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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

During the mid-1650s, the assembly also attempted to further curtail the politi-

cal and legal rights of Virginia’s populace. In the 1655 session, the burgesses

attempted to ensure the election of only “persons of known integrity and of good

conversation,” by limiting suffrage to housekeepers. This act, in effect, disfran-

chised landless freemen, who heretofore had participated in the election of

burgesses (Hening 1810–1823, Vol. 1, 412, 403; Morgan 1975, 238).

In addition to these attempts to curta il the politi cal rights of nonelites, the

House of Burgesses in the latter half of the 17th century also attempted to restrict

lower-class Virginians access to Indian land and trade. By the mid-1670s, small

planters and artisans found themselves subject to a heavier tax burden, denied

recourse to the ancient traditions of c ustom and usage, and forced to watch as

the wealthy few who dominated Virginia society engro ssed more land, trade, and

tobacco to themselves. It is, therefore, not surprising that they revolted against

both Sir William Berkeley and the House of Burgesses in 1676.

For a brief time during Bacon’s Rebellion, men who sympathized with Bacon

dominated the House of Burgesses. The enactments of that assembly of 1676

14 Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676)

Patrick Henry addresses the Virginia House of Burgesses in opposition to the Stamp Act on

May 29, 1765. Henry advocated that only colonial legislatures could require colonists to pay

taxes. It was during a decisive speech on this issue that he associated King George III of

England with Julius Caesar and Charles I. Interrupted by cries of treason, Henry replied,

If this be treason, make the most of it! (National Archives)

demonstrate the extent to which the previous Houses had alienated nonelite

and middling Virginians. Among them were bills that curtailed the powers of the

governor and restored voting rights to landless Virginians (Washburn, 1957,

49–67).

Eventually, the House of Burgesses came back under the control of the Virginia

gentry, and it was there in 1775 that another rebel, Patrick Henry, delivered his

famous “give me liberty or give me death” speech. The House of Burgesses also

launched the careers of such inﬂuential American Revolutionary ﬁgures as

Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and George Washington.

—Ethan Schmidt

Further Reading

Hatch, Charles E., Jr. America’s Oldest Legislative Assembly & Its Jamestown State-

houses . Appendix II. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, 1956.

Hening, William Waller. The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of

Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. Vol. 2. Richmond,

VA: Samuel Pleasants, 1810–1823.

Morgan, Edmu nd. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial

Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton, 1975.

Washburn, Wilcomb. The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in

Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957.

Indentured Servants

Indentured servants represented the best possible solution to meet the intense labor

demands of plantation agriculture in England’s colonies. It also created a situation

ripe for the outbreak of rebellion. In the colonies, the system was ﬁrst employed in

Virginia. The tobacco boom of the 1620s and 1630s, combined with the high mor-

tality rate, produced a situation in which Virginia’s labor needs far outpaced the

available pool of laborers. Col onial planners therefore decided to addres s this

problem while at the same time acting to decrease the idle population back in

England. Under the system of indentured servitude, an individual could sign a con-

tract whereby, in return for transportation to Virginia, they agreed to work for the

holder of the contract for a speciﬁed amou nt of time. Seven years constituted the

most common length of service (Morgan 1975, 84–85, 106–107).

Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676) 15

During the length of the indenture, the owner of the contract held almost com-

plete power over the servant. Masters in this system restricted the freedom of

movement and ass ociation of their indentured servants and had to give them per-

missi on to marry. Masters could also beat their indentured servants. When a ser-

vantlivedtotheendofhis/herperiodofindenture, the contract often required

that their masters provide them with land, money, tools, clothing, and food to help

them establish themselves as Virginia tobacco planters. However, due to the very

active disease environment, the poor nourishment and tre atment given them by

most masters, and the arduous nature of tobacco work, most servants during the

ﬁrst half of the 17th century died before serving out their full period of indenture

(Morgan 1975, 106–107).

During the second half of the 17th century, conditions in Virginia improved to

the point that many more indenture d servants began to outlive their contracted

time of servitude. This created a situation in which many masters (whose own

proﬁt margins were often incredibly thin) were unable or refused to provide their

newly fre e servants the items for which they had previously contracted. Addi-

tionally, even for those servants fortunate to receive their goods and payments

from their former masters, the overwhelming majority of the land in the eastern

portion of Virginia was already held by a small minority of very large and very

powerful tobacco planters. This left landless freeman, as they came to be known,

no choice but to head to less settled western reaches of the colony and squat on

any land they could ﬁnd. This brought them into conﬂict with the Indians who

lived in that region under the auspices of treaties negotiated with the Virginia

government as well as many wealthy eastern planters who had already estab-

lished legal claim to the lands themselves, but had not yet developed it. There-

fore, during the mid-1670s, when Nath aniel Bacon began to call for a general

campaign to rid Virginia of all Indians and eventually to revolt against the

wealthy planters who dominated Virginia’s government, he found a fertile

ground for recruits to his “people’s a rmy” among landless freeman. There is

considerable evidence to support the claim that because of this, in the years

after Bacon’s Rebellion, the Virginia government took steps to eliminate the

practice o f indentured servitude and replace it with lifetime African chattel

slavery (Morgan 1975, 184–270).

—Ethan Schmidt

Further Reading

Brown, Kathleen. Good Wives, Nasty Wenches and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender,

Race and Power in Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,

1996.

16 Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676)

Carr, Lois Green. Colonial Chesapeake Society. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press, 1991.

Hening, William Waller. The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of

Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. Vol. 2. Richmond,

VA: Samuel Pleasants, 1810–1823.

Jernegan, Marcus Wilson. Laboring and Dependent Classes in Colonial America,

1607–1783. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Kulikoff, Allan. Toba cco and Slaves: The Deve lopment of Southern Cult ures i n the

Chesapeake, 1680–1800 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Morgan, Edmu nd. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial

Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton, 1975.

Salinger, Sharon V. To Serve Well and Faithfully: Labor and Indentured Servants in

Pennsylvania, 1682–1800. Westminster, MD: Heritage Books, 2000.

Susquehannock Indians

The Susquehannock Indians (later referred to as the Susquehannas or Conestogas)

played a crucial role in initiating the 1676 Virginia revolt known as Bacon’s

Rebellion. At the time of the initial English settlement of Virginia, the Susquehan-

nocks, an Iroquo ian-speaking group, lived north of the territory inhabited by the

Algonquian-speaking Powhatan Chiefdom. According to early colonial sources,

particularly the writings of Captain John Smith, the Susquehannocks often raided

south into Powhatan’s domain and he was quite interested in establishing an alli-

ance with the English to protect his people from them (Rountree, 1989, 120;

Washburn 1957, 43; Andrews 1915, 112).

Throughout the ﬁ rst half of the 17th century, the Susquehanno cks engaged in

multiple struggles over access to beaver-hunting grounds with the Algonquians

of Virginia and Maryland as well as their fellow Iroquoians of the Five Nations.

By the 1640s, they had extended Susquehannock control from their original

villages along the Susquehanna River in present-day Pennsylvania, east to the

Delaware River, south to the Potomac River in Virginia, and as f ar north as New

York. Additionally, they established lucrative trading and military alliances with

the Huron in Canada as well as the Erie and Shawnee to their west in the Ohio

and Gre at Lakes regions. This large ge ograph ic sphere of Susquehannock inﬂu-

ence placed them in an extremely advantageous position for trade with European

powers in two ways. First, their location allowed them access to the very produc-

tive beaver-hunting grounds of western Pennsylvania, New York, and the Ohio

Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676) 17

River Valley. Secondly, t his location allowed them to demand a high price from

three competing European powers, each of which were intent on keeping the

others out of the fur trade. Through their Huron allies in Canada, they could access

French fur traders. In the east, just across the Delaware River, the Dutch eagerly

pursued Susquehannock commodities. If neither of those competitors could meet

their price (usually large quantities of ﬁrearms), the Susquehannocks could take

their furs to the English in Virginia. Their success at exploiting this geopolitical

advantage made the Susquehannocks one of the most heavily armed native groups

in the 1640s. Repo rtedly, one of their villages in western Pennsylvania even pos-

sessed a cannon (Kent 1984, 25–28; Sultzman, “Susquehannock History”).

By the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, many Susquehannocks lived in villages just

across the Potomac River in Maryland. In July 1675, a group of Susquehannocks

became entangled in a trading dispute with a Virginian named Thomas Mathew. In

response to his refusal to pay them for some hogs, a group of Susqehannocks crossed

the Potomac River and stole the hogs back. This set off a series of reprisals between

Mathew and the Susquehannocks, which resulted in the deaths of sev eral Indians as

well as two of Mathew’s servants and his son. Over the course of the next few weeks,

the Virginia government dispatched retaliatory expeditions against the Susquehan-

nocks that crossed into Maryland and destroyed entire Susquehannock villages. In

response to these expeditions, the remaining Susquehannock groups crossed into

Virginia in late 1675 and began raiding the outlying settlements indiscriminately.

These raids prompted western Virginians under the leadership of Nathaniel Bacon

to demand authorization for a genocide campaign against all Indians. When the royal

governor of Virginia refused, Bacon and the westerners rose up in rebellion during

the spring of 1676 (Andre ws 1915, 15–16; Washburn 1957, 20–21).

—Ethan Schmidt

Further Reading

Andrews, Charles McLean. Narratives of the In surrections , 1675–1690.NewYork:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915.

Ken t, Bar ry. Susquehanna’s Indians. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania History and Museum

Commission, 1984.

Morgan, Edmun d. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial

Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton, 1975.

Rountree, Helen. The Powhatan Indians of Virginia: Their Traditional Culture. Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.

Sultzman, Lee. “The Susquehannock.” The Susquehannock Fire Ring. http://

susquehannock.brokenclaw.net/susquehannock (accessed Augu st 20, 2010).

Washburn, Wilcomb. The Governor a nd the R ebel: A History o f B acon’s Rebellion in

Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957.

18 Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676)

Webb, Stephen Saunders. 1676: The End of American Independence . New York: Alfred A.

Knopf, 1984.

Wer tenbake r, Thomas Jefferson. Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon’s

Rebellion and Its Leader. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940.

Tobacco

The introduction of West Indian tobacco to Virginia by John Rolfe in 1612 created

the economic boom that ensured Virginia’s survival. It also instigated a need for

land and labor that spawned over 30 years of warfare against the Powhatan Chief-

dom, eventually led to the institution of African slavery in North America, and

placed the colony’s social classes on the path toward a cataclysmic rebellion in

the latter half of the century (Morgan 1975, 90–91).

Initially, James I of England resisted the widespread cultiv ation and exportation of

what he termed a “vile stinking weed” from one of his colonies. However, after he

realized the extent to which the exportation of tobacco was rapidly ﬁlling his cof fers,

he relented in his opposition, and Virginia’s entire social and economic life came to

revolve around the production of it to the point that they began to grow it in the

streets of Jamestown and use tobacco as their currency (Morgan 1975, 196–197).

Already on shaky ground with the Powhatan Indians in the midst of whose land

they had founded Jamestown, the need for more land on which to produce tobacco

Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676) 19

Workers harvest tobacco in colonial Virginia, c. 1650. (Library of Congress)

led to a series of wars against the Powhatan for control of the area. Since tobacco

rapidly depletes the soil in which it grows, and the tobacco economy was so hot

during the 1620s and 1630s, the voracious Virginia appetite for land during this

period k new no limits. By 1646, the Virginians had completely vanquished the

once-powerful chiefdom and converted almost the entire eastern half of the colony

to tobacco-producing plantations (Morgan 1975, 92–101, 149).

The reliance on tobacco as a staple crop created another problem in that since

tobacco was such a labor-intensiv e crop, the only way to maximize proﬁt was to uti-

lize some sort of mass labor system. Indentured servitude constituted the ﬁrst attempt

by the Virginians to solve their labor shortage. This system, by which poor English-

men would agree to provide a set number of years’ labor in return for passage to

the colony, worked well enough during the heyday of the tobacco boom years. How-

ev er, it v ery quickly created an extremely exploitative society in which wealthy plant-

ers often utilized unscrupulous methods to extend the service time of their indentured

servants, defraud other colonists of their land and servants, and generally avoid living

up to their responsibilities under the agreement (Morgan 1975, 115–130).

By the 1670s, the inequalities created by the exploitative nature of the tobacco

economy in Virginia combined with the fact that indentured servants were increas-

ingly living out their period of indentures to produce a volatile situation in which a

large population of landless former indentured servants now demanded land and

rights. When the planter elite who dominated the assembly refused them political

rights, increased their tax burden, and forbade them from taking the Indian land in

western Virginia by force, thus dealing a death blow to their hopes of establishing

themselves as a planter, they joined Nathani el Bacon and rose up against the

government. In aftermath of the rebellion, the Virginia government deemphasized

indentured servant labor in favor of African slaves who could never attain the sta-

tus of a landless free man (Morgan 1975, 235–249).

—Ethan Schmidt

Further Reading

Brown, Kathleen. Good Wives, Nasty Wenches and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race and

Powe r in Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of Nor th Carolina Press, 1996.

Carr, Lois Green. Colonial Chesapeake Society. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press, 1991.

Hening, William Waller. The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of

Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. Vol. 2. Richmond,

VA: Samuel Pleasants, 1810–1823.

Kulikoff, Allan. Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the

Chesapeake, 1680–1800. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Morgan, Edmun d. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial

Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton, 1975.

20 Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676)

Nathaniel Bacon’s Manifesto (1676)

This document articulates both the reasons and the justifications for Bacon’s Rebellion, a revolt

against the planter class by the lower-class farmers of inland areas of the colony. In it, the rebel-

lion’s leader, Nathaniel Bacon, argues that the royal governor, William Berkeley, is to blame

because he places greater importance on assuaging the demands of the region’s Native Ameri-

can populations rather than the demands of English landowners.

If virtue be a sin, if piety be guilt, al l the principles of morality, goodnes s and justice be

per vert ed, we must confess that those who are now called rebels may be in danger of

those high imputations. Those loud and several bulls would affright innocents and render

the defence of our brethren and the inquiry into our sad and heavy oppressions, treason.

But if there be, as sure there is, a just God to appeal to; if religion and justice be a

sanctuary here; if to plead the cause of the oppressed; if sincerely to aim at his Majesty’s

honour and the public good without any reservation or by interest; if to stand in the gap

after so much blood of our dear brethren bought and sold; if after the loss of a great part

of his Majesty’s colony deserted and dispeopled, freely with our lives and estates to

endeavour to save the remainders be treaso n; God Almighty judge and let guilty die.

But since we cannot in our hearts ﬁnd one single spot of rebellion or treason, or that

we have in any ma nner aimed at subverting the settled government or attempting of

the person of any either magistrate or private man, notwithstanding the several

reproaches and threats of some who for sinister ends were disaffected to us and cen-

sured our innocent and honest designs, and since all people in all places where we have

yet been can attest our civil , quiet, peaceable behaviour far different from that of rebel-

lion and tumultuous persons, let truth be bold and all the world k now the real founda-

tions of pretended guilt.

We appeal to the country itself what of what nature their oppressions have been, or

by what cabal and mystery the designs of many of those whom we call great men have

been transacted and carried on; but let u s trace these men in authority and favour to

whose hands the dispensation of the country’s wealth h as been committed. Let us

observe the sudden rise of their estates composed with the quality in which they ﬁrst

entered this country, or the reputation they have held here amongst wise and discerning

men. And let us see whether their extractions and education have not been vile, and by

what pretence of learning and virtue they could so soon [come] into employments of

so great trust and c onsequence. Let us consider their sudden a dvancement and let us

also consider whether any public work for our safety and defence or for the advance-

ment and propagation of trade, liberal arts, or sciences is here extant in any way

adequate to our vast charge. Now let us compare these things together and see what

sponges have sucked up the public treasure, and whether it has not been privately con-

trived away by unworthy favourites and juggling parasites whose tottering fortunes have

been repaired and supported at the public charge. Now if it be so, judge what greater

guilt can be than to offer to pry into thes e and t o unriddle the mysterious wi les of a

Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676) 21

powerful cabal; let all people judge what can be of more dangerous import than to sus-

pect the so long safe proceedings of some of our grandees, and whether people may with

safety open their eyes in so nice a concern.

Another main article of our guilt is our open and manifest aversion of all, not only

the foreign but the protected and darling Indians. This, we are informed, is rebellion of

a deep dye for that both the governor and council are by Colonel Cole’s assertion

bound to defend the queen and the Appamatocks with their blood. Now, whereas

we do declare and can prove that they have been for these many years enemies to

the king and country, robbers and thieves and invaders of his Majes ty’s right and our

interest and estates, but yet have by persons in authority been defended and protected

even against his Majesty’s loyal subjects, and that in so high a nature that even the

complaints and oaths of his Majesty’s most loyal subjects in a lawful manner proffered

by them against those barbarous outlaws, have been by the right honourable governor

rejected and the delinquents from his presence dismissed, not only with p ardon and

indemnity, but with all encouragement and favour; their ﬁrearms so destructful to us

and by our laws prohibited, commanded to be restored them, and open declaration

before witness made that they must have ammunition, although directly contrary to

our law. Now what greater guilt can be than to oppose and endeavour the destruction

of these honest, quiet neighbours of ours? ...

The Declaration of the People

For having upon specious pretences of public works, raised unjust taxes upon the

commonalty for the advancement of private favourites and other sinister ends, but

no visible effects in any measure adequate.

For not having during the long time of his government in any measure advanced his

hopeful colony, either by fortification, towns or trade.

For having abused and rendered contemptible the majesty of justice, of advancing to

places of judicature scandalous and ignorant favourites.

For having wronged his Majesty’s prerogative and interest by assuming the monopoly

of the beaver trade.

By having in that unjust gain bartered and sold his Majesty’s country and the lives of

his loyal subjects to the barbarous heathen.

For having protected, favoured and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty’s

most loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper

means of satisfaction for their many invasions, murders, and robberies committed

upon us.

For having, when the army of the English was just upon the track of the Indians, which

now in all places burn, spoil, and murder, and when we might with ease have des-

troyed them who then were in open hostility, for having expressly countermanded

22 Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676)

and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanour of the said

Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid

murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and

word passed of him, the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and made desolate a

great part of his Majesty’s country, have now drawn themselves into such obscure

and remote places nad are by their successes so emboldened and confirmed, and by

their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the

terror and consternation of the people so great, that they are now become not only

a difficult, but a very formidable enemy who might with ease have been destroyed,

etc. When upon the loud outcries of blood, the Assembly had with all care raised

and framed an army for the prevention of future mischiefs and safeguard of his

Majesty’s colony.

For having with only the privacy of some few favourites, without acquainting the

people, only by the alteration of a figure, forged a commission by we know not

what hand, not only without but against the consent of the people, for raising and

effecting of civil wars and distractions, which being happily and without bloodshed

prevented.

For having the second time attempted the same thereby calling down our forces from

the defence of the frontiers, and most weak exposed places, for the prevention of

civil mischief and ruin amongst ourselves, whilst the barbarous enemy in all places

did invade, murder, and spoil us, his Majesty’s most faithful subjects.

Of these, the aforesaid articles, we accuse Sir William Berkeley, as guilty of each

and every one of the same, and as one who has traitorously attempted, violated

and injured his Majesty’s interest here, by the loss of a great part of his colony,

and many of his faithful and loyal subjects by him betrayed, and in a barbarous and

shameful manner exposed to the incursions and murders of the heathen.

And we further declare these, the ensuing persons in this list, to have been wicked,

and pernicious counselors, aiders and assisters against the commonalty in these

our cruel commotions: ...[a list of 19 names follows] ...

And we do further demand, that the said Sir William Berkeley, with all the persons in

this list, be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days after

the notice hereof, or otherwise we declare as followeth: that in whatsoever house,

place, or ship any of the said persons shall reside, be hid, or protected, we do declare

that the owners, masters, or inhabitants of the said places, to be confederates and

traitors to the people, and the estates of them, as also of all the aforesaid persons, to

be confiscated. This we, the commons of Virginia, do declare desiring a prime union

amongst ourselves against the common enemy. And let not the faults of the guilty be

the reproach of the innocent, or the faults of crimes of the oppressors divide and

separate us, who have suffered by their oppressions.

Bacon’s Rebellion (1675–1676) 23