sakaisettlersocr

egan in April, 1676 as a difference between the elite and
sub-elite planters over 'Indian policy', but which in
September became a civil war against the Anglo-American
ruling class. ... The transcendent importance of this record
is that there, in colonial Virginia, one hundred and twentynine
years before William Lloyd Garrison was born, the
armed working class, black and white, fought side by side
for the abolition of slavery."(2)
Aptheker and Allen, as two brother settler
radicals, clearly agree with each other that Bacon's
Rebellion was an important revolutionary event. But in
Allen's account we suddenly find, without explanation,
that a dispute over "Indian policy" between some planters
transformed itself into an armed struggle by united white
and Afrikan workers to end slavery! That is a hard story to
follow. Particularly since Bacon's Rebellion is a cherished
event in Southern white history, and Bacon himself a
notable figure. There is, in fact, an imposing "Memorial
Tablet" of marble and bronze in the Virginia State
Capital, in the House of Delegates, which singles out
Bacon as "A Great Patriot Leader of the Virginia
People".(3) So even Virginia's segregationist white politicians
agreed with Aptheker and Allen about this
"democratic" rebellion. This truly is a unity we should not
forget.
Behind the rhetoric, the real events of Bacon's
Rebellion have the sordid and shabby character we are so
familiar with in Euro-Amerikan politics. It is, however,
highly instructive for us. The story begins in the summer of
1675. The settlers of Virginia Colony were angry and tense,
for the alarms of "King Philip's Rebellion M -the famed
Indian struggle-had spread South from Massachusetts.
Further, the Colony was in an economic depression due to
both low tobacco prices and a severe drought (which had
cut crop yields down by as much as three-quarters).(4)
One of the leading planters on the Colony's frontier
was Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., the newest member of the
Colony's elite. Bacon had emigrated just the year before,
swiftly purchasing two plantations on the James River. He
and his partner, William Byrd (founder of the infamous
Virginia planter family), had also obtained commissions
from Governor Berkeley to engage in the lucrative Indian
fur trade. All this was not difficult for Bacon, for he came
from a wealthy English family-and was cousin to both
Governor Berkeley's wife and to Nathaniel Bacon, Sr. (a
leading planter who was a member of Virginia's Council of
State).
In the Spring of that year, 1675, Governor
Berkeley honored young Bacon by giving him an appointment
to the Council of State. As events were to prove,
Bacon's elite lifestyle and rapid political rise did but throw
more fuel on the fires of his arrogance and unlimited ambition.
Virginia militia returned in August with reinforcements
from the Maryland militia. This new settler army of 1,100
men surrounded the Susquehannock fort. Five Susquehannock
leaders were lured out under pretense of a parley and
then executed.
Late one night all the besieged Susquehannock-men,
women and children-silently emptied out
their town and slipped away. On their way out they corrected
five settler sentries. From then on the Susquehannock
took to guerrilla warfare, traveling in small bands
and ambushing isolated settlers. Nathaniel Bacon, Jr. was
an avid "hawk", whose lust for persecuting Indians grew
even greater when Indian guerrillas killed one of his slave
overseers. To Bacon that was one injury too many.
At that time the Virginia settlers had become
polarized over "Indian policy", with Bacon leading the
pro-war faction against Governor Berkeley. Established
English policy, which Governor Berkeley followed, called
for temporary alliances with Indian nations and temporary
restraints on settler expansionism. This was not due to any
Royal humanitarianism, but was a recognition of overall
strategic realities by the English rulers. The Indian nations
held, if only for a historical moment, the balance of power
in North America between the rival British, French and
Spanish empires. Too much aggression against Indian territories
by English settlers could drive the Indians into allying
with the French. It is also true that temporary peace
with nearby Indians accomplished three additional ends:
The very profitable fur trade was uninterrupted; Indians
could be played off against each other, with some spying
and fighting for the settlers; Indian pledges could be gotten
to return runaway Afrikan slaves (although few were ever
returned). So under the peace treaty of 1646 (after Indian
defeats in the 1644-46 war), nineteen Indian tribes in
Virginia accepted the authority of the British Crown.
These subject Indians had to abide by settler law, and were
either passive or active allies in settler wars with Indians
further West.
By the time Bacon's overseer was corrected by the
no-longer friendly Susquehannock, the political dispute
between Bacon and Governor Berkeley had boiled over into
the public view. Earlier, Bacon and Byrd had secretly
suggested to Governor Berkeley that they be given a
monopoly on the Indian fur trade.(5) Corrupt as the
planters were, this move was so crudely self-serving that it
was doomed to rejection. Berkeley dismissed their greedy
proposal. Then, Bacon was wiped out of the fur trade
altogether. In March, 1676, the Virginia Assembly, reacting
to rumors that some traders were illegally selling guns
to the Indians, permanently suspended all the existing
traders and authorized commissioning a wholesale replacement
by new traders. Bacon was outraged, his pride and
pocketbook stung, his anger and ambition unleashed.
The dispute between Bacon and Governor
In July of 1675 war broke out between the settlers Berkeley was very clear-cut. Both favored war against the
and the Susquehannock Indians. As usual, the war was formerly-allied Susquehannock. Both favored warring on
started by settler harassment of Indians, climaxing in a any Indians opposing settler domination. But Berkeley
militia raid which mistakenly crossed the border into believed in the usefulness of keeping some Indian sub-
Maryland-and mistakenly attacked the Susquehannock, jects-as he said: "I would have preservd those Indians
who were allied to the settlers. The Susquehannock that I knew were hourely at our mercy to have beene our
resisted, and repelled the Virginians' attack. Angry that spies and intelligence to find out the more bloudy Enthe
Indians had dared to resist their bullying intrusion, the I 3 nimies. " Bacon disagreed, scorning all this as too meek,