Draft #2: What "They Say" of Bacon's Rebellion

From what I have read, authors who theorize the underlying cause of Bacon’s Rebellion are generally divided between focusing on microcosm and macrocosm perspectives. On the one hand, some authors believe the mystery of the cause of Bacon’s Rebellion is solved by micro factors, while, on the other hand, other authors believe the mystery is better solved by macro factors. The macrocosm explanations encompass the smaller, detailed explanations of the microcosm. In philosophical terms, the macrocosm is the trunk of the tree, and the microcosm consists of the leaves that stem from the trunk. Microcosm explanations of what caused Bacon’s Rebellion could include: conflict with the Indians on the frontier, the government’s reluctance to help the rebellion, or the inflating number of recently freed, poor indentured servants. Macrocosm explanations of what caused Bacon’s Rebellion could include: issues with the economy, Europe’s history of prejudice against other races (for reasons of religion, color, customs/culture, etc), or Virginia’s political system.

Peter Thompson’s passage from “Counties and Commonalties: New Perspectives on Bacon’s Rebellion” provides his perspective of Bacon’s purpose for helping create a rebellion. It states, “In conclusion I believe that the Cause that Bacon and his followers fought for was independence but not Independence, republicanism rather than Republicanism.” In contrast, a passage from The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia by Wilcomb E. Washburn states, “It was the frontiersmen’s continuing violation of Governor Berkeley’s efforts to settle the Indian-white relationship with fairness to both sides that precipitated the rebellion.” Peter Thompson theorizes Bacon’s own motives and an independent, self propelling influence existing within Bacon, while Wilcomb E. Washburn theorizes external influence as the cause of the rebellion. Both Thompson’s and Washburn’s theories provide causes within the microcosm. This is because both theories present singular specific details as the cause of Bacon’s Rebellion.

William H. Seiler claims in his book, The Journal of Southern History that, “Those who accept broader causes for the rebellion than the immediate causes of race relations and settlement policy will probably offer the greatest criticism of this revision.” Such broader causes could include the combination of influential factors that come into play when considering the economy as the cause. The economy as the cause of the rebellion is an aspect of the macrocosm. Similarly, Howard Zinn, author of A Young People’s History of the United States comes to the conclusion that, “Bacon’s Rebellion came about because of a chain of oppression.” As an interpretation, citizens were compelled to rebel because of cruel authorities (such authorities could include the King of England, the governor of Virginia, etc) exercising power over them. This next passage clarifies that cruel authorities did exercise power over them, thus substantiating Zinn’s theory. Written on March 1677, a Royal Commissioners Narrative states the following, “We having a long time lain under great oppressions, and every year being more and more oppressed with great taxes, and still do load us with greater and unnecessary burdens.”

Within Zinn’s text, he proceeds to explain some of the implications of the economy on Bacon’s Rebellion, pointing out that Bacon’s Rebellion was primarily comprised of the underclass. He highlights the great distance between the rich and poor at that time, and focuses on the wealthy elite who controlled the British colonies in the North (he states the wealthy elite had three primary fears: Indian hostility, the danger of slave revolts, and the growing anger of poor whites). According to Seiler, arguing from the macrocosm offers the greatest credibility for explaining the rebellion. In terms of approaching issues from the macrocosm, it seems that Howard Zinn is most suitable.