Bacon’s Rebellion
The article ‘Bacon’s Rebellion’ has been written by the National Park Service (NPS), a government source containing a variety of online articles. The article is written with the aim to display the history and culture of America, particularly Jamestown. Bacon’s Rebellion is one of the many stories and the History and Culture section of the NPS website. It researches the different historical themes, including Jamestown personalities, early industries, and timeline-inclined topics. Such stories are called fact sheets. The article, therefore, was written for the purpose of educating the public on what happened in America in the past. As an educative source, the document can be considered a reliable information source. Also, I think that the document is reliable based on the NPS policy on the publishing of its articles, which states that any information on the site should be assessed for quality, impartiality, usefulness, and integrity.
The article was written by Susan McCulley in 1987 and later revised by Jen Loux William and Mary Intern in 1995. It is possible for the author and those who later revised the article to have several biases. First, they might have been in favor of the Indians and Sir William Berkeley, the then Virginia governor or in favor of the colonists and young Nathaniel Bacon, Jr. This bias is established on whether or not they believed that the Indians were responsible for the economic problems in Virginia and the English losses in wars, for example, with the Dutch.
The article is written to Americans who wish to explore the history of their country, including the specific events that happened at certain times. This affects how the information is delivered as they seek to be as factual as possible for the citizens to know their history accurately. Also, as the article is written about a section of colonial National Historical Park, Virginia, it might affect how the article was written since they still needed to invite local and international tourists and historians to visit Jamestown, where most of the events in the Bacon’s Rebellion occurred.
The author’s main aim in the article is to provide a timeline of the event as it happened and who is involved. McCulley, therefore, begins with highlighting the main parties involved in the Rebellion, Berkeley, and Bacon, the proceeds to give the reasons for the Rebellion, and finally, the sequence of events from the beginning to the end of the Rebellion. She is not fixated on any of the participants more than the other and does not offer any personal opinion while narrating the events of the article. The main idea of the article is, therefore, to be purely an informative piece.
Form the article, it is a fact that Berkeley was ready to settle the Rebellion peacefully without leading any of the groups into a physical war. This is seen where he relieves all local Indians of their powder and ammunition to show colonialists and Bacon’s supporters that they could settle the differences without going into battle. Also, despite Bacon’s refusal to adhere to his orders, Berkeley was willing to forgive him if Bacon agreed to peacefully surrender to the authorities and be tried in England. Secondly, it is a fact that the Indians were blamed for everything going wrong under both Berkeley’s and the colonialist’s leadership. This includes all the economic and war problems that faced both governments. In the article, all the problems facing Virginia and the colonialists are blamed on the local Indians. Also, despite Berkeley assuring the settlers that the local Indians were not aggressive and declaring war on all rogue Indians, he is accused of favoring Indian traders, and their movement is monitored under the suspicion that they are receiving arms and ammunition.
The statement “historians considered the Virginia Rebellion of 1676 to be the first stirring of revolutionary sentiment in America, which culminated in the American Revolution” (McCulley, 1987) stuck out to me from the article. This is because although historians later dismissed the thought and termed Bacon’s Rebellion as a power struggle between Bacon and Berkeley, it may have still contributed to the American Revolution, albeit minimally. McCulley’s statement, “Could it have been prevented, or was it time for inevitable changes to take place in the colonial governmental structure?” (1987) is also memorable. It highlights the possibility of preventing the Rebellion by Bacon and Berkeley finding other ways such as holding meetings, proposing solutions, and implementing them instead of initiating a rebellion.
By the end of the article, one can conclude that while both leaders were selfish by both explicitly pushing their own agendas, Bacon was the most power-hungry. This is seen in several instances, for example, where he leads his men to attack a friendly Indian camp, Occaneecheee, who resided on Roanoke River and raided their store of beaver pelts. He also raids Gloucester of their supplies, leaving them prone to Indian attacks and threatens to kill Burgesses if his demand for a commission is not granted moments after being pardoned by Berkeley and being allowed to participate in the assembly. It is also evident that all the events in Bacon’s Rebellion could be avoided with proper leadership and laws that dealt with all the problems faced instead of placing blame on certain groups.
References
McCulley, S. (1987). Bacon’s Rebellion. NPS.