Ladder of Opportunity
Lack of opportunity to help oneself is unfair and detrimental to society as a whole. While the goals of individuals vary, most people need some economic status to feel content, and they seek opportunities to improve that status. If there exists little or no opportunity to get from point A to point B, then there is discontent among those stuck at point A; frustration and even desperation are observable. This phenomenon is relevant to moving from the lower class toward the upper class of any society. In between, the middle class provides opportunities, like stepping stones, from lower status to higher. When the middle class is weak, then lesser opportunities offer only a slight chance to climb out of the lower class. Such was the case in 1676, when a deadly uprising called Bacon's Rebellion occurred in Virginia. Historians offer differing opinions, but I contend that the essential cause of Bacon's Rebellion was the economic distance between the lower and upper classes of the early Virginian settlers.
Many factors contributed to creating this economic distance. To develop a well rounded understanding of these factors and their contribution, one must understand something about economic opportunity, as well as know what was happening in Virginia at the time of Bacon's Rebellion. According to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of economy is “the production and distribution of wealth.” Wealth can take any form, be it a house, land, jewelry, an advanced intellect, a TV, or even a cow; it can be materialistic or non-materialistic. So economic opportunity exists when someone is able to go to school, sell a product, travel, teach, or purchase something; the significance of an economic opportunity is determined by how much wealth inherently exists within the product or experience. During the seventeenth century, Colonial Virginia depended on the tobacco industry for income, and King Charles II of England enjoyed money from taxes he imposed on the owners of those crops. Growing tobacco required huge amounts of labor, and Virginia plantation owners depended heavily on indentured servants for that labor. To entice poor British citizens to work in the Virginia tobacco fields, the emigrants were given free transportation across the Atlantic and were promised land at bargain prices, following a period of indentured servitude in the fields. The promises for a richer life were seldom fulfilled, however. Freed servants who tried to compete by clearing and developing land on the "outskirts" of established civilization usually experienced extreme physical and economic hardship; furthermore, they feared raids by angry Indians who were being displaced as the colonists' borders pushed into Indian Territory. Unable to buy land, the freemen usually became hired workers or "tenant farmers" on the large plantations; as such, they were paid low wages and/or saddled with huge tax burdens. While plantation proprietors could afford to pay the King's high taxes, tenant farmers were first required to pay half their income to the plantation proprietors and then also pay the King's taxes. Thus, all the fees and taxes ate the freemen alive, and there was nothing they could do about it. The lower class had little if any economic, political or social status. And because there was only a weak, virtually non-existent middle class, these poor Virginians had no means – no opportunity – to climb upward. Their hands tied, it seems the poor freemen had two choices of action – one being to accept such hardships, the other to voice their hardships and take action. As their oppression gave way to intense discontent and desperation for change, the lower class was susceptible to Nathaniel Bacon's influence to rebel, thus leading to Bacon's Rebellion.
History books relate similar versions of events during Bacon's Rebellion, but historians and other critics present widely differing theories as to what "caused" the rebellion. Many issues, such as voting rights and the stubborn personalities of both Nathaniel Bacon and Virginia Governor Berkeley, have been scrutinized for their role in precipitating the struggle. One of the most popular theories, namely that the culprit was "the Indian policy", was written by Bacon himself, then elaborated upon by historian Wilcomb E. Washburn. Another prominent theory, put forth by William Noel Sainsbury, points the finger at the burdensomely high taxes. Below, I will discuss why I believe that neither of these explanations is adequate.
Washburn theorizes that the cause of Bacon's Rebellion was due to the Indian policy. In his Notes and Documents: Sir William Berkeley's 'A History of Our Miseries', Washburn states that Bacon's Rebellion was inevitable, due to "Bacon's wanton disregard of the governor's Indian policy and Berkeley's attempt to enforce compliance" (p. 403). To better understand Bacon's position against the Indian policy, I believe it is wise to understand the basics of the policy. The Indian policy was fundamentally intended to maintain peace between the Indians and English settlers. To do so, the policy created boundaries for the settlers and Indians, essentially separating the two groups and minimizing contact. All land already settled by the English was to remain English land, and all land beyond the established settlement was to remain Indian land. With time, however, the poor, newly freed colonial servants (freemen) were pushing up against and expanding out into Indian Territory, also known as the frontier. This expansion was in violation of the Indian policy, and as the freemen continued expanding their frontier boundaries, violent uprisings frequently occurred between the Indians and colonists. Wanting to maintain peace between the two groups, Virginia Governor William Berkeley and his government took various steps to calm the violence (Roark, et al). Nathaniel Bacon, however, justified and supported the poor freemen's frontier expansion, and opposed William Berkeley's calming tactics.
Based on his written Declaration 1676, Nathaniel Bacon was indeed against the Indian policy for many reasons, two of which were unfair trading and protection. Bacon makes the argument that the Governor and his Commission ("Heads of the River") were trading unfairly with the Indians, as well as providing them with protection. In his Declaration, Bacon expresses the unfair distribution of wealth by writing, "let us…see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure and wither it hath not bin privately contrived away by unworthy Favourites" (p. 55). Here Bacon is speculating that the "Publique Treasure" (Public Revenue) is being placed in the "unworthy Favourites" (Indian's) hands, and the wealth is not being made available to the poor freemen. Bacon also states that the Heads of the River warranted the "Darling Indians…Fire Arms soe destructfull to us and by our laws prohibited", and that the Indians "must have Ammunition although directly contrary to our law" (p. 56). In layman terms, Bacon is accusing the government of providing the Indians with firearms and ammunition, even though it was against the law for the freemen to bear such arms, obviously making it very difficult and potentially dangerous for the freemen to expand their frontier. In essence, Bacon believed the Government was protecting and favoring the Indians rather than their own freemen. All of these statements support Wilcomb E. Washburn's theory, but my theory explains the underlying cause of the Indian policy feuds.
In my perspective, the underlying cause of the Indian policy feuds was a result of the poor freemen not having any means to obtain wealth. Consequently, they resorted to claiming their own land to attain economic status, thus breaching Indian territories, violating the Indian policy, and creating conflict with the government. I theorize that the main reason of this aggressive expansion from the poor freemen was a result of the economic gap between poor and rich. Indian policy would never have been an issue if there weren't such an economic gap; if the freemen had access to wealth, they would not have needed more land, would not have breached Indian territories, and would not have fought with the Indians.
Indeed, Indian policy is not the only theory presented as the sole cause of Bacon's Rebellion. The unequal effect of high taxes was just as disconcerting as problems with the Indian policy. Historian William Noel Sainsbury, author of Considerations Upon the Present Troubles Virginia, supports high taxes as a cause for Bacon's Rebellion. Sainsbury mentions that:
The great oppression the people complain of is the great taxes levied on them…and the unequal way of raising them by the poll so that a poor man that hath nothing to maintain himself, wife and child pays as much for his levies as he that hath 2,000 acres of land.
Additionally, an excerpt from the Royal Commissioners Narrative, from 1677, states that every year the poor citizens were "being more and more oppressed with great taxes…which was the cause of [the] [Rebellion] with intents to have our taxes Lowered" (Document #10). These words state that the tax burdens were steadily increasing with time. If this pattern continued it would, in any society, inevitably lead to some sort of rebellious action – weather it be strikes, riots, new voting patterns (in today's society), or a rebellion like in 1676. While this is true, it is my opinion that these taxes were oppressive to the freemen, solely because they were poor and were unable to aid themselves by gaining wealth. These high expenses included paying half their income to the plantation proprietors and then, in addition, the King's taxes, which were levied without representation. It is my belief that having no means to attain economic status led to the poor freemen's severe discontent.
In addition to, and because of, the freemen’s low economic status, they had no means to change government regulation because they were not allowed to vote. Voting rights were unequal between the poor and elite groups. Until 1670, all freemen were allowed to vote, but in that year, the House of Burgesses (the legislative body for Virginia) voted to allow voting only by men who owned land and were the head of a household (Roark, p.90). In other words, only the elite could subsequently vote, for they were the only citizens with enough economic status to own their own land. This ultimately excluded the poor freemen from any and all political decisions, creating an even greater gap between the lower and upper classes. These inequalities eventually proved to be too much for the poor freemen to justify. Previously, the lower class had accepted the "social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government officials ruled for the general good". So, they were willing to tolerate being disenfranchised as long as they felt they were being treated fairly. However, "when rulers violated that precept, ordinary people felt justified in rebelling" (Roark, p. 90). It is my firm belief that those ordinary people felt justified in rebelling due to the economic distance between themselves and the elite upper class. There was no opportunity for the poor freemen to prosper. Had there been a middle class, it could have served as a ‘ladder’, allowing the lower class to climb upward. But the lower class had no ladder. In 1676, the era of Bacon's Rebellion, there was only a very weak middle class, a very weak, unreliable ladder. This was the weakest link in the colonial economy.
Today, in 2008, the strength of the middle class is not taken for granted; it remains a priority for those who are concerned about mobility of the lower class, and thus a priority for the strength of the economy in general. More than four centuries after Bacon's Rebellion, America has a middle class that is arguably the backbone of the nation, but the backbone is in pain. Deep concerns about economic inequality are present. The importance of the middle class is not taken for granted, and fears run deep that a weakened middle class could threaten not only the economic stability of the U.S., but her political and social stability as well.
The United States is not alone in this perspective; other countries are not immune to the problems of economic disparity, and they cite the same deep concerns. In January, 2007, His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan said that "the stability and comfort of the middle class are two essential requirements for the development and progress of any society, both at the political and social levels (U.S. Jordan Embassy)." Underlining the need to support the Jordanian middle class, King Abdullah noted that "political reform will be achieved if this segment's stability is ensured" (U.S. Jordan Embassy).
Here in the U.S., Abdullah's sentiment was echoed a full year before worldwide trade markets acknowledged the current (2008) economic crisis. In Iowa, on the presidential primary campaign trail, Senator Hillary Clinton expressed concerns that income inequality had risen to the highest levels since 1929. She declared:
I believe that middle class is the backbone of our economy, the key to real growth, and the guarantor of the American Dream. America is only as strong as our middle class. And so I judge the health of our economy by asking whether our middle class is expanding and getting ahead. This Administration has failed that test. Mine will not (HillaryClinton.com)
Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination, but the ongoing presidential campaign was full of rhetoric about rescuing the middle class. Samples of that rhetoric (e.g. Barrack Obama's and Joe Biden's "A Rescue Plan for the Middle Class", a proposal from their own campaign website, and Mike Glover's AP article, "McCain Says Obama Would Harm Middle Class") demonstrate it was abundant and varied. We heard it on the radio and TV; we read it in newspapers, magazines and on the internet.
Are we on the verge of another Bacon's Rebellion? In so many ways, the presidential campaign mirrored the immoral relationship between politics and economics of 1676. It can be argued that President Bush and John McCain compare to Governor Berkeley in the way that they are cornering with the wealthy, neglecting the middle class, leaving them to fend for themselves. Consequently, the rich get richer, and the middle class becomes poorer, resulting in a frail, or nonexistent, middle class as seen in Bacon's Rebellion.
A contemporary American patriot – or rebel, depending upon one's perspective – is Ben F. Terton. In The Moderate Independent: not left, not right, just right, Mr. Terton wrote:
For the first time in a generation, a politician hit a mark so directly on the head. Delivering exactly to the true middle class, rather than to either the poorer people or the richer, Obama's simple, relatively cheap economic rescue plan, if enacted, would immediately and significantly alter the course of the American economy for the better.
The article goes on to explain that Obama's plan involves tax cuts, financial assistance for debt, and business spending regulations – all of which are targeted to help the average, middle class citizens retain their economic independence. Without pursuing such a plan, the tax regulations could remain as they are: unequally favoring the CEO's of successful fortune-500 companies by allowing tax breaks that save them millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the lower and middle classes are not protected in the same manner; a great tax burden potentially strips them of their economic welfare, further distancing the upper and lower classes.
The economic comparison between today and the era of Bacon's Rebellion is simple. In both cases, a middle class was/is crucial for the prosperity of an economy and thus the happiness of its people. The wealthy elite need to recognize they aren't separate from this precept. In essence, they are part of an integrated whole, thus attached to the economy and dependent on its economic success. If the wealthy elite abuse or neglect what they are dependent on, then their actions will be detrimental to their own well being. Yes, the lower class may not rebel with such violent tactics today, but they still rebel in other forms, be it protesting, voting, debating, etc. The lower class rebelled in Bacon's Rebellion and they continue to do so today, because their economic status is being suppressed by and distanced from the wealthy elite. The ladder of opportunity is threatened.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bacon, Nathaniel. Declaration 1676. Reading the American Past. Pp. 55-56.
Beverly, Robert. The History and Present State of Virginia. History 121, Document #8.
Glover, Mike. "McCain Says Obama Would Harm Middle Class", AP article,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9417N180
Hickman, Craig.
http://craighickman.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-doesnt-stand-with-middle-class.html
HillaryClinton.com. Media Press Release,
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3618
Obama, Barrack and Joe Biden. "A Rescue Plan for the Middle Class", a proposal from their own campaign website,
http://obama.3cdn.net/009ff9aad4fd7f3acf_58l3mvzb2.pdf
Roark, et al. The American Promise: A History of the United States. Pp. 90-91. 2009
Royal Commissioners Narrative: Excerpt from petition of grievances from citizens of Isle of Wight County, March 1677. History 121, Document # 10, paragraph 1.
Sainsbury, William Noel. Considerations Upon the Present Troubles in Virginia. (1825–1895).
Terton, Ben F. The Moderate Independent: not left, not right, just right.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v6iOCT142008Baracksplan.htm
U.S. Jordan Embassy. Jordan Times. Stability of Middle Class Essential for Progress. http://www.jordanembassyus.org/01282007001.htm
Washburn, Wilcomb E. Notes and Documents: Sir William Berkeley's 'A History of Our Miseries'. http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2117/stable/1915651?&Search=yes&term...
No comments:
Post a Comment