leisler’s Rebellion in 1689, the Philadelphia Election Riot in

1742, and the Utah War in 1857), independence movements (the Texas Revolt in

1835, the Bear Flag Revolt in 1846), and antiwar activism (the Green Corn

Rebellion in 1917 and the Chicago Riots in 1968) have all been powerful motives

causing Americans to turn to coll ective action. If this history shows us anything,

it must be obvious that collective rebellion and revolt is a constant theme in

American life. The reasons have changed through the years, but the fact that

Americans take action to feed the “tree of liberty” with regularity has not. A look

at the news in early 2010 shows that a new movement known as the Tea Party,

whose history is still being written, is taking collecti v e action against what they see

as troubling signs of leftist leani ngs in their government. Although violence has

not yet broken out, there has been enough violent rhetoric—with gun-owning Tea

Partiers congregating on the banks of the Potomac, across from Washington, DC—

to cause concern. Whether or not one agrees with the Tea Partiers’ agenda, it is

obvious that they are more than willing to stage another revolt, rebellion, or even a

rev olution, if it means a restoration of their vision of America.

Intended for high school and undergraduate students and for the interested

general public, Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American

History is divided into 71 topic sections, which each section containing from three

to seven essays. An introductory essay describes the causes, course, and conse-

quences of the particular rebellion, revolt, riot, or uprising, with subsequent essays

xxiv Introduction

providing more detailed information on speciﬁc persons, organizations, concepts,

battles, or groups related to the event. Each essay concludes with a Further Read-

ing bibliography, and many sections conclude with relevant primary documents,

which open with b rief introducti ons describing the document and discussing its

impo rtance. “See also” cross-references at the ends of the introductory es says in

each section direct the reader to related sections. Finally, a detailed subject index

provides additional access to the sections and to the essays within them.

—Steven L. Danver

San Marcos, California

Further Reading

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smi th, November 13, 1787. In The Papers

of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12 (1955), 356.

Introduction xxv

Bacon’s Rebellion

(1675–1676)

A 1676 uprising in the colony of Virginia, Bacon’s Rebellion takes its name from

Nathaniel Bacon, the man who served as the primary leader of the movement.

Bacon’s Rebell ion is generally considered a rebellion of nonelite (former inden-

tured servants, some slaves, as well as small and middling planters) western

Virginians against the powerful tobacco elite of the eastern portions of the colony.

Early historical treatments tended to focus on whethe r or not it constituted a pre-

quel to the American Revolution 100 years before the fact. Over the past 30 years,

that interpretation faded in light of work that focuses on the rebellion’s role in

hastening race-based African slavery and ending indentured servitude. In addition

to the relationship between colonists and their c olonial governments and the

development of slavery in North America, the rebellion also provides signiﬁcant

insight into colonial attitudes toward Native A mericans (se e Wertenbaker 194 0;

Washburn 1957; Morgan 1975).

Bacon’s R ebellion began with an attempt by a group of Maryland Indians to

obtain redress from a Virginia c olonist. In July 1675, a group of Doegs and Sus-

quehannocks crossed the river and took some hogs from one Thomas Mathew, a

trader whom they said had defrauded them. Mathew and a group of men then gave

chase, caught up with some of the raiding party, and beat several of them to death.

The Indians who made it back to the Maryland side of the Potomac soon recrossed

the river and killed two men in Mathew’s service as well as his son. This incident,

combined w ith the general Indian fear spawned by the outbreak of King Philip’s

War in New England, provided an opportunity for those Virginians already predis-

posed toward violence against Indians to continue that animosity.

Despite an earlier conviction for a plot to frame one of the leaders of the Pata-

womeck Indians for murder, George Mason was dispatched with a force of

30 men to punish the Indians for the killings at Mathew’s plantation. When the

ﬂeeing Indians crossed to what they thought was the inviolable safety of Maryland

soil, the Virginians refused to stop and i nstead crossed the Potomac themselves.

When they caught up to the Indians at their village, Mason and Brent ki lled the

group’s leader and 10 other Indians. According to one account, the killing

occurred after the Indians emerged from their meetinghouse in response to Brent’s

request for a parley. Additionally, the group reportedly killed nearly 15 peaceful

Susquehannocks from near by houses who had come out to investigate t he noise

caused by Brent’s attack on the meetinghouse (Washburn 1957, 21; Andrews

1915, 105–106; Morgan 1975, 251).

Brent and Mason’s actions then touched off many acts of revenge on the part of

Indians and whites. Sir William Berkeley, the royal governor of Virginia, then

ordered out 1,000 militia to deal with the escalating conﬂict on the Virginia-

Maryland border. On September 26, the militia under the command of C olonel

John Washington and Major Is aac Allerton besieged a party of approximately

100 Susquehannocks on their way b ack from retaliatory raids into Virginia in

response to Mason and Brent’s actions the previous summer. When the S usque-

hannocks sent a party of men to parley, the Virginians killed them all. Eventually,

the remaining Susquehannocks escaped and began to raid the frontier settlements

of the upper Rappahannock in Virginia. In combination with the news of King

Philip’s War in N ew England, the attacks by these M aryland I ndians caused

landowning westerners like Nathaniel Bacon to consider all Indians as dangerous,

and ﬁt for destruction (Andrews 1915, 18–19; Morgan 1975, 250–253).

2 Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676)

Frustrated by the colonial government's moderate stance in the face of Indian raids on

settlers and the settlers' demand for Indian land, Nathaniel Bacon leads Virginians in an

attack on Native Americans in 1676. Known as Bacon's Rebellion, the civil revolt was the first

serious test of British authority in the New World. (Library of Congress)

Governor Ber keley at ﬁrst appeared to accede to these demands. In Janu-

ary 1676, he ordered a punitive expedition aga inst the Susquehannocks. As the

expedition was about to set out, B erkeley abruptly recalled the troops and ca n-

celled the entire expedition, preferring instead to take a defensive rat her than an

offensive approach to the crisis. This caused the residents of the western counties

that bordered the tributary remnants of the Powhatan chiefdom to take matters into

their own hands with Bacon as their leader (Washburn 1957, 24–25).

Many of them interpreted Berkeley’s plan a s nothing more than an attempt to

proﬁt from the crisis on the part of Virginia’s wealthy leadership. They focused

their ire on provisions of Berkeley’s plan that called for the building o f a stri ng

of defensive forts. These westerners, Bacon among them, objected to the plan for

several reasons. First, Berk eley planne d to build the forts on lands held by mem-

bers of his inner circle. He then proposed to pay the outsiders with whom he

planned to man the forts more than the typical westerner earned in a year. He

planned to raise the funds to pay for the forts by taxing those very same western

landowners. Frontier residents resented this fact considerably. Secondly, recent

explorations beyond the Blue Ridge Mountains had revealed to many enterprising

westerners the potential proﬁts to be gained from trade with the native groups of

that region. The tributary (peaceful) Indian groups of Virginia, located as they

were between these colonists and the groups on the other side of the Blue Ridge,

constituted a signiﬁcant barrier to the development of this trade. Therefore, many

western planters were eager to use the incursions of the Maryland Susquehannocks

as a pretext for eliminating the tributary Indian barrier to the western trade. There-

fore, Berkeley’s announced intentions to head off further Indian conﬂict by forbid-

ding the general public from engaging in trade with all Indians angered these

western Virginians even further (Morgan 1975, 253; Andrews 1915, 51; see also

Briceland, 1987).

For the landless poor who made up the majority of the rebellion’s foot soldiers,

the inequitable tax structure, the abrogation of their political and legal rights, and

the government’s refusal to acknowledge their perceived right to take native land

at will combined with their perception of Berkeley’s unwillingness to protect them

from Indian attack to push them violence in 1676.

In many ways, the true nature of Nathaniel Bacon remains somewhat of an

enigma. He had not been in Virgi nia long by the time of t he rebellion, and he

was still somewhat young, just 29 years old, even by the standards of a death trap

like 17th-century Virginia. A relative to a prominent Virginia ofﬁcial of the same

name, he quickly exploited that connection as well as his wife’s friendship with

Lady Berkeley to gain for himself a seat on the Governor’s Council. By the fall

of 1675, he had fallen out of favor with the governor for arresting a group of Indi-

ans whom he accused of theft. The fact that Berkeley dared to criticize his actions

Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676) 3