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.

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

As I have read, the underlying cause of Bacon’s Rebellion has generally been divided into two perspectives. These two perspectives are the issues within the microcosm and the macrocosm. On the one hand, authors state that the microcosm aspects of the cause of Bacon’s Rebellion are the resolving factors, and on the other hand, other authors state the macrocosm aspects are the resolving factors. These particular readings include Howard Zinn, “A Young People’s History of the United States”, Peter Thompson, “Counties and Commonalties: New Perspectives on Bacon’s Rebellion”, Wilcomb E. Washburn, “The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia”, and William H. Seiler, “The Journal of Southern History.”

Contained within Peter Thompson’s passage, he provides his perspective of Bacon’s purpose for helping create a rebellion, “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, within Wilcomb E. Washburn’s passage he 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, but Wilcomb E. Washburn theorizes external influence as the cause of the Rebellion rather than an independent, self propelling influence existing within Bacon. Both Thompson and Washburn theorize provide causes within the microcosm.

William H. Seiler claims in his book 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 comes to the conclusion that, “Bacon’s Rebellion came about because of a chain of oppression.” Zinn then proceeds to explain some of the implications of the economy on Bacon’s Rebellion. Specifically, he speaks of the underclass and points out that Bacon’s Rebellion was primarily comprised of the underclass, makes the distinction and highlights the great distance between the rich and poor at that time, and emphasizes 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. In terms of approaching issues form the macrocosm, it seems that Howard Zinn is most suitable.

Final: Response to Quotes

1. “[T]he body is . . . directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.” (25)

The body is a participant in a political field. Other political bodies of similar or higher stature are able to influence it for the purpose of doing one’s bidding. In this manner, different political bodies are sometimes abusive of each other, in order to receive what they desire. This demonstrates how propaganda and immoral or arbitrary action can be produced by political bodies. Political bodies influence one another to perform deeds of ill-intent, merely for satisfying typical desires of the powerful.

2. “[I]t is largely as a force of production that the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labour power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection . . . the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body.” (26)

Chesapeake colonies are under subjection to produce tobacco because they are so invested in their relationship with England. The mother (England) had direct control over its new aspiring colonies, thus demanding an increase in the production of tobacco, for its wealthy rewards. Because it was such a competitive world, Chesapeake colonies were compelled to adopt the use of slavery for mass labor because other powerful nations, such as Spain, had done the same. In my opinion, a competitive globe inevitably becomes a system of subjection. I don’t believe political bodies’ usefulness is dependant on subjection. If this were true, it would suggest that political bodies are only useful when not free (subjection). Political bodies wouldn’t be as dependant on subjection if the globe became less competitive and more cooperative (more accepting of one another).

“In the darkest region of the political field the condemned man represents the symmetrical, inverted figure of the king.” (29)

Within the darkest region of the political field, the condemned man represents the exact opposite of the king. This signifies the king as someone morally bad, but having substantial power. The condemned man is a figure of moral clarity, but not having any power. In contrast, one could say, “In the most justified region of the political field the condemned man represents the king, but without power.”

Draft: Response to Quotes

1. “[T]he body is . . . directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.” (25)

The body is a participant in a political field. Other political bodies of similar or higher stature are able to influence it for the purpose of doing one’s bidding. This demonstrates how different political parties are abusive of each other in order to receive what they desire. In reality, this demonstrates how propaganda and immoral or invalid action can be produced by political bodies. Political bodies influence one another to perform deeds of artificial purpose.

2. “[I]t is largely as a force of production that the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labour power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection . . . the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body.” (26)

Chesapeake colonies are a force of producing tobacco because of their invested or connected relations with England. Because it was such competitive world, Chesapeake colonies were subjected to adapt the use of slavery because other power relations, such as Spain, had done the same. A competitive globe is a system of subjection. I don’t believe political bodies’ usefulness is dependant on subjection. This suggests that political bodies are only useful when not free (subjection). Political bodies wouldn’t be as dependant on subjection if the globe became less competitive) and more cooperative (more accepting of one another).

3. “In the darkest region of the political field the condemned man represents the symmetrical, inverted figure of the king.” (29)

Within the darkest region of the political field, the condemned man represents the exact opposite of the king. This signifies the king as someone morally bad, but having substantial power. The condemned man is a figure of moral clarity, but not having any power. In contrast, “In the most justified region of the political field the condemned man represents the king, but without power.”

Final: Summarization of Tobacco Ordeal

King James I despised the smoking of tobacco due to its negative healthy and social effects. One of the negative social influences was the fact that people who didn’t smoke the plant were basically considered outcasts. King James so detested tobacco smoking that he went to great lengths to publish a pamphlet regarding the negatives of tobacco consumption, which influenced people across Europe. However, sometime during the initial phase of tobacco importation, started by the Spaniards in 1600c, physicians declared it an herb capable of potential healing. The amounts of tobacco being imported increased 200-fold during the 1700c, exponentially decreasing purchase price, making it possible for almost every European to adapt the new fashion of smoking tobacco. The new fashion had a big influence on European culture. Large congregations for smoking tobacco became very popular. Because of difficult to handle paraphernalia, many tobacco addicts eventually switched to other methods of tobacco consumption, such as chewing snuff and/or sniffing tobacco powder. Producers of tobacco in the Chesapeake colonies on the east coast of America were the fundamental cause of tobacco consumption in Europe, and thus they were also the underlying cause of the new and modified culture.

Draft: Summarization of Tobacco Ordeal

King James I demoted the smoking of Tobacco for reasons of its unhealthy consumption effects and negative social influences. One of such negative social influences is the fact that people who didn’t smoke the plant were basically considered outcasts. He despised it so that he went to lengths of publishing a pamphlet on the negatives of Tobacco consumption, thereby having influence on other Europeans. Within the initial phase of Tobacco importation, made by the Spaniards in 1600c, physicians declared it an herb capable of potential healing. The amounts of tobacco being imported increased 200-fold during the 1700c, exponentially decreasing purchase price, making it possible for almost every European to adapt the new fashion of smoking tobacco. The new fashion had a big influence on European culture. Large congregations for smoking tobacco became very popular. Eventually, many tobacco addicts switched to other methods of tobacco consumption such as snuff and sniffing of tobacco powder, because of difficult to handle paraphernalia. Producers of tobacco in Chesapeake colonies were the fundamental cause of tobacco consumption in Europe, and so were also the underlying cause of the new and modified culture in Europe.

Final: Rhetorical Analysis & A Little Insight

Rhetorical Analysis

A charter was issued by King James I on April 10, 1606 to direct his authority to the eldest of the English colonies in America, for establishing a civilization on the east coast of America. The tone of the message was authoritative in all respects. Commands (or demands) from a country to its dominions to basically build new colonies sounds authoritative without any tone of leeway for self governing; the text is in plain, written orders. If the text is ‘persuasive’, it is merely because it is a written set of orders from the king of a large and powerful country. In reality, the rhetorical ‘persuasiveness’ of the text is poor. The only factor lending persuasive power to the text lies in the fact that the King wrote the message. I respond to the quality of the persuasiveness as if I am one of the King’s subjects. The Ethos of the passage, the appeal to authority (me), was more than sufficient because a King of a country, with a massive army, was issuing the message. The King more than anyone else has the credibility and authority to issue this order and have it result in compliance. The Pathos of the passage, the appeal to emotions (mine), is effective because it mentions a divine purpose about which I am emotionally passionate: “We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to settle and quiet Government.” Furthermore, the document appeals to emotions by suggesting that the settlers would increase their personal security and wealth by the granting of rights to abundant untainted land and mining for minerals (gold, silver, etc.). The Logos of the passage, the appeal to logic (mine), is adequate in that it states given benefits to those who comply with the order. It states all who are subjects of England and wish to settle within any of the several colonies or plantations – and all their offspring (heirs) who are subsequently born there – will automatically be given the rights of any typical English citizen. Furthermore, they will be granted the right to own a lot of land, as well as the opportunity to obtain riches (silver, gold, copper, etc.). Therefore, the document provides a logical granting and succession of rights to encourage English settlers to live in America, to establish and continue developing colonies on the east coast.

Personal Insight

Located on the second page of “The First Charter of Virginia” is the section of the text that speaks of England’s divine purpose in establishing a colony on the east coast. It is the thought that Europeans have something to teach of such virtue that lends them the false perception of being superior to the Natives. This perception allows the Europeans a sense of comfort as they dominate the Natives, ultimately resulting in immoral slaughter. A simple reflection on the Europeans’ action toward the natives suggests that it is the exact opposite of divine. If the Europeans engaged in an internal, simple, reflection of their unholy actions, which are directly contradictory to the written Bible, there may have resulted a step toward peace with the Natives. I am confident stating that any teaching that leads one to believe that one’s stature is ultimately above another’s results in inevitable aggression from the supposed superior. Thus, it is likely that a King would distort the Bible’s teaching to suit his desires.