Nathaniel Bacon

Nathaniel Bacon

Nathaniel Bacon nació en Suffolk, Inglaterra, el 2 de enero de 1647. Una disputa con la familia de su esposa lo persuadió de emigrar a América del Norte. Con el apoyo financiero de su padre, compró dos propiedades a lo largo del río James en Virginia.

William Berkeley nombró a Bacon para su consejo de gobierno, pero los dos hombres pronto se pelearon por el desarrollo de la colonia. Berkeley favoreció una política de contención, mientras que Bacon quería expandirse a áreas controladas por nativos americanos.

En 1676, Bacon organizó su propia expedición. Temiendo una guerra a gran escala con los nativos americanos, Berkeley volvió sus fuerzas contra Bacon y sus hombres. Bacon capturó Jamestown y William Berkeley se vio obligado a huir a Eastern Shore. Sin embargo, Nathaniel Bacon murió de fiebre en octubre de 1676, y sin su liderazgo, la rebelión colapsó rápidamente.

Las quejas frecuentes de derramamiento de sangre fueron enviadas a Sir William Berkeley desde las cabeceras de los ríos, que con tanta frecuencia fueron respondidas con promesas de ayuda. Estos en las cabeceras de los ríos James y York (habiendo ahora la mayoría de la gente destruida por los indios) se impacientaron ante las numerosas matanzas de sus vecinos y se levantaron o en su propia defensa, quienes eligieron. Tocino para su líder, enviado muchas veces al gobernador, suplicando humildemente a una comisión que vaya contra esos indios a su cargo.

Mr. Bacon, con cincuenta y siete hombres, procedió hasta que incendiaron las empalizadas, asaltaron y quemaron el fuerte y las cabañas, y (con la pérdida de tres ingleses) mató a 150 indios.

El general Bacon marchó con 1.000 hombres hacia el bosque para buscar a los indios enemigos; y, pocos días después, nuestra siguiente noticia fue que el gobernador había convocado a la milicia de los condados de Gloucester y Middlesex, hasta el número de 1.200 hombres, y les propuso seguir y reprimir al rebelde Bacon.

Bacon lo tomó por asalto (Jamestown) y tomó la ciudad, en la que atacaron a doce hombres muertos y heridos, pero el gobernador Berkeley, con la mayoría de los seguidores, huyó río abajo en sus barcos. Aquí, descansando unos días, acordaron la quema del pueblo. El Sr. Lawrence y el Sr. Drumond, dueños de las dos mejores casas excepto una, prendieron fuego cada uno a su propia casa, cuyo ejemplo los soldados que siguieron dejaron toda la ciudad (con la iglesia y la casa estatal) en cenizas, diciendo que los pícaros no deberían albergar más allí. .

El Sr. Bacon regresó de su expedición enfermo de un cambio; sin encontrar indios enemigos, no habiendo ido muy lejos a causa de las aflicciones a sus espaldas. Tampoco tuvo un día seco en todas sus marchas de un lado a otro por el bosque mientras las plantaciones tenían un verano tan seco como el maíz y el tabaco, etc. Al cabo de un tiempo murió Bacon y fue sucedido por su teniente general, Ingram.


Bacon & # 8217s Rebellion (1676-1677)

La rebelión de Bacon, que se libró entre 1676 y 1677, comenzó con una disputa local con los indios Doeg en el río Potomac. Los indios, perseguidos hacia el norte por los milicianos de Virginia, que también atacaron a los Susquehannocks que de otro modo no estarían involucrados, comenzaron a asaltar la frontera de Virginia. El gobernador, Sir William Berkeley, pidió a la Asamblea General que adoptara un plan que aislara a los Susquehannocks al tiempo que atraía a aliados indios del lado de Virginia. Otros vieron en la guerra de Susquehannock una oportunidad para una guerra india general que produciría esclavos y tierras indias, y daría rienda suelta al sentimiento popular anti-indio. Encontraron un líder en Nathaniel Bacon, un recién llegado a Virginia y miembro del consejo del gobernador. Bacon exigió una comisión para luchar contra los indios cuando no había ninguno, dirigió a los "voluntarios" contra algunos de los aliados indios más cercanos de Virginia. Esto llevó a una guerra civil que enfrentó a los seguidores de Bacon con los leales a Berkeley. El conflicto fue a menudo amargo y personal —en un momento, Berkeley desnudó su pecho y desafió a Bacon a matarlo— e involucró el saqueo de propiedades tanto rebeldes como leales. Berkeley expulsó a Bacon del Consejo, lo reintegró y luego lo expulsó por segunda vez. Después de que el gobernador huyó de Jamestown hacia Eastern Shore, regresó, solo para ser ahuyentado por el ejército de Bacon, que quemó la capital. Bacon murió repentinamente en octubre de 1676, pero la encarnizada lucha continuó hasta enero. La Corona envió tropas a Virginia, que llegaron poco después de sofocar la rebelión. Las causas de la rebelión de Bacon se han disputado durante mucho tiempo. En la actualidad, se considera generalmente como parte de una crisis general en los arreglos sociales, económicos y políticos de Virginia. El argumento de que debería verse como una revuelta contra la tiranía inglesa y un precursor de la Revolución Americana (1775-1783) ha sido desacreditado.


Tocino y rebelión n. ° 8217

"... prácticas amotinadas y rebeldes ..." -nathaniel bacon, 1676

Lo que comenzó como una disputa entre colonos e indios en la frontera entre Virginia y Maryland en el otoño de 1675, rápidamente estalló en una rebelión a gran escala de Nathaniel Bacon contra el gobernador Sir William Berkeley, un rico plantador, y su gobierno el año siguiente.

A finales del siglo XVII, los plantadores de élite en Virginia dependían de la mano de obra por contrato. Después de que terminó su servicio, estas personas se trasladaron más hacia el interior de la región de Tidewater, a menudo entrando en conflicto con los nativos americanos mientras avanzaban hacia el Piamonte. Temerosos del aumento de las redadas indias y frustrados por años de bajos precios del tabaco y altos impuestos, los colonos se reunieron detrás de Nathaniel Bacon.

Bacon, primo del gobernador Berkeley por matrimonio, era un caballero bien relacionado recién llegado a la colonia. Bacon desafió los intentos de Berkeley de negociar la paz entre los colonos y las tribus nativas. Él y sus seguidores buscaron adquirir más tierras expulsando a los nativos de Virginia por completo.

La violencia se intensificó rápidamente. Ante la continua pérdida de sus tierras, la tribu Doeg atacó los asentamientos europeos. Los colonos tomaron represalias, pero atacaron por error a la pacífica tribu Susquehannock, lo que provocó más conflictos. Las redadas, a menudo dirigidas por el propio Bacon, dieron lugar a la matanza de muchos pueblos indígenas. Según los registros históricos, la tribu Pamunkey, liderada por su reina Cockacoeske, huyó a las marismas donde sería más difícil para los rebeldes rastrearlos.

A lo largo de estos meses, el gobernador Berkeley intentó y fracasó en negociar la paz. Finalmente ordenó la construcción de nuevos fuertes y restringió el comercio con los pueblos nativos. Sin embargo, se consideró que estas decisiones limitaban aún más el poder de los blancos pobres y aumentaban sus impuestos (fondos necesarios para pagar las nuevas fortificaciones). Bacon, un miembro recién nombrado del Consejo de Virginia, hizo un llamamiento al pueblo en agosto de 1676 en una dura crítica del gobierno de Berkeley y la corrupción de la élite adinerada. Berkeley, a su vez, declaró a Bacon rebelde y reunió fuerzas para oponerse a él.

El 30 de julio, Bacon y sus 600 seguidores enviaron la “Declaración del Pueblo de Virginia” afirmando que Berkeley “abusó y desgarró despreciables a los Magistrados de Justicia, al avanzar a lugares de la Judicatura, favoritos escandalosos e ignorantes”. El 19 de septiembre, marcharon hacia la capital de Jamestown y la quemaron mientras Berkeley huía. Al mes siguiente, Bacon murió de "Bloody Flux" (disentería). Sin su líder carismático, la rebelión perdió impulso. Los leales de Berkeley derrotaron a los rebeldes en enero de 1677.

La rebelión de Bacon fue el desafío más serio a la autoridad real antes de la Revolución Americana. Los historiadores a menudo relacionan este evento con el declive de la servidumbre por contrato y el correspondiente aumento de la esclavitud dentro de las colonias británicas americanas.


La rebelión de Bacon: la primera insurrección armada de Estados Unidos

Bacon's Rebellion fue un conflicto que comenzó como muchos desacuerdos, con una discusión de borrachos. Pero se considera que este breve levantamiento en la América colonial del siglo XVII tuvo consecuencias a largo plazo para los asentamientos coloniales, las políticas hacia los nativos americanos y los conceptos de raza en América del Norte.

El incidente tuvo lugar en la Virginia Colonial de 1676 a 1677, y debido a que fue 100 años antes de la Revolución Estadounidense, Bacon's Rebellion se postuló una vez como una especie de precursor del derrocamiento de la tiranía. De hecho, Thomas Jefferson consideraba al líder de la rebelión, Nathaniel Bacon, un patriota.

Pero los historiadores contemporáneos ven la rebelión de Bacon a la luz del conflicto entre los colonos y los nativos americanos, así como por los efectos que tuvo en la forma en que se desarrollaron las ideas sobre la raza en las colonias americanas.

Bacon era relativamente un recién llegado a Virginia cuando lanzó la rebelión. Entonces, ¿cómo se las arregló para reunir el apoyo suficiente para desencadenar un conflicto que cambiaría el curso de la historia?

Nathanial Bacon el hombre

Nacido en Suffolk, Inglaterra en 1647, Bacon había sido enviado a la colonia de Virginia por su padre porque había intentado defraudar a un vecino de 16 años, según James Rice, profesor de Walter S. Dickson y presidente del departamento de historia. , De la Universidad de Tufts, quien dice que Bacon era considerado un "tipo muy desagradable".

Este parece ser el consenso generalizado sobre la figura histórica. El sitio web del Servicio de Parques Nacionales dice que `` Bacon era un alborotador e intrigante cuyo padre lo envió a Virginia con la esperanza de que madurara ''.

A pesar de la personalidad, las cosas tuvieron un comienzo auspicioso para Bacon. Llegó a Virginia en 1675 y, gracias a sus conexiones (estaba relacionado con el gobernador William Berkeley por matrimonio), Bacon recibió una concesión de tierras y un puesto en el Consejo del Gobernador, según el Museo de Historia y Cultura de Virginia. Sin embargo, su llegada coincidió con una crisis en el orden económico, social y político de Virginia en la que pronto se vería envuelto.

Problemas en Virginia

Los plantadores de tabaco de Virginia habían experimentado la caída de los precios del tabaco en una colonia con disparidad económica entre los plantadores más grandes y pequeños, los inmigrantes pobres y los esclavos liberados. La mayoría de los lugareños no estaban involucrados en la vida política y los no terratenientes no podían votar. Además de estos desafíos a la estabilidad, los colonos de Virginia tenían diferentes opiniones sobre cómo manejar las relaciones con los pueblos nativos y las tribus locales.

Al mismo tiempo, había estallado la guerra entre los indios Susquehannock y los colonos, que comenzó con una "pequeña disputa comercial", dijo Rice en "Bacon's Rebellion in Indian Country", un artículo de 2014 que escribió para el Journal of American History. Había dos ideas sobre cómo responder.

El gobernador Berkeley pensó que el mejor curso de acción sería librar la guerra contra los Susquehannock pero permanecer en paz con otras tribus vecinas. Otros, incluido Bacon, no estuvieron de acuerdo y sintieron que el conflicto presentaba una oportunidad para exterminar a todos los nativos, punto.

Y no fue solo Bacon, dice Rice. Algunos de los hacendados ricos de la zona también querían ir más allá del plan de guerra limitada del gobernador. Bacon tomó el control de un campamento de milicianos voluntarios para luchar contra los Susquehannock y otras tribus.

¿Quiénes eran estas milicias? Es difícil de saber, según Rice. Dice que ha existido el mito de que los rebeldes de Bacon comprendían plantadores occidentales pobres (fronterizos) contra plantadores orientales ricos que se trataba de un levantamiento de abajo hacia arriba. Sin embargo, el estatus socioeconómico de la milicia es difícil de precisar, y hay evidencia de plantadores ricos de la frontera, como el propio Bacon y William Byrd, quien fue uno de los hombres que lo reclutó, entre ellos.

La historiografía se ha centrado en una guerra civil entre virginianos, y los indios se han visto empujados al margen de la historia, dice Rice. Pero Bacon's Rebellion se trataba en realidad de luchar contra los indios más que de un desacuerdo entre colonos pobres y ricos.


Inventar el blanco y negro

En Virginia en la década de 1600, Anthony Johnson se aseguró de estar libre de la servidumbre por contrato, adquirió tierras y se convirtió en un miembro respetado de su comunidad. Elizabeth Key apeló con éxito al sistema legal de la colonia para liberarla después de haber sido esclavizada injustamente. En la década de 1700, las leyes y costumbres de Virginia habían comenzado a distinguir negro gente de blanco personas, lo que hace imposible para la mayoría de los virginianos de ascendencia africana hacer lo que Johnson y Key habían hecho.

Esta pintura de 1905 de Howard Pyle representa la quema de Jamestown en 1676 por rebeldes blancos y negros dirigidos por Nathaniel Bacon.

¿Por qué los legisladores de Virginia hicieron estos cambios? Muchos historiadores señalan un evento conocido como la rebelión de Bacon en 1676 como un punto de inflexión. Nathaniel Bacon era un rico propietario blanco y pariente del gobernador de Virginia, William Berkeley. Pero Bacon y Berkeley no se agradaban y no estaban de acuerdo sobre cuestiones relativas a cómo se debería gobernar la colonia, incluida la política de la colonia hacia los nativos americanos. Bacon quería que la colonia tomara represalias por las redadas de los nativos americanos en los asentamientos fronterizos y expulsara a todos los nativos americanos de la colonia para que los terratenientes como él pudieran expandir sus propiedades. Berkeley temía que hacerlo uniría a todas las tribus cercanas en una guerra costosa y destructiva contra la colonia. Desafiando al gobernador, Bacon organizó su propia milicia, compuesta por sirvientes blancos y negros contratados y negros esclavizados, que se unieron a cambio de libertad y atacaron a las tribus cercanas. Se produjo una lucha por el poder con Bacon y su milicia por un lado y Berkeley, la Casa de Burgueses de Virginia y el resto de la élite de la colonia por el otro. Siguieron meses de conflicto, incluidas escaramuzas armadas entre milicias. En septiembre de 1676, la milicia de Bacon capturó Jamestown y lo quemó hasta los cimientos.

Aunque Bacon murió de fiebre un mes después y la rebelión se desmoronó, los ricos plantadores de Virginia se vieron sacudidos por el hecho de que una milicia rebelde que unía a sirvientes y esclavos blancos y negros había destruido la capital colonial. La académica legal Michelle Alexander escribe:

Los eventos en Jamestown fueron alarmantes para la élite de los plantadores, quienes estaban profundamente temerosos de la alianza multirracial de [sirvientes contratados] y esclavos. La noticia de la rebelión de Bacon se extendió por todas partes, y siguieron varios levantamientos más de un tipo similar. En un esfuerzo por proteger su estatus superior y posición económica, los plantadores cambiaron su estrategia para mantener el dominio. Abandonaron su gran dependencia de los sirvientes contratados a favor de la importación de más esclavos negros. 1

Después de la rebelión de Bacon, los legisladores de Virginia comenzaron a hacer distinciones legales entre habitantes "blancos" y "negros". Al esclavizar permanentemente a los virginianos de ascendencia africana y otorgar a los sirvientes y agricultores blancos pobres por contrato algunos derechos y estatus nuevos, esperaban separar los dos grupos y hacer menos probable que se unieran nuevamente en la rebelión. El historiador Ira Berlin explica:

Poco después de la rebelión de Bacon, cada vez distinguen más entre personas de ascendencia africana y personas de ascendencia europea. Promulgan leyes que dicen que los afrodescendientes son esclavos hereditarios. Y cada vez dan más poder a los agricultores y terratenientes blancos independientes. . .

Ahora bien, lo interesante de esto es que normalmente decimos que la esclavitud y la libertad son cosas opuestas, que son diametralmente opuestas. Pero lo que vemos aquí en Virginia a finales del siglo XVII, alrededor de la rebelión de Bacon, es que la libertad y la esclavitud se crean al mismo tiempo. 2

Según el Oxford English Dictionary, la primera aparición impresa del adjetivo blanco en 1671 se hizo referencia a “un hombre blanco, una persona de una raza que se distingue por su tez clara”. Las cartas coloniales y otros documentos oficiales escritos en el siglo XVII y principios del siglo XVIII rara vez se refieren a los colonos europeos como blancos.

A medida que se desafiaba y atacaba el estatus de las personas de ascendencia africana en las colonias británicas, y a los sirvientes blancos contratados se les otorgaban nuevos derechos y estatus, la palabra blanco continuó utilizándose más ampliamente en documentos públicos y periódicos privados para describir a los colonos europeos. Las personas de ascendencia europea fueron consideradas blancas y las de ascendencia africana fueron etiquetadas como negras. El historiador Robin D. G. Kelley explica:

Muchos de los blancos pobres descendientes de europeos comenzaron a identificarse, si no directamente con los blancos ricos, ciertamente con ser blancos. Y aquí surge la idea de una raza blanca como una forma de distinguirse de esas personas de piel oscura que asocian con la esclavitud perpetua. 3

La división en la sociedad estadounidense entre negros y blancos que comenzó a fines del siglo XVII tuvo consecuencias devastadoras para los afroamericanos, ya que la esclavitud se convirtió en una institución que floreció durante siglos. El abogado y activista de derechos civiles Bryan Stevenson explica:

La esclavitud privó a la persona esclavizada de cualquier derecho legal o autonomía y le otorgó al dueño de esclavos un poder completo sobre los hombres, mujeres y niños negros legalmente reconocidos como propiedad. . .

La esclavitud estadounidense fue a menudo brutal, bárbara y violenta. Además de las penurias del trabajo forzoso, los esclavistas mutilaban o mataban a las personas esclavizadas como castigo por trabajar demasiado lento, visitar a un cónyuge que vivía en otra plantación o incluso aprender a leer. Las personas esclavizadas también fueron explotadas sexualmente. 4

Los líderes y científicos de Estados Unidos y de todo el mundo dependerían cada vez más de las supuestas diferencias entre las razas blanca y negra para justificar el trato brutal e inhumano de los esclavos.


Las muchas vidas de Nathaniel Bacon

Nathaniel Bacon, 1647-1676 Este aparentemente no es Nathaniel Bacon el rebelde. Lo siento por el error.

Una de las ideas más poderosas que Edmund Morgan nos ofreció a lo largo de su larga e ilustre carrera fue que la rebelión de Bacon, su contexto y sus consecuencias proporcionan una hoja de ruta temprana para la historia de las relaciones raciales y su intersección con la política de clases en la historia de Estados Unidos. (1) Al desplegar una historia de oportunidades perdidas, Morgan sugirió que la Rebelión de Bacon en 1676 marcó un punto de inflexión en la historia de la esclavitud en Virginia y las colonias del sur en general.

Hasta entonces, la esclavitud aún no era la institución central que sería más tarde, ya que tanto los sirvientes contratados como los esclavos formaban la clase baja de la Virginia primitiva. A raíz de la rebelión de Bacon, en lugar de formar una alianza interracial que desafiaría el gobierno de la clase de los caballeros, los hombres blancos hicieron un trato fáustico a través de las líneas de clase a espaldas de los negros, definiendo la libertad como el privilegio y la esclavitud de una persona blanca. como el estado predeterminado de las personas de ascendencia africana. Así, la esclavitud se convirtió en el régimen laboral favorecido en el sur, la servidumbre por contrato disminuyó y la negritud y la blancura se afianzaron en la ley y la costumbre.

En el centro de esta temprana insurgencia de Virginia se encontraba un conocido espécimen estadounidense, el demagogo Nathaniel Bacon. Bacon, que incita al odio a los indios y que enciende resentimientos contra las élites de Virginia, se encuentra a la cabeza de una rebelión abierta después de una serie complicada de acontecimientos. Al igual que nuestro populista contemporáneo del siglo XXI, Bacon no tenía un diseño claro y se sumergió en el populismo sin mucho plan. Sin embargo, lo que hizo muy bien fue fomentar el odio de un grupo particularmente volátil de hombres blancos, ante todo contra los indios, pero también contra el liderazgo de la colonia que muchos percibían como corruptos y blandos con los "salvajes". Una vez más, al igual que nuestro presidente electo, Bacon era él mismo parte de la aristocracia de la colonia, que sin embargo dio el tono correcto con un bloque creciente de gente blanca descontento.

Más sorprendente que los detalles de la rebelión en sí, el contexto del estallido de la rebelión y la resolución de las tensiones sociales en Virginia a raíz de ella demostraron ser presagios de lo que vendrá. Virginia hacia fines del siglo XVII era una sociedad que rápidamente salía en espiral de un “equilibrio” establecido anteriormente que dependía de las altas tasas de mortalidad y la disponibilidad de lucrativas extensiones de tierra arrebatadas por la fuerza a los indígenas locales. Hasta mediados de siglo, el auge económico de la colonia se basaba principalmente en la extracción de mano de obra de los sirvientes contratados que eran atraídos a la colonia con promesas de libertad y tierra, una vez que realizaban el período designado de trabajo no libre. Esto resultó ser “viable” siempre que las tasas de mortalidad fueran altas y las tierras de cultivo de tabaco de primera calidad abundaran. De esta manera, muchos de los que sobrevivieron a sus períodos de servidumbre podrían unirse a la clase de los plantadores mientras los hombres libres y las tensiones sociales permanecían bajo control.

Sin embargo, durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVII, a medida que la gente vivía más tiempo y las principales tierras de cultivo de tabaco fueron tomadas por grandes plantadores y especuladores de tierras, las filas de antiguos sirvientes aumentaron y cada vez menos "libertos" se establecieron financieramente. Como resultado, la disparidad de riqueza entre libertos y plantadores acomodados se amplió y las perspectivas de movilidad social se debilitaron. Esta fue una receta para el malestar social.

Según Morgan, el éxito de Nathaniel Bacon en fomentar el odio contra los indios como medio de apuntalar el apoyo popular presagiaba lo que vendría. Aunque Bacon murió bastante rápido después de asumir el mando de la colonia, y después de su muerte la rebelión fue fácilmente sofocada por las autoridades reales, el espectro de la revuelta popular de los "muchos" contra los "pocos" llevó a las élites de Virginia a recalibrar el orden social. . Ellos también emplearon ansiedades raciales como un medio para apuntalar la popularidad y la solidaridad a través de las líneas de clase, pero en lugar de los indios, recurrieron a "otros" de ascendencia africana como chivos expiatorios elegidos.

En este sentido, la esclavitud aumentada por un alineamiento racial endurecido emergió como la forma preferida de trabajo no libre a raíz de la rebelión de Bacon. Esto también alivió la ansiedad generada por las filas crecientes de hombres volátiles en la colonia, ya que a medida que aumentaba la esclavitud y disminuía la servidumbre, menos trabajadores no libres lograban la libertad y amenazaban el orden social. "Los esclavos", como señaló Morgan, "demostraron ser menos peligrosos que los trabajadores libres o semi-libres". A diferencia de los hombres blancos, "los esclavos estaban desarmados" y, dado que se podía contar con los primeros para mantener el orden social, los esclavos "no tenían que estar armados". (2) Los hombres blancos ahora unirían a ambos contra la amenaza de los indios. y de una insurrección de esclavos.

La molesta pregunta que parece repetirse una y otra vez en la historia de Estados Unidos es quién tiene la culpa del siniestro pacto que nos trajo el patriarcado blanco tal como lo conocemos en la historia de Estados Unidos. Es revelador que en sus comentarios finales sobre el realineamiento social en Virginia, Morgan aplicó la voz pasiva al discutir el estado de los hombres blancos de clase baja después de la rebelión. "[E] oye [pequeños plantadores]", afirma Morgan, "se les permitió no solo para prosperar sino también para adquirir ventajas sociales, psicológicas y políticas que les desviaron el empuje de la explotación y los alinearon con los explotadores [cursiva mía] ”. De manera similar, esbozó la organización social tripartita de Virginia para el segundo cuarto del siglo XVIII: “una fuerza de trabajo esclava aislada del resto de la sociedad por la raza y el racismo, un cuerpo de grandes plantadores, firmemente comprometidos con el país, que se habían convertido en practicantes”. en política y maniobras políticas y un cuerpo más grande de pequeños plantadores que había sido persuadido que sus intereses fueron bien atendidos por el liderazgo de sus grandes vecinos [cursiva mía] ”. (3)

Para Morgan, como lo ha sido para muchos otros, los "explotadores" eran los grandes hombres de Virginia, mientras que los blancos de clase baja eran solo agentes históricos en este asunto. Numerosos estudios brillantes han arrojado luz sobre este problema sin ofrecer una resolución completa para esta pregunta. Primero, por supuesto, fue W.E.B. Du Bois en su magistral Reconstrucción negra en América (1935). Unos años más tarde, en 1938, C. Vann Woodward continuó esta tradición con sus interpretaciones pioneras del populismo y el Nuevo Sur que comenzaron con Tom Watson: rebelde agrario y continuó en su trabajo posterior. En El nombre de la guerra (1998) y Nuestros Salvajes Vecinos (2008), Jill Lepore y Peter Silver describieron cómo los colonos blancos unieron fuerzas con consecuencias genocidas para los indios durante la Guerra del Rey Felipe y la Guerra de los Siete Años, respectivamente. Publicado solo este año, Robert Parkinson reflejó tales análisis en su exhaustivo estudio de la raza y el nacionalismo durante la Revolución Americana: La causa común (2016). Y David Roediger y Alexander Saxton presentaron un caso similar para los períodos jacksoniano y anterior a la guerra con El salario de la blancura (1991) y El ascenso y la caída de la República Blanca (1990), respectivamente.

La dinámica del racismo en la historia de Estados Unidos es clara: los "salarios de la blancura", como David Reodiger enmarcó la conceptualización de Du Bois, han demostrado una y otra vez más atractivos que los beneficios materiales. La gente común blanca priorizó constantemente la identidad racial sobre cualquier otra forma de lealtad al forjar un colectivo dedicado a la libertad. Por lo general, también hubo algunos beneficios materiales involucrados para la mayoría de los blancos, aunque nunca una reestructuración fundamental de la economía.

Nathaniel Bacon tuvo muchas vidas: se nos apareció como Andrew Jackson, Tom Watson, el padre Coughlin y ahora Donald Trump. Sin embargo, quizás más importante que el legado particular de los diversos individuos que alcanzaron prominencia mediante la explotación de la animadversión racial y el resentimiento antiautoritario, nos queda una vez más con una elección incómoda. ¿Deberíamos considerar a los hombres blancos comunes como agentes plenos en esta historia estadounidense tantas veces contada, o deberíamos expresar nuestra frustración ante el siempre esquivo demonio de la falsa conciencia y echar toda la culpa a las élites blancas? La forma más productiva de avanzar probablemente se encuentre en algún punto intermedio. En una cosa, espero, suficientes personas estén de acuerdo, debemos desafiar fundamentalmente el orden capitalista y racista que ha resultado en la miseria de casi todos los demás.

[1] Esto estaba en el centro de su libro. Esclavitud estadounidense, libertad estadounidense: la prueba de la Virginia colonial (Nueva York: Norton, 1975).


Nathaniel Bacon (2 de enero de 1647 & # x2013 26 de octubre de 1676) fue un colono de la colonia de Virginia, famoso por ser el instigador de la rebelión de Bacon de 1676, que colapsó cuando el propio Bacon murió de disentería. [1]

Bacon nació el 15 de enero de 1647 en Friston Hall en Suffolk, Inglaterra de padres comerciantes adinerados. Thomas Bacon y su esposa Elizabeth Brooke Bacon. Nathaniel era el único hijo de sus muchos hijos y recibió una educación en la Universidad de Cambridge. Hizo una gran gira por Europa bajo la tutela de John Ray, además de estudiar derecho en Gray's Inn. Sin embargo, Nathaniel se casó con Elizabeth Duke., la hija de Sir Edward Duke, sin permiso. Después de las acusaciones de que Nathaniel estafó a otro joven de su herencia, Thomas Bacon le dio a su hijo la considerable suma de & # x20a41800 y el joven se exilió a través del Atlántico. [2]

Al llegar a Virginia, Nathaniel Bacon compró dos plantaciones fronterizas en el río James. Dado que su primo era un prominente coronel de la milicia y amigo del gobernador William Berkeley, Bacon se instaló en Jamestown, la capital. Pronto, el propio Bacon fue nombrado miembro del consejo del gobernador. [3] La esposa de Berkeley, Frances Culpeper, también pudo haber sido prima de Bacon por matrimonio. [4]

Antes de que la "Rebelión de Virginia", como se llamaba entonces, comenzara en serio en 1674, algunos propietarios en la frontera de Virginia exigieron que los nativos americanos, incluidos los de tribus amigas que vivían en tierras protegidas por tratados, fueran expulsados ​​o asesinados. [3] También protestaron por la corrupción en el gobierno del gobernador Berkeley, que el historiador Stephen Saunders Webb calificó como "increíblemente corrupto, inhumanamente opresivo e inexcusablemente ineficiente, especialmente en la guerra". [5] Después de una redada de indios en el condado de Stafford, Virginia, que mató a dos blancos Hombres asociados con el comerciante Mathews, a quienes un informe posterior encontró regularmente indios "engañados y abusados", un grupo de milicianos de Virginia allanó los asentamientos de las tribus Doeg y Susquehannock, incluso al otro lado del río Potomac en Maryland. El gobernador de Maryland, Calvert, protestó por la incursión y Susquehannock tomó represalias. Luego, la milicia de Maryland se unió a las fuerzas de Virginia y atacó una aldea fortificada de Susquehannock. Después de que cinco jefes hubieran aceptado la invitación del líder de Maryland a parlamentar, fueron masacrados, una acción que provocó posteriores investigaciones legislativas y reprimendas. [6] [7] Los Susquehannock tomaron represalias enérgicas contra las plantaciones: mataron a 60 colonos en Maryland y a otros 36 en su primer asalto a suelo de Virginia. Luego se unieron otras tribus, matando colonos, quemando casas y campos y matando ganado hasta los ríos James y York. [8]

Buscando evitar una guerra más grande similar a la Guerra del Rey Felipe en Nueva Inglaterra, Berkeley abogó por la contención, proponiendo la construcción de varias fortificaciones defensivas a lo largo de la frontera e instando a los colonos fronterizos a reunirse en una postura defensiva. Los colonos fronterizos descartaron el plan por considerarlo caro e inadecuado, y también lo cuestionaron como una posible excusa para aumentar las tasas impositivas. [3]

Mientras tanto, Bacon, cuyo supervisor en una plantación de James River había sido asesinado por asaltantes indios, emergió como líder rebelde. [9] Cuando Berkeley se negó a otorgarle a Bacon una comisión militar para atacar a todos los indios, Bacon reunió su propia fuerza de 400 a 500 hombres y avanzó río arriba por el río James para atacar a las tribus Doeg y Pamunkey. Aunque ambos habían vivido en general en paz con los colonos y no habían atacado los asentamientos fronterizos, sus tierras cultivadas eran valiosas. En marzo, Berkeley había intentado asegurar guerreros de la tribu Pamunkey para luchar contra tribus hostiles de conformidad con tratados anteriores. La reina de Pamunkey, Cockacoeske, recordó apasionadamente al Consejo del Gobernador las muertes hace 20 años de su esposo y 100 guerreros que proporcionaron en una situación similar. El presidente había ignorado su queja, en cambio, continuó exigiendo más guerreros (y recibió una promesa a cambio de suministrar una docena). Berkeley arrestó a Bacon y lo sacó del Consejo, pero los hombres de Bacon rápidamente consiguieron su liberación y obligaron a Berkeley a celebrar elecciones legislativas. Mientras tanto, los hombres de Bacon continuaron su ofensiva contra los Pamunkeys, que huyeron al Pantano del Dragón. Cuando el Occoneechee amistoso logró capturar un fuerte de Susquehannock, las fuerzas de Bacon exigieron todo el botín, aunque no habían ayudado en la lucha. Luego atacaron al Oconeechee con traición, matando a hombres, mujeres y niños [10].

A pesar de la condición de proscrito de Bacon, los votantes del condado de Henrico lo eligieron para la recompuesta Cámara de los Burgueses. Ese organismo promulgó una serie de reformas radicales, limitando los poderes del gobernador y restaurando los derechos de sufragio a los hombres libres sin tierra. [3] También vendieron armas a cualquier indio sujeto a la pena de muerte. Los seguidores de Bacon no se apaciguaron, acusando a Berkeley de negarse a autorizar represalias contra los nativos debido a sus propias inversiones en el comercio de pieles y los monopolios otorgados a sus favoritos. After a number of verbal alterations, including a quarrel in a Jamestown street, Berkeley retreated to his plantation and signed the military commission Bacon demanded.[11] Scouting parties accordingly set out to requisition supplies, as well as to kill and enslave Indians, prompting protests from citizens of Gloucester County subjected to the militia's exactions.[12] Bacon's forces retreated to Middle Plantation (later renamed Williamsburg).

On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his makeshift army issued a Declaration of the People of Virginia,[7] which criticized Berkeley's administration, accusing him of levying unfair taxes, appointing friends to high positions, and failing to protect outlying farmers from Indian attack. They also issued a 'Manifesto' urging the extermination of all Indians, charging that they did not deserve legal protections because they "have bin for these Many years enemies to the King and Country, Robbers and Thieves and Invaders of his Majesty's Right and our Interest and Estate."[13] Months of conflict ensued, including a naval attempt across the Potomac and in Chesapeake Bay by Bacon's allies to capture Berkeley at Accomac. Bacon himself focused on the Pamunkey in Dragon Swamp his forces seized 3 horse loads of goods, enslaved 45 Indians and killed many more, prompting the queen (who narrowly escaped with her son) to throw herself on the mercy of the Governor's Council. Berkeley raised his own army of mercenaries on the Eastern Shore, as well as captured Bacon's naval allies and executed the two leaders. Bacon's forces then turned against the colony's capital, burning Jamestown to the ground on September 19, 1676.[7][14]

Before an English naval squadron could arrive, Bacon died of dysentery on October 26, 1676. Although Joseph Ingram took control of the rebel forces, the rebellion soon collapsed. Governor Berkeley returned to power, seizing the property of several rebels and ultimately hanging twenty-three men, many without trial.[3] After an investigative committee returned its report to King Charles II, criticizing both Berkeley and Bacon for their conduct toward friendly tribes, Berkeley was relieved of the governorship, returned to England to protest, and died shortly thereafter.[7] Charles II later supposedly commented, "That old fool has put to death more people in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father." This is, however, likely to be a colonial myth, arising about 30 years later.[15]

  • BACON, Thomas (c.1620-97), of Friston, Suff. and Wandsworth, Surr.
  • b. c.1620, o.s. of Nathaniel Bacon of Friston by Anne, da. of Sir Thomas Le Gros of Crostwick, Norf. educ. Corpus Christi, Camb. 1637 G. Inn 1640, called 1651, ancient 1658. m. (1) Elizabeth (d. 2 Jan. 1649), da. of Sir Robert Brooke† of Cockfield Hall, Yoxford, Suff., 1s. d.v.p. 1da. (2) Martha, da. of Sir John Reade of Wrangle, Lincs., wid. of Edward Empson of Boston, Lincs., 1da. suc. fa. 1644.1
  • Offices Held
    • Commr. for assessment, Suff. 1644-52, 1657, Aug. 1660-80, j.p. 1645-53, 1657-87 elder, Saxmundham classis 1647 commr. for militia, Suff. 1648, Mar. 1660, scandalous ministers 1654, recusants 1675.2

    Nathaniel Bacon was born in Suffolk, England on 2nd January, 1647. A dispute with his wife's family persuaded him to emigrate to North America. With the financial support of his father, he purchased two estates along the James River in Virginia.

    William Berkeley appointed Bacon to his governing council but the two men soon fell out about the development of the colony. Berkeley favoured a policy of containment, whereas Bacon wanted to expand into areas controlled by Native Americans.

    In 1676 Bacon organized his own expedition. Fearing a large-scale war with Native Americans, Berkeley turned his forces against Bacon and his men. Bacon captured Jamestown and William Berkeley was forced to flee to the Eastern Shore. However, Nathaniel Bacon died of fever in October, 1676, and without his leadership, the rebellion quickly collapsed.

    Nathaniel, born in England and resident of Suffolk, came to Virginia in 1676 he was a General. He was the hero of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. See John Fisk's "Old Virginia and Her Neighbors" Vol II Sparks Library Am.

    General Nathaniel Bacon was of an old family of Suffolk England. His father Thomas Bacon of Triston Hall was a cousin of the great Lord Bacon and his mother was the daughter of Sir Robert Brooke Kt. He studied at Cambridge, read law at Grays Inn and after extensive travel on the continent came to America bringing with him his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward and sister of Sir John Duke of Benhill Lodge, Suffolk. Historians are not agreed as to the year of his birth, they range from 1644 to '48, the former is probably correct. Though less than thirty years of age when he arrived in Virginia such were his character and abilities that he was at once given a seat in the Council. He is described as "an impetuous youth, brave, cordial, fiery at times and gifted with a persuasive tongue". He was tall, lithe, of swarthy complexion, melancholy eyes and had a somewhat lofty demeanor. In addition to the estate upon which he lived at Curl's Wharfe (Richmond) he owned another further up on the site marked in the city of Richmond by the name "Bacon Quarter Branch". There had after his settlement for some time been much trouble on the border from the Indians but Governor Berkeley had refused to send troops against them or to permit the people to organize companies to punish them. "If the red skins meddle with me" quoth the fiery young man "damn my blood but I'll harry them!" This threat he had soon to make good. One morning in May 1676 news came to Curl's Wharfe that the Indians had attacked his upper estate and killed his over-seer and one of his men. A crowd of men at once assembled (planters on horseback) and offered to march under Bacon's lead. Making then an eloquent speech he accepted the command and sent a courier to Gov. Berkeley for a commission. Berkeley answered evasively. Bacon sent him a polite note thanking him for the promised commission and started on his campaign. He had not gone many miles before a proclamation from the governor overtook him, ordering the party to disperse. A few obeyed. Bacon and the rest kept on their way and inflicted a severe defeat on the Indians. This was the beginning of the trouble between Bacon and Governor Berkeley, which resulted in what is called "Bacon's Rebellion" an account of which is to be found in almost every history of the U.S. The anxieties and exposure of his Indian campaigns, of which there were several, and his war with the governor undermined his health and this pioneer of the rights of the people in America passed away in early manhood (he died in 1676) his work remaining to be accomplished just a hundred years later by that greatest Virginian George Washington.

    References - Bancroft's History U.S. Vol. 1

    John Fiske. Old Virginia & her neighbors

    Sparks Library Am. Biography

    Mills Va. Carolurum - Va. Magazine etc.

    No one knows for certain when he was born. An earlier attribution of him as the Nathaniel Bacon born in 1646 or 1647 appears to be spurious, based on no firm foundation, although widely repeated in later literature including Encyclop๭ia Britannica. The 1922 edition of the Dictionary of National Biography does not give him a specific birthdate but does say he was "of Friston Hall". Although, from a contemporary document, his father is said to be "Thomas Bacon", his mother is Elizabeth Brooke.


    Nathaniel Bacon - History

    Economic and social power became concentrated in late seventeenth-century Virginia, leaving laborers and servants with restricted economic independence. Governor William Berkeley feared rebellion: “six parts of Seven at least are Poore, Indebted, Discontented and Armed.” Planter Nathaniel Bacon focused inland colonists’ anger at local Indians, who they felt were holding back settlement, and at a distant government unwilling to aid them. In the summer and fall of 1676, Bacon and his supporters rose up and plundered the elite’s estates and slaughtered nearby Indians. Bacon’s Declaration challenged the economic and political privileges of the governor’s circle of favorites, while announcing the principle of the consent of the people. Bacon’s death and the arrival of a British fleet quelled this rebellion, but Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of white and black acting together to challenge authority.

    1. For having, upon specious pretenses of public works, raised great unjust taxes upon the commonalty for the advancement of private favorites and other sinister ends, but no visible effects in any measure adequate for not having, during this long time of his government, in any measure advanced this hopeful colony either by fortifications, towns, or trade.

    2. For having abused and rendered contemptible the magistrates of justice by advancing to places of judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites.

    3. For having wronged his Majesty’s prerogative and interest by assuming monopoly of the beaver trade and for having in it unjust gain betrayed and sold his Majesty’s country and the lives of his loyal subjects to the barbarous heathen.

    4. For having protected, favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty’s loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.

    5. For having, when the army of English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor 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 past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty’s country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote places and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.

    6. And lately, when, upon the loud outcries of blood, the assembly had, with all care, raised and framed an army for the preventing of further mischief and safeguard of this his Majesty’s colony.

    7. For having, with only the privacy of some few favorites without acquainting the people, only by the alteration of a figure, forged a commission, by we know not what hand, not only without but even against the consent of the people, for the raising and effecting civil war and destruction, which being happily and without bloodshed prevented for having the second time attempted the same, thereby calling down our forces from the defense of the frontiers and most weakly exposed places.

    8. For the prevention of civil mischief and ruin amongst ourselves while the barbarous enemy in all places did invade, murder, and spoil us, his Majesty’s most faithful subjects.

    Of this and 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 a loss of a great part of this his colony and many of his faithful loyal subjects by him betrayed and in a barbarous and shameful manner exposed to the incursions and murder of the heathen. And we do further declare these the ensuing persons in this list to have been his wicked and pernicious councilors, confederates, aiders, and assisters against the commonalty in these our civil commotions.

    John West, Hubert Farrell, Thomas Reade, Math. Kempe

    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 follows.

    That in whatsoever place, house, or ship, any of the said persons shall reside, be hid, or protected, we declare the owners, masters, or inhabitants of the said places to be confederates and traitors to the people and the estates of them is also of all the aforesaid persons to be confiscated. And this we, the commons of Virginia, do declare, desiring a firm union amongst ourselves that we may jointly and with one accord defend ourselves against the common enemy. And let not the faults of the guilty be the reproach of the innocent, or the faults or crimes of the oppressors divide and separate us who have suffered by their oppressions.

    These are, therefore, in his Majesty’s name, to command you forthwith to seize the persons above mentioned as traitors to the King and country and them to bring to Middle Plantation and there to secure them until further order, and, in case of opposition, if you want any further assistance you are forthwith to demand it in the name of the people in all the counties of Virginia.

    General by Consent of the people.

    Source: "Declaration of Nathaniel Bacon in the Name of the People of Virginia, July 30, 1676,"Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 4th ser., 1871, vol. 9: 184󈟃.


    Nathaniel Bacon - History

    Bacon in most incens'd manner threatens to be revenged on the Governor and his party, swearing his soldiers to give no quarter and professing to soorne to take any themselves, and so in great fury marches on towards James Towne, onely halting a while about New Kent to gain some fresh forces, and sending to the upper parts of James River for what they could assist him with.

    Having increased his number to about 300 in all, he proceeds direcdy to towne, as he marcheth the people on the high wayes coming forth praying for his happiness and railing ag't [against] the Governour and his party, and seeing the Indian captives which they led along as in a shew of tryumph, gave him many thankes for his care and endeavours for their preservation, bringing him forth fruits and victualls for his soldiers, the women telling him if he wanted assistance they would come themselves after him.

    Intelligence coming to Bacon that the Governour had good in towne a 1000 men well arm'd and resolute, "I shall see that," saith he, "for I am now going to try them.".

    In the evening Bacon with his small tyr'd body of men comes into Paspahayes old Fields and advancing on horseback himselfe on the Sandy Beech before the towne commands the trumpet to sound, fires his carbyne, dismounts, surveys the ground and orders a French worke to be cast up.

    All this night is spent in falling of trees, cutting of bushes and throwing up earth, that by the help of the moone light they had made their French worke before day, although they had but two axes and 2 spades in all to performe this work with.

    About day-break next morning six of Bacons soldiers ran up to the pallasadees of the Towne and fired briskly upon the guard, retreating safely without any damage at first (as is reported). [T]he Governor gave comand that not a gun should be fir'd ag't Bacon or his party upon paine of death, pretending to be loath to spill bloode and much more to be beginner of it, supposing the rebells would hardly be so audacious as to fire a gun against him, But that Bacon would rather have sent to him and sought his reconciliation so that some way or other might have bin found out for the preventing of a warr, to which the Governour is said to have shewne some inclination upon the account of the service Bacon had performed (as he heard) against the Indian enemy, and that he had brought severall Indian prisoners along with him, and especially for that there were several! ignorant people which were deluded and drawne into Bacon's party and thought of no other designe than the Indian warr onely, and so knew not what they did.

    But Bacon (pretending distrust of the Governor) was so fair from all thought of a Treaty that he animates his men against it, celling them that he knew that party to be as perfidious as cowardly, and that there was noe trust to be reposed in such, who thinke it noe Treachery by any wayes to Suppresse them, and for his tendernesse of Shedding Blood which the Governor pretends, and preventing a warr, sayes Bacon, "There are some here that know it to be no longer since than last weeke that hee himself comanded to be Fired against us by Boats which the Governor sent up and downe to places where the country's Provisions were kept for mainteinance of the Indian Warr, to fetch them away to support a warr amongst ourselves, and wounded some of us (which was done by Sorrell) which were against the designe of converting these stores to soe contrary a use and intention of what they were raised for by the People." Bacon moving downe towards the Towne and the Shipps being brought before the Sandy Beach the better to annoy the enemy in case of any attempt of theirs to storme the Palassadoes, upon a signall given from the Towne the Shipps fire their Great Gunns, and at the same tyme they let fly their Small-shot from the Palassadoes. But that small sconce that Bacon had caused to be made in the night of Trees, Bush and Earth (under w'ch they lay) soe defended them that the shott did them noe damage at all, and was return'd back as fast from this little Fortresse. In the heat of this Firing Bacon commands a party of his men to make every one his Faggott and put it before his Breast and come and lay them in order on top of the Trench on the outside and at the end to enlarge and make good the Fortification, which they did, and orders more spades to be gott, to helpe to make it yet more defensible, and the better to observe their motion [Bacon] ordered a constant sentinel in the daytime on top of a brick chimney (hard by) to discover from thence how the men in Towne mounted and dismounted, posted and reposted, drew on and off, what number they were, and how they moved. Hitherto their happen'd no other action then onely firing great and small shott at distances.

    But by their movings and drawings up about towne, Bacon understood they intended a sally and accordingly prepares to receive them, drew up his men to the most advantageous places he could, and now expected them (but they observ'd to draw off againe for some tyme) and was resolved to enter the towne with them, as they retreated, as Bacon expected and foretold they would do. In this posture of expectation Bacons forces continued for a hour till the watchman gave notice that they were drawne off againe in towne, so upon this Bacons forces did so too. No sooner were they all on the rebells side gone off and squandered but all on a sudden a sally is made by the Governors party,. . . But we cannot give a better account, nor yet a truer (so far as we are informed) of this action than what this Letter of Bacons relates.

    ". Yesterday they made a sally with horse and foote in the Van they came up with a narrow Front, and pressing very close upon one anothers shoulders that the forlorne might be their shelter our men received them so warmly that they retired in great disorder, throwing downe theire armes, left upon the Bay, as also their drum and dead men, two of which our men brought into our trenches and buried with severall of their armes. They shew themselves such pitifull cowards, contemptable as you would admire them. It is said that Hubert Farreii is shot in the belly, Hartwell in the legg, Smith in the head, Mathewes with others, yet as yet we have no certaine account. "

    After this successless sally the courages and numbers of the Governors party abated much, and Bacons men thereby became more bold and daring in so much that Bacon could scarce keepe them from immediately falling to storme and enter the towne but he (being as wary as they rash) perswaded them from the attempt, bidding them keepe their courages untill such tyme as he found occasion and opportunity to make use of them, telling them that he doubted not to take the towne without losse of a man, and that one of their lives was of more value to him than the whole world.

    Having planted his great guns, he takes the wives and female relations of such gentlemen as were in the Governors service against him (whom he had caused to be brought to the workes) and places them in the face of his enemy, as bulworkes for their battery, by which policy he promised himself (and doubdess had) a goode advantage, yet had the Governors party by much the odds in number besides the advantage of tyme and place.

    But so great was the cowardize and baseness of the generality of Sir William Berkeley's party (being most of them men intent onely upon plunder or compell'd and hired into his service) that of all, at last there were onely some 20 gende-men willing to stand by him, the rest (whom the hopes or promise of plunder brought thither) being now all in haste to be gone to secure what they had gott so that Sir Wm. Berkeley himselfe who undoubtedly would rather have dyed on the place than thus deserted it, what with importunate and resisdess solicitations of all, was at last over persuaded, now hurryed away against his owne will to Accomack and forced to leave the towne to the mercy of the enemy.

    Bacon haveing early intelligence of the Governor and his party's quitting the towne the night before, enters it without any opposition, and soldier like considering of what importance a place of that refuge was, and might againe be to the Governor and his party, instandy resolves to lay it level with the ground, and the same night he became poses'd of it, sett fire to towne, church and state house (wherein were the country's records which Drummond had privately convey'd thense and preserved from burning). The towne consisted of 12 new brick houses besides a considerable number of frame houses with brick chimneys, ail which will not be rebuilt (as is computed) for fifteen hundred pounds of tobacco.

    Now those who had so lately deserted it, as they rid a little below in the river in the shipps and sloop (to their shame and regret) beheld by night the flames of the towne, which they so basely forsaking, had made a sacrifice to ruine.

    1 (1677). In Charles M. Andrews, ed., (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915), pp. 129-36. A True Narrative of the Rise, Progresse, and Cessation of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, Most Humbly and Impartially Reported by His Majestyes Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the Affaires of the Said Colony Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690


    Mattocks Family Heritage Resources

    Source: Charles Hervey Townshend, “The Bacons of Virginia and Their English Ancestry,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 37[1883].

    Grimbaldus, a Norman gentleman, it is said, came into England at the time of the Conquest in company with William DE WARREN, Earl of Surry, to whom he was related, and was granted lands at Letheringsete,* near Holt, in the County Norfolk, and had issue three sons, Radulph, Edmund and Ranulf, and here he founded a church, appointing for its parson his second son Edmund.**

    His younger son Ranulf, or Reynold, resided at Thorp, Norfolk, and took the name of BACON and as there were several Thorps, this place was called Bacons-Thorpe,*** as Reynold was Lord of the town, and from him sprang this illustrious family, many members of it being distinguished for talent and brilliancy of mind. This Ranulf was father of George, whose son Roger BACON released to his own sister Agnes all the lands belonging to this family in Normandy, and from him down through many generations descended the BACONs of Drinkstone and Hessett in the County Suffolk.****

    [* See Note I. At the end of this article. – EDITOR]

    ** See Blomefield’s Norfolk, Kimber and Johnson’s Baronetage. The history of Grimbaldus and his immediate descendants, which we here repeat, needs investigation.

    Of this (the Hessett) family, we find a John BACON, who married Cecilly HOO, sister of John HOO or HOWE, perhaps of Hessett, who with his brother in law John BACON were probably the builders of the beautiful church there, as proved by evidence still extant on the exterior and interior of this edifice, as shown in heliotype by the Rev. Canon COOKE in his introductory history of HESSETT, published in the “Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archæology and Natural History.”

    He had sons John and Nicholas BACON. Nicholas was chaplain of Hessett. John of the same place married Hellen GEDDING, and had issue another John BACON, who married for first wife Hellena, daughter of Sir George TILLOTTS, of Rougham, and secondly, Julian, daughter of —- BARDWELL. From this first marriage came Sir Nicholas BACON (the Lord-Keeper and father of the great Lord BACON), and from the second marriage the BACONs of Hessett, who flourished there more than five hundred years, when the male line ended in Henry BACON, the son of Edmund and Elizabeth (CORNWALLYS) BACON, who died without issue there in 1651, and the estates were all parcelled out among his sisters, viz.: Elizabeth, wife of Calibut WALPOLE Frances, wife of George TOWNSEND Katherine, wife of William COLEMAN Susan, wife of Henry LAMB Anne, wife of John ALDRICH Cordelia, wife of —- HARRIS, of Maldon, and Abigail, wife of John GRIGBYE.

    His father Edmund BACON, son of John BACON of Hessett, and grandson of Edmund BACON by wife Elizabeth, daughter of John PAGE of Westley, Suffolk, of which family perhaps Philip PAGE, father of Robert PAGE, Lord of the Manor of Gedding, and whose marriage to Alice HOO is recorded at Hessett, July 21, 1545, is interesting to note. This John BACON, son of Edmund and Elizabeth (PAGE) BACON aforesaid, married first, Barbara, sister of Sir Ambrose JERMYN of Rushbrook, Knt., and secondly, Katherine PERIENTE, sister of Elizabeth PERIENTO (Lady Style) mother of Henry TOWNSEND of Bracon Ash, Norf. And Gedding, Suff., and by her had a son Captain Robert BACON, who married the Lady Cordilia, daughter of John GYLL or GILL, and widow of Sir Thomas HARRIS, Knt.*

    We now return to John BACON, son of John and Helena (TILLOTTS) BACON, who married Margery THORPE, daughter and heir of John, son of William and grandson of Sir William THORPE by the daughter and heir of Sir Roger BACON, a celebrated commander in the wars, temp. Edward II. and Edward III., and lineally descended from Grimbald, the patriarch of this family.

    The said John BACON was father of Edmund BACON of Drinkstone, whose son John by wife Agnes COKEFIELD had son Robert BACON who was buried at Hessett with Isabella his wife, daughter of John CAGE of Pakenham in Suffolk, and by whom he had three sons and two

    * These families, the DRURYs, BACONs, PAGE, TOWNSENDs, HOW or HOO, were all connected and interested in early settlements in Virginia and New England, as the records show.

    daughters, viz.: 1st, Thomas BACON of Northaw in Hertfordshire, who married the daughter of Mr. BROWN, but died without issue. 2nd, Sir Nicholas BACON, the Lord Keeper. 3d, James BACON, Esquire, Alderman of London, who died June 15, 1573, and was buried in the Church of St. Dunstans in the East, London and had by first wife Mary, daughter of John GARDINER of Grove Place, county Bucks, an only son and three daughters, all dying young except Anne, wife of John REVETTS,* Esquire, of Brandiston, who died 1616, aged 77. His second wife was Margaret, daughter of William RAWLINS, of London, and widow of Richard GOULDSTON, Salter, by whom he also had issue, William BACON, second son, of —-, Essex, and a son and daughter who died young, also his eldest son Sir James BACON, of Friston Hall, Suffolk, who was knighted at White Hall in 1604, and died at Finsbury, London, January 17, 1618, and buried in St. Giles Church on the 11 February, 1618.

    This worthy Knight, by Elizabeth, daughter of Francis and Anne (DRURY**) BACON of Hessett, had two sons, Nathaniel and James and three daughters, the latter all dying young. The eldest son, Nathaniel BACON, Esq., of Friston, “son and heir and of full age,” January 17, 1644, by Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas LE GROSS of Crostwick, Norfolk, Knt., had a daughter Anne who died unmarried, and also Elizabeth, wife of Nathaniel, second son of Sir Nathaniel BARNARDISTON of Kelton, Knt., also a son Thomas BACON, who by first wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert BROOKE of Cockfield Hall, Yoxford, Knt., who died January 2, 1647, aged 25, and was buried at Friston, Suffolk, had issue Elizabeth, wife of Mr. HOVENER of London, and a son and heir, Nathaniel BACON, Esq., who emigrated to Virginia as early as 1670, where his father’s cousin,*** Colonel Nathaniel BACON (the governor****) resided, being possessed of large landed estates in York, Nanceymond and other counties bordering on the James River. The first Nathaniel BACON became so notorious in Virginia history on account of the conspicuous part he took in opposing Governor BERKELEY that he acquired the cognomen of “The Rebel.”***** A quarrel between the settlers and natives caused the former to choose BACON their general, and disregarding the

    * See pedigree in The Brights of Suffolk, where this gentleman connects with numerous New England families.

    ** See pedigree of the DRURY family of Rougham, co. Suff., in Cullum’s History of Hawstead. John NEWGATE’s (of Boston, N.E.) grandfather Walter HOO or HOWE, leased from the DRURYs Rougham Hall, and of this family was William DRURY, LL.D., whose widow Mary SOUTHWELL married Robert FORTH, LL.D., grandfather of Thomas TOWNSEND. See TOWNSEND family of Lynn, in Old and New England.

    **** He may have held the courtesy title of governor, as an English pedigree has it. He was of the Council, and in 1688 was its presiding officer and acting governor. His cousin Nathaniel BACON the general was a delegate from Henrico Plantation, where he held an estate near the Falls of the James River.

    ***** Gent. Mag. Oct. 1816, vol. lxxxvii, p. 124 Burke’s Hist. Virg. Vol. ii. Barber’s Hist. Coll. Virg. Campbell’s Hist. Virg. As early as 1663 we find Nathaniel BACON, “a hopeful young gentleman,” one of the company of RAY, who sets out on his travels in foreign parts in company with Mr. WILLOUGHBY and Sir Philip SKIPPON. Gen. BACON’s father seems to have objected to his marriage to Elizabeth, a sister of Sir John DUKE of Benhall Lodge, near [footnote continued on next page]

    orders of the governor, who refused him a commission, he put himself at the head of a company of colonists and punished the Indians. For this act the governor in May, 1676, proclaimed him a rebelde, and soon after arrested him at Jamestown, where he was tried before the Governor and Council, but acquitted and promised a commission, which the governor refused to sign. BACON therefore raised a regiment of six hundred men and compelled the governor to grant the commission. After prosecuting the Indian war with success, he was again proclaimed a rebel. He then turned his forces against the governor, whom he defeated, and burnt Jamestown, and was following up his advantages, when he died suddenly, October 1, 1676. He was very popular in the colony, and subsequent historians seem to justify the part he took as “rebellion in good cause.” [& # 8230]

    [footnote continued from previous page] Saxmundham, co. Suff., and so he emigrated to Virginia where his cousin Col. BACON resided. After Gen. BACON’s death his wife married second Mr. JARVIS, a merchant, and thirdly Mr. MOLE. Some writers say BACON died of brain fever, others of a disease contracted in the trenches before Jamestown. There was another Nathaniel BACON who has often been confused with Col. BACON the Councillor and Gen. BACON the “Rebel,” or “Patriot,” as called by some. He was Recorder of Ipswich, co. Suff., and wrote several books. His work, “Of the Uniformity of the Governments of England,” published in 1647, was far in advance of his time, and his publishers were prosecuted and fined, and hundreds of copies seized and burnt.

    These three Nathaniel BACONs had also a cousin Sir Nathaniel BACON of Culford, Suff., who excelled in landscape painting (whose uncle Sir Nathaniel BACON of Stiffkey, Norfolk, who died Nov. 7, 1622, had daughter Anne, wife of Sir John TOWNSEND of Raynham, Knt., who was also buried the same day as her father Sir Nathaniel, in Stiffkey Church [see Stiffkey Register], who died 1627), and gave his estate to Lady Jane his wife, who was buried at Culford, May 8, 1659, aged 79. His son Nicholas BACON died sans issue, 1660, and this property went to his half brother Frederick Lord CORNWALLYS, son of Lady Jane by her first husband, Sir William CORNWALLYS, and ancestor of Charles Earl CORNWALLYS, who by wife Elizabeth TOWNSHEND (aunt to George Marquis TOWNSHEND, to whom Quebec capitulated upon the death of Gen. WOLFE) was father of Charles, first Marquis CORNWALLIS, whose surrender of his army at Yorktown, Va., to General WASHINGTON, brought to a close the struggle for American independence.

    There was also a Nathaniel BACON living in New England as early as 1661 (see Savage), and in the New Haven Records there are three depositions, taken October 17, 1661, and recorded by the secretary, James BISHOP. The first by John FLETCHER of Milford, second by Mary FLETCHER of Milford, and the third by John WARD of Branford, which last we copy verbatim, and print at the end of this article. The first two mention the family of BACON living in Stretton, and moving to Clipsam, co. Rutland.

    Michael BACON, of Dedham, Mass. (see Will, REGISTER, vol. vii. p. 230-1), and ancestor of the late Leonard BACON, D.D., LL.D., of New Haven, came from the neighborhood of Ipswich, co. Suffolk, Eng., perhaps Barham, Suffolk. Tradition says he held the office of captain of a company of yeomanry there.

    N.B. – Monument in Barham Church says Ellen, daughter of Thomas LITTLE, married Edward BACON, third son of the Lord Keeper. They are said to have had 19 sons and 13 daughters, [See Note V. – ED.] This family held 22 manors, besides lands in 19 parishes in co. Suffolk. This Edward BACON’s daughter Jane married Francis STONER, whose mother Mabel was daughter of Roger HARLAKENDEN, whose family were also interested in New England settlement. – Bury St. Edmunds and Environs, p. 81. […]

    DEPOSITION OF JOHN WARD OF BRANDFORD. – [N. Hav. (Ct.) T. Recs.]

    Know all men whom it may concern y t I John WARD of Brandford in ye Colony of New Haven in New England and aged about thirty Six yeares doe declare & upon my knowledge testify on oathe that I well knew for ye space of six or seven yeares one Henry BACON of Clipsam in ye County of Rutland within ye realme of England & One William BACON brother to ye sayd Henry BACON in the same county of Rutland abouvesayd, and I never knew or heard of any brother or bretheren more y t they had by ye fathers side and I doe further testify y t I well knew Thomas BACON sonne of Henry BACON & Nephew to Sayd William BACON & I never knew or heard the sayd Henry BACON had any other child but only the sayd Thomas BACON whoe I have heard went to the Barbadoes and died there and further I the sayd John WARD upon Certaine knowledge doe testify, y t I well knew Nathaniel BACON to be the eldest son of William BACON, brother to the sayde Henry BACON, and the sayd Nathaniel BACON is now liveing in New England & was p’sent at my attesting hereoff and further sayth not.

    This is a true record of the originall P’ JAMES BISHOP, secret.

    NOTES BY JOHN COFFIN JONES BROWN, ESQ., OF BOSTON.

    Note I. – Letheringsete was no granted to Grimbaldus, but was one of the many manors granted to the veteran soldier Walter GIFFARD, formerly Lord of Longueville, afterward first Earl of Buckingham, and one of the commissioners who superintended the compilation of the Domesday Boke.

    The name of GIFFARD comes from “fat-cheeks,” and, in the Jerga of the Normans, cooks were called “Giffardi” in reference to their popular representation as fat and rubicund.

    Grimbaldus 1 was undoubtedly an early tenant, and the history of his descendants furnishes a key to the method of obtaining patronymics, if a changeable family name could be so styled. Edmund, 2 who is usually called the third son, took the name of su abode for a surname, and so did Ranulph, 2 whose son Gilbert 3 DE LARINGSETA had a son Jordan 4 DE LARINGSETA, whose son Adam, 5 in accordance with another custom, signed his name as Adam-FITZ-JORDAN (or Adam, son of Jordan), while his son Peter 6 assumed again the name of the location, and in 1268 held an eighth of the fee, of the Earl of Clare, into whose possession Walter GIFFARD’s family estates had passed.

    Note II. – The word Thorp is Saxon for village. Becuns-Thorp means Beach-tree Village and in such a one the remaining son of Grimbaldus undoubtedly located, and was known by su place of residence as Ralph 2 DE BACONS-THORP. The early monumental brasses of the family have effigies under trees, an evident allusion to the origin of the name. A Sir William BACON or Sir Roger BACON is taken notice of, among knights bearing banners, as well Norman as of other provinces, in the reign of Philip III. of France, and bore for his arms a beech-tree. Roger 3 DE BACONSTHORP, son of Ralph, 2 was father of Robert, 4 who assumed the name of BACON and to make his identity clear, during the change of patronymic, was styled Robert-FITZ-ROGER. He was a person of great power and cousin of Jeff RIDEL, Bishop

    of Ely in 1174. He was father of Reginald, 5 who was father of Richard, 6 who having five sons, one of them, the fifth son, Sir Henry 7 BACON de Letheringsete, a justice itinerant, or Circuit Judge, would seem by the affix to his name to be in possession of the estate of his distant cousin Peter 6 DE LETHERINGSETE.

    Note III. – Mr. TOWNSHEND has given attention to the later part of the family history. The early history is in a state of bewilderment, which is hardly worth clearing up for general readers. Joseph FOSTER, one of the most eminent genealogists of the world, says “the early descent of this family, which was very widely spread through Suffolk, is variously set forth, as may be seen on reference to Davy’s MS. Collections relating to the County. In “Collectanea Genealogica” he has given a long list of the MS. Pedigrees in the British Museum, which are of importance to students of this family history. To show the variety in pedigrees, the best guide would be the QUAPLADDE quartering, of which the family is proud, derived from Margaret QUAPLADDE, an heiress in Dethrick’s Grant of 1568, preserved by the family, she is stated to be the wife of Edmund BACON, about the time of Edward II., and eight generations are given between her and Sir Nicholas, the Lord Keeper, while Playfair finds that she did not marry a BACON direct, but was wife of William THORP, a grandson of Roger (12th generation from Grimbaldus) BACON, and that her grandchild Margaret THORP was the wife of John 16 BACON, of Drinkston, the great-great-grandfather of Sir Nicholas, Dethrick giving eight generations between them, while Playfair gives but five. Playfair gives the line of descent from George 3 as follows: Roger, 4 Robert, 5 Reginald, 6 Richard 7 (he was the first to bear the arms, Gu. on a chief. Ar. two mullets sa), Reginald, 8 Richard, 9 Sir Henry, 10 Sir Henry 11 (he married Margaret LUDHAM, who bore 3 inescutcheons), Sir Roger 12 (whose daughter Beatrix 13 was wife of Sir William THORP, their son William 14 THORP, married Margaret QUAPLADDE, whose arms, barry of six or. and az. a bend gules, are generally quartered with descendants of the Drinkston line – John 15 THORP, whose daughter Margaret 16 THORP married John BACON of Drinkston. He was the John 4 of Mr. TOWNSHEND’s pedigree, which begins with John, 1 married Cicilly HOO.

    The Hessett line from John, 3 by his second marriage with Julian BARDWELL, bore different arms, viz.: Ar. on a fesse engrailed between three inescutcheons gu. three mullets or. I think these inescutcheons came from Margaret LUDHAM, wife of Sir Henry 12 BACON, instead of the D’AVILIERs, to whose connection with the BACON family they have sometimes been attributed.

    Note IV. – It will be seen in Mr. TOWNSHEND’s article that the great-grandfather of Nathaniel BACON of Virginia, the rebel, was first cousin to the celebrated Lord BACON, from whom Nathaniel 5 BACON, the leader of the rebellion, was fifth in descent through Sir James, 2 Nathaniel, 3 and Thomas 4 his father. Sir James 2 had another son, Rev. James, 3 who was father of Col. Nathaniel 4 BACON of Virginia, who, I suppose, may, in Mr. SHATTUCK’s nomenclature (REG. i. 355-9), be termed the cousin-uncle of his namesake.

    The numbers indicating generations in this and the following note, begin with the Lord Keeper Nicholas and his brother James.

    Note V. – Foster, in the “Register of Admissions to Gray’s Inn, 1521-1881,” p. 29, states that Edward 2 BACON “was one of five sons, who with his five sons were all members of Gray’s Inn.” los first Nathaniel 2 of the family was his brother, Sir Nathaniel 2 BACON of Stiffkey, Knight, whose first wife was Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas GRESHAM of London, Knight, the founder of the Royal Exchange. Another brother, Sir Nicholas 2 BACON of Redgrave, Bart., was the first Baronet ever created in England, May 22, 1611. The cost of this honor was £1095. Simple knighthood had become a pretence for the exaction of penalties and fees, yet the title was eagerly sought for by men of wealth, and conferred so generally that persons of high character preferred the payment of fines for non-acceptance of the honor! The names of BACON and TOWNSHEND can be found in such a list. James I. knighted 240 while on his way from Scotland to England, July 23, 1603 he knighted 400 in one day, 900 the first year, and 2333 during his reign. This Sir Nicholas 2 BACON, Bart., was father of Nathaniel 3 BACON, the artist of Culford. Edward’s 2 half brothers were Anthony 2 and Sir Francis 2 BACON, the Philosopher – usually styled Lord BACON, but whose real title was Francis, Baron Verulam and Viscount St. Albans. These were the five sons of Sir Nicholas 1 BACON, the Lord Keeper.

    Edward 2 BACON’s third son Nathaniel 3 was recorder of Ipswich and Bury St. Edmunds, and was the distinguished republican writer of CROMWELL’s time, whose principal work is referred to by Mr. TOWNSHEND. [& # 8230]


    Ver el vídeo: . History. Bacons Rebellion