Essay #1 Reflection

A Tedious Process

This new writing process, incorporating history and my own philosophy with methods taught in “They Say, I Say”, has been quite complicated. Why was it complicated? Because providing an interpretation of the historical facts and views of others, while maintaining my own opinionated philosophical insights, and implementing a flowing grammatical infrastructure isn’t exactly simple. But, if achieved, the process can result in a very well done, persuasive essay. The initial “disease” of my writing process gradually “healed”, as the techniques I began to apply created a domino effect that continually improved my drafts.

The organization of my writing process for this essay wasn’t correct, in terms of finishing the steps in chronological order. I didn’t finish my outline in time, so I chose the topics for my body and persevered in finding the information for those topics. This process is the exact opposite from what was advised, which was to first find the information for the body, without predetermined, conclusive thought about what you were trying to find (especially crucial for historical writings). This was my primary mistake, and it resulted in an abundant amount of additional work. This essential error resulted in drafts that needed numerous large scale revisions. But, in the end, my writing process did improve; as my perception of the fundamental frame or outline improved, so did the flow – or readability – of the paper.

Writing about historical events truly requires a writer to find the information and then proceed to formulate ideas, rather than first deciding on a topic and then finding information. This is because historic information is limited and extremely difficult to find. I spent a tremendous amount of time searching for historic information because I decided on the content I wanted to include in the body before I found it. My searching methods for finding information on the web have improved, but they still need to become more efficient. Also, finding the needed interpretations of events and paraphrasing them in order to address my point was semi-difficult. Controlling the “they says” of history (summaries, quotes, paraphrasing, etc) with my voice was a critical issue within my drafts. My opinionated philosophical insights throughout the paper weren’t evident in the earlier drafts; therefore it seemed as if “I” wasn’t included within the paper, and thus the purpose of the writing seemed absent as well.

In essence, a writer’s philosophical insights are what create the purpose within a paper, and “I” didn’t initially make “I” evident within “my” paper. The “they says” basically dominated my paper throughout the early drafts. I aided the problem by framing or outlining the “they says” with my own words. Making one’s philosophical insights apparent within this seemingly very structured format, including the “they says”, isn’t easy. Deliberately punctuating the paper with my philosophical voice was necessary to distinguish me from them, and to truly deliver to the reader my essence (what makes me, me) and purpose for writing the paper.

To resolve these issues for future essays, I need to let an outline come to me, rather than me to it; control the “they say” voice with my own, by deliberately punctuating the text with my philosophical voice; and avoid trying to accomplish perfection. The remainder of this reflection concerns not being a perfectionist. It’s a good habit to be obsessed with conjuring the most significant subject or wisest answer for the given content and try to write with sophistication. All that is necessary, though, is for the subject to be relevant, purposeful, and interesting. If it’s irrelevant to the topic, then it’s confusing; if it doesn’t contain a purpose, then it’s without direction; and if it isn’t interesting, then it’s just plain boring. Writing with unnecessary complexity can make an incomprehensible message; I should seek clarity through simple, efficient language. I can at times be a perfectionist, trying to manifest the best answer or subject material. I think this perfectionist behavior results in unnecessary consumption of time; there is no right or wrong answer.

Final Draft: Bacon's Rebellion Essay

The Poor Get Poorer, The Rich Get Richer

“The poor get poorer, the rich get richer.” Doesn’t that sound familiar? It should, because it symbolizes the greed and selfishness of common human nature. Throughout human existence, the few elite, possessed by greed and selfishness, have gained the most power or wealth and neglected the poor. The cause of this extreme imbalance of power is the existence of an international money game that was created when money first originated, and has manifested an overwhelming competitiveness within the few elite to attain the most wealth. What’s their incentive? Well, for power. But, the few elite don’t reflect on their incentive and test its moral validity; they have an automatic instinct for power. If this power is gained or used immorally, then the majority, which is unjustly the poor, will inevitably rebel. Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 in Colonial Virginia exemplifies how power immorally governed by a wealthy elite can lead to rebellion.

During the seventeenth century, Colonial Virginia depended on tobacco plantations as her primary industry and source of income. Through imports and taxation, King Charles II of England also came to depend greatly on the tobacco crops. Requiring huge amounts of labor, the Virginia plantation owners depended heavily on indentured servants. Poor English immigrants were enticed to leave England with free transportation to the other side of the Atlantic, where they were promised cheap land and/or higher wages, following a period of indentured servitude in the tobacco 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” usually experienced extreme physical and economic hardship, and they feared raids by threatened or angry Indians. 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 first were 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. With their hands tied and their discontent increasing, it seems the poor freemen had two choices of action – one being to accept such hardships or the other voicing up and taking action. The history books tell us they chose to take action in the form of Bacon’s Rebellion, but explain different reasons why. What was the essential cause of Bacon’s Rebellion?

The essential cause of Bacon’s Rebellion was the economic distance between the lower class and the upper class of the early Virginian settlers. The lower class had no economic status. And with a weak, almost non-existent middle class, these poor Virginians had no means to climb their way toward the upper class. As a result of this extremely low economic status, the lower class was socially discriminated, stripped of political power, and unable to pay high taxes. This oppression gave way to intense discontent and desperation among the poor citizens. Being so discontent with their status, and desperate for change, the lower class was susceptible to Nathaniel Bacon’s influence to rebel. Thus leading to Bacon’s Rebellion. However, some historians and other critics believe the cause(s) of the Rebellion to be of different factors, such as The Indian policy, and the high taxes and voting rights imposed by the Government of colonial Virginia.

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.

Writing in his Declaration 1676, Bacon expresses the unfair distribution of wealth between the elite and poor freemen. Following are words that Bacon wrote:

“. . . let us trace these men in Authority and Favour to whose hands the dispensation of the Countries wealth has been commited; let us observe the sudden Rise of their Estates…let us see wither their extractions and Education have not bin vile…let us consider their sudden advancement and let us also consider wither any Publick work for our safety and defence or for the Advancement and propagation of Trade, liberall Arts or sciences is her Extan in any [way] adequate…let us compare these things togit[her] and see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure and wither it hath not bin privately contrived away by unworthy Favourites” (p. 55).

Above, Bacon is insisting that the country’s wealth has been unevenly dispersed; it is ending up in the elites’ hands, and leaving little, if nothing, in the poor freemen’s possession. The last segment of the quote speculates that the “Publique Treasure” (Public Revenue) is also being placed in the “unworthy Favourites” (Indian’s) hands. Bacon’s point is that the wealth is not being made available to the freemen.

Additionally, 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. Bacon states that the Heads of the River warranted the “Darling Indians…Fire Arms soedestructfull 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, the government was 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.

Nathaniel Bacon states another unfair detail about the trading in this Declaration 1676, by stating “who dare say That these Men at the Heads of the River buy and sell our blood” (p. 56). Bacon feels it is unfair for the freemen not to gain anything from their labor on the crops. They are not gaining wealth from such labor; instead the elite and Indians are.

In Bacon’s mind, all the above reasons justify the ruining and extirpating of “all Indians in General [and] all Manner of Trade and Commerce with them” (p. 56). Indeed, Wilcomb E. Washburn’s theory from his Notes and Documents: Sir William Berkeley’s ‘A History of Our Miseries’ 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). However, it is my belief, as well as the belief of Robert Beverly, that this dispute with Indians was not the core cause of the Rebellion.

The poor freemen had no means of survival unless they had enough land to grow substantial amounts of tobacco. With the majority of land belonging to the elite, there was not enough land left within the established English settlement for the increasing population of poor freemen to grow sufficient crops. Therefore, in order to survive – feed their families, provide shelter, pay taxes – it was necessary for the poor freemen to expand beyond the settlement boundaries and onto Indian land. As mentioned in Robert Beverly’s The History and Present State of Virginia:

This Addition of Mischief [Indian attacks on white frontier settlements] to Minds already full of Discontent, made People ready to vent all their Resentment against the poor Indians. There was nothing to be got by Tobacco; neither could they turn any other Manufacture to Advantage; so that most of the poorer Sort were willing to quit their unprofitable Employments, and go Volunteers against the Indians (Document #8, Paragraph #1).

In essence, the underlying reason for expanding the frontier relates to the poor citizens’ low economic status, and their resulting lack of political power; more political power would have enabled them to make changes in the way land and wealth were distributed.

Indeed, Indian policy was not the only aspect of colonial government that brought discontent to the poor citizens; Indian policy was more a symptom of fundamental, underlying issues. The unequal effect of high taxes and the stripping of voting rights from poor citizens were just as disconcerting as problems with Indian policy. Historian William Noel Sainsbury, author of Considerations Upon the Present Troubles in 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, or voting in today’s society, or a rebellion for those in 1676.

Voting rights also proved 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 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. Initially, the lower class 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). The poorer class felt just as any person would when governing power is used immorally. Seemingly, with no other option, they resorted to retaliating against authority, a rebellion.

Even though the economy of Virginia in 1676 was radically different than the economy of the United States in 2008, deep concerns about economic inequality are present yet today. 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. 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 middle class in Jordan, once a vital and growing segment of society, had been adversely affected by the rise in oil prices. . . . the Monarch said this was the major economic and political challenge facing the Kingdom, and stressed the importance of improving the income of the middle class.

He said 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.

Underlining the need to support the middle class, King Abdullah noted political reform will be achieved if this segment’s stability is ensured. In this regard, the Monarch underlined the importance of the business sector in reducing unemployment and fighting poverty, which are factors that enhance extremism (U.S. Jordan Embassy).

Abdullah’s sentiment was echoed in October of 2007 – a full year before the U.S. Congress and worldwide trade markets acknowledged our current economic crisis – by Senator Hillary Clinton. In Iowa, on the presidential primary campaign trail, she expressed concerns that income inequality had risen to the highest levels since 1929, that wages had stagnated, and that the burgeoning problems in the housing market further threatened many middle class families. Prior to detailing her economic blueprint to restore the American middle class, Clinton said:

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 has been 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 that it is abundant and varied. We hear it on the radio and TV; we read it in newspapers, magazines and on the internet.

While much of what is “published” online is not considered as credible as the Associated Press or even a candidate’s official website, I find some of the sites and some of the blogs to be very careful and/or articulate, and I wonder if their authors may be today’s counterpart to Nathaniel Bacon or some of his followers. One of the bloggers, Craig Hickman, simply quoted the text of a recent speech by vice presidential candidate Joe Biden. What’s significant is the emphasis Biden puts on the wide divide between wealthy and poor in contemporary America, along with some of the associated social attitudes:

I believe that's why Senator McCain [Republican presidential candidate] could say with a straight face, as recently as this morning, and I quote "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." That, "We've made great progress economically" during the Bush years. But friends, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn't run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.

John McCain just doesn't seem to understand what middle class people are going through today. I don't doubt that he cares. He just doesn't think that we have any responsibility to help people who are hurting.

My dad used to have an expression: "Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value."

By that measure, John McCain doesn't stand with the middle class. He stands with George Bush firmly in the corner of the wealthy and well-connected. He stands with the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, who, while testifying before my Senate judiciary committee swore to me under oath that Exxon-Mobil didn't need the tax breaks they'd been given to explore for oil.

John McCain is so firmly in their corner he thinks the Exxon-Mobils of the world should get an additional $4 billion dollars a year in tax cuts.

He stands in the corner of the wealthiest Americans by extending tax cuts for people making over a quarter million dollars a year, and then adding more than $300 billion on top of that for corporations and the wealthy.

Are we on the verge of another Bacon’s Rebellion? In so many ways, this blog mirrors the immoral relationship between politics and economics of 1676. Bush and 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.

Another of the contemporary American patriots or rebels, depending upon one’s perspective, is Ben F. Terton. In The Moderate Independent: not left, not right, just right, Mr. Terton published his article, “Barack’s Brilliant Plan”:

For half a decade the only articles I've been able to write were the ones that explained that, despite "expert" commentary to the contrary, the nation was headed toward a major economic collapse. . . .
The reason I've been able to predict exactly what was going to happen to the economy half a decade ahead of time was not because I'm psychic. It was because during that period, with Republican conservatives in control of the government, there were no significant changes of policy. . . .

Any significant change of policy during that time could have headed off this disaster. But neither Republican nor Democrat ever really hit the mark. Until now. . . .

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.

And the article goes on to explain “Barrack’s Brilliant Plan”, involving 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, saving them thousands, if not millions, of dollars. As for the lower and middle classes, they are not protected in the same manner, and are put under a great tax burden; potentially stripping them of their economic welfare, further distancing the upper and lower classes.

The economic relation between today and Bacon’s Rebellion is simple. That of today and the era of Bacon’s Rebellion, there exists an unsupported fundamental driving force, the middle class. The middle class 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 dependant on its economic success. If the wealthy elite abuse or neglect what they are dependant 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 had rebelled in Bacon’s Rebellion and they continue today because of their economic status being suppressed and distanced from the almighty wealthy elite.

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...

Rough draft#4: Bacon's Rebellion Essay

The Poor Get Poorer, the Rich Get Richer

One of the most intriguing years of American history was 1676. That’s right, not 1776 – which was also intriguing, to say the least – but rather 1676. In that year, Jamestown, Virginia, the first recognized American colony to be settled by Europeans, was the hub of “Bacon’s Rebellion”, a confusing series of affairs which has been scrutinized by historians ever since. Many are the theories about why the rebellion occurred.

Sometimes referred to as the “Virginia Rebellion of 1676”, Bacon’s Rebellion has been tagged by some as a glorious fight against unfair taxation and tyranny, an early signal and precursor of the American Revolution which followed exactly 100 years later. More recently, others have argued that Bacon’s Rebellion was simply a power struggle between a couple of selfish, stubborn leaders, namely Governor William Berkeley and colonist Nathaniel Bacon. Probably the most common interpretation has been that the uprising was a dispute over colonial “Indian policy”.

Indeed, it is generally agreed that the actual violence of Bacon’s Rebellion was ignited when the government tried to calm disputes between Indians and colonists, instead of seeking revenge after Indian raids. However, it was convenient for Indian policy to be used as a scapegoat; while there had been skirmishes with certain groups of Native Americans, there were many other factors leading to the rebellion. For example, Bacon “urged the colonists to ‘see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure.’ He charged that ‘Grandees,’ or elite planters, operated the government for their private gain, a charge that made sense to many colonists.” (Roark, p. 91)

No matter what the actual “cause” of the rebellion, Bacon as a leader would never have gained such following had not the colonists empathized with his justifications. Bacon was able to rally and motivate because his charges against the government – i.e. his justification for rebellion – intellectually and emotionally resonated with colonists. Discontent and thus susceptibility to Bacon’s influence was great, due to political, social, and especially economic distance between Virginia’s wealthy elite and her poor. In fact, the economic distance between wealthy elite and poor resulted in political and social distance; a person’s economic status determined his or her “class”. It was the distance between Virginia’s lower class and her upper class that lead to Bacon’s Rebellion.

The historian T. H. Breen quotes Bacon emphasizing this wide division when he said, “The poverty of the country is such that all the power and sway is got into the hands of the rich, who by extorious advantages, having the common people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all manner of wayes.” (Breen, p. 10) Breen proceeds to explain that “Although historians may discover the Virginian gentry was not as selfish as Bacon claimed, the leader’s class rhetoric appealed to a large number of colonists.” (Breen, p. 10)

Virginia depended on tobacco plantations as her primary industry and source of income. Through imports and taxation, King Charles II of England also came to depend greatly on the tobacco crops. Requiring huge amounts of labor, the Virginia plantation owners depended heavily on indentured servants. Poor English immigrants were enticed to leave England with free transportation to the other side of the Atlantic, where they were promised cheap land and/or higher wages, following a period of indentured servitude in the tobacco fields.

The promises for a richer life were seldom fulfilled, however. Historian John C. Rainbolt noted this discrepancy in his discussion of the economic distance between the Virginia poor and the wealthy elite (Rainbolt, pp. 413-414):

In their aggressive quest for wealth and the status and gentility that they imagined would accompany it, members of this rising elite engaged in fraudulent practices to secure land and having obtained it concealed quitrent obligations. Indentured servants were exploited during their service and then denied land, part of the freedom dues many had anticipated. The members of the new gentry used their commercial connections and strategic landholdings to engross trade. They ignored the Navigation Acts and engaged in illegal commerce. In short, their striving for land, wealth, and position was intense and, at times, ruthless.

This passage demonstrates that the poor freemen were denied competition with the upper class because the wealthy elite refused to sell established plantation land to them. Freed servants who tried to compete by clearing and developing land on the “outskirts” usually experienced extreme physical and economic hardship, and they feared raids by threatened or angry Indians. Unable to compete with the upper class, the lower class had no economic significance; they were incapable of participating in the production and distribution of wealth. As a result, the poor became poorer, the rich became richer. The aftermath of this phenomenon was social and political discrimination toward the impoverished.

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 first were 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.

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. Colonists were accustomed to European monarchies, and they “accepted 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. When rulers violated that precept,” however, “ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (Roark, pp. 90-91)

Noted historian William Noel Sainsbury wrote, “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.” Oppression among the poor came from the burdening taxes of which there was no escape. Having no opportunity for prosperity, the impoverished were left to suffer. These oppressive taxes – levied without any say or form of representation – exemplifies the political distance which gave way to massive discontent throughout the poor of Virginia. If the poor had economic status, they would have been politically recognized.

Similarly, economic status dictated social discrimination. As discussed by T. H. Breen, this phenomenon is reflected in the collaboration of poor and indentured whites with Negroes, “The presence of so many black rebels at West’s plantation provides evidence that many Virginians in Berkeley’s time regarded economic status, not race, as the essential social distinction. Even the gentry seems to have viewed the blacks primarily as a component of the ‘giddy multitude.’” (Breen, p. 11)

T.H. Breen is suggesting that because some poor and indentured whites were treated similarly, if not the same, as blacks, lower class whites felt compelled to assemble with the blacks to form a larger authority in order to confront the elite planters. He is suggesting that class or economic status determined social discrimination. In my perspective, this makes it evident that class discrimination took precedence over racism at this time. As I said before, class is economic status. So, in all actuality, justification of social discrimination was determined by economic status.

Discussion and conclusion will be completed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Roark, et al, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 2009

T.H. Breen (PhD Yale, 1968), “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia

John C. Rainbolt (Ph.D. diss, Washington University, 1970), “The Alteration in the Relationship between Leadership and Constituents in Virginia, 1660 to 1720”

William Noel Sainsbury (1825–1895) “Considerations Upon the Present Troubles in Virginia”

Rough draft#3: Bacon's Rebellion Essay

The Poor Get Poorer, the Rich Get Richer

One of the most intriguing years of American history was 1676. That’s right, not 1776 – which was also intriguing, to say the least – but rather 1676. In that year, Jamestown, Virginia, the first recognized American colony to be settled by Europeans, was the hub of “Bacon’s Rebellion”, a confusing series of affairs which has been scrutinized by historians ever since.

Sometimes referred to as the “Virginia Rebellion of 1676”, Bacon’s Rebellion has been tagged by some as a glorious fight against unfair taxation and tyranny, an early signal and precursor of the American Revolution which followed exactly 100 years later. More recently, others have argued that Bacon’s Rebellion was simply a power struggle between a couple of selfish, stubborn leaders, namely Governor William Berkeley and colonist Nathaniel Bacon. Probably the most common interpretation has been that the uprising was a dispute over colonial “Indian policy”. While there had been skirmishes with certain groups of Native Americans, there were so many causes leading to the rebellion that it was easy for Indian policy to become a convenient scapegoat.

Virginia depended on tobacco plantations as her primary industry and source of income. Through imports and taxation, King Charles II of England also came to depend greatly on the tobacco crops. Requiring huge amounts of labor, the Virginia plantation owners depended heavily on indentured servants. Poor English immigrants were enticed to leave England with free transportation to the other side of the Atlantic, where they were promised cheap land and/or higher wages, following a period of indentured servitude in the tobacco fields.

Rarely were the promises for a richer life ever fulfilled. Most prime land was already taken by established and prosperous plantation owners. Freed servants who tried to compete by clearing and developing land on the “outskirts” usually experienced extreme physical and economic hardship, and they feared raids by threatened or angry Indians. Instead, they became hired workers or “tenant farmers” of the large plantation “proprietors”. The proprietors could afford to pay the King’s high taxes. Plantation workers and tenant farmers, however, first had to pay half their income to the proprietors, so the King’s taxes almost ate them alive, and there was nothing they could do about it.

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. Nevertheless, colonists were accustomed to European monarchies; they “accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government officials ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept,” however, “ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (Roark, et al, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 2009)

It is generally agreed that Bacon’s Rebellion was sparked in large part because the government tried to calm disputes between Indians and colonists, instead of seeking revenge after Indian raids. Also, Bacon “urged the colonists to ‘see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure.’ He charged that ‘Grandees,’ or elite planters, operated the government for their private gain, a charge that made sense to many colonists.” (Roark, p. 91)

The fact that Bacon’s charges made sense to the colonists is the point. No matter what the actual “cause” of the rebellion, it would never have gained such momentum had not the colonists empathized with Bacon’s cause. Bacon’s Rebellion was successful because there was such political, social, and especially economical distance between Virginia’s wealthy elite and her poor. In fact, the economical distance between the wealthy elite and the poor resulted in social and political distance. In reality, a person’s economical status is class. Thus, in summary, it is the distance between the lower class and the upper class that lead to Bacon’s Rebellion.

The historian, T.H. Breen (PhD Yale, 1968), speaks of social discrimination and economic oppression in “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia.” (The name of the paper is self explanatory regarding content of the text.) On page 10 of the text, Breen quotes Bacon, “The poverty of the country is such that all the power and sway is got into the hands of the rich, who by extorious advantages, having the common people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all manner of wayes.” Breen proceeds to explain that “Although historians may discover the Virginian gentry was not as selfish as Bacon claimed, the leader’s class rhetoric appealed to a large number of colonists.” It is evident that Breen is giving consideration to Bacon’s thoughts, but I don’t think he is justifying Bacon’s purpose for the rebellion. I also don’t justify the rebellion by Bacon’s reasoning, but this quote, I think, isn’t exaggerated far beyond the truth.

Historian John C. Rainbolt (Ph.D. diss, Washington University, 1970), author of “The Alteration in the Relationship between Leadership and Constituents in Virginia, 1660 to 1720.” Included within the passage (pages 413-414), he speaks about the economic distance between the poor and the wealthy elite. He states,

In their aggressive quest for wealth and the status and gentility that they imagined would accompany it, members of this rising elite engaged in fraudulent practices to secure land and having obtained it concealed quitrent obligations. Indentured servants were exploited during their service and then denied land, part of the freedom dues many had anticipated. The members of the new gentry used their commercial connections and strategic landholdings to engross trade. They ignored the Navigation Acts and engaged in illegal commerce. In short, their striving for land, wealth, and position was intense and, at times, ruthless.

This passage demonstrates that the poor were denied competition with the upper class by being rejected land from the wealthy elite. Being unable to compete with the upper class, the lower class had no economical significance. Therefore, the lower class was incapable of participating in the production and distribution of wealth. As a result, the poor became poorer, the rich became richer. The aftermath of this phenomenon was social and political discrimination toward the impoverished.

Former historian, Sainsbury, William Noel (1825–1895), includes in his writing of, “Considerations Upon the Present Troubles in Virginia,” the oppressive taxes enforced on Virginia’s poor in the era of Bacon’s Rebellion. He states, “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.” Oppression among the poor came from the burdening taxes of which there was no escape. Having no opportunity for prosperity, the impoverished were left to suffer. These oppressive taxes gave way to massive discontent throughout the poverty of Virginia.

On page 7 of “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia, T.H. Breen writes

Although little is known about the relative treatment of whites and blacks in Virginia before Bacon's Rebellion, it is doubtful that English servants fared better than Negroes. Evidence from Barbados at this time reveals that planters there regarded white servants as a short-term investment to be exploited ruthlessly and thus, "for the time the servants have the worser lives [than the Negroes], for they are put to very hard labour, ill lodging, and their dyet very sleight."38 If such conditions prevailed on the mainland, it would help explain why some poor and indentured whites voluntarily joined with black men to challenge the planters' authority.

In summary, T.H. Breen is suggesting that because some poor and indentured whites were treated similarly if not the same as blacks, lower class whites felt compelled to assemble with the blacks to form a larger authority in order to confront the elite planters. I interpreted this to mean that different categories of class felt compelled to congregate regardless of race. At this time, it seems social discrimination seemed to exist within class. As I said before, class is economic status. So, in all actuality, justification of social discrimination was determined by economic status.

On page 11 of “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia,” T.H. Breen explains the accounts of Thomas Grantham. After Bacon had died, Thomas Grantham, an English sea captain, volunteered to serve as an intermediary between Governor Berkeley and his enemies, Bacon’s followers. Governor Berkeley accepted the offer. Breen proceeds to state, “The presence of so many black rebels at West’s plantation provides evidence that many Virginians in Berkeley’s time regarded economic status, not race, as the essential social distinction. Even the gentry seems to have viewed the blacks primarily as a component of the ‘giddy multitude.’” In general, Breen is stating, based on Thomas Grantham’s witnessing, that mass congregation of different races within the lower class suggests that class or economic status determined social discrimination. In my perspective, this makes it evident that at this time, class discrimination was a form of racism at this time.

It wasn’t until more slaves began to be imported into Virginia that the economy became much less dependent on indentured servants. When indentured servants were substituted for slaves, social discrimination didn’t exist as “classism”, but as racism instead. Black and white colors in the lower class no longer meshed together. Later, as slaves began to represent an independent class, the lowest class, a harsh differentiation was created between whites and blacks. Social discrimination of the poor, by the wealthy, distanced the common poor from the wealthy elite, intensifying the discontent among the impoverished at that time.



Remainder of the body, discussion and conclusion will be completed.

Rough draft#2: Bacon's Rebellion Essay

The Poor Get Poorer, the Rich Get Richer

One of the most intriguing years of American history was 1676. That’s right, not 1776 – which was also intriguing, to say the least – but rather 1676. In that year, Jamestown, Virginia, the first recognized American colony to be settled by Europeans, was the hub of “Bacon’s Rebellion”, a confusing series of affairs which has been scrutinized by historians ever since.

Sometimes referred to as the “Virginia Rebellion of 1676”, Bacon’s Rebellion has been tagged by some as a glorious fight against unfair taxation and tyranny, an early signal and precursor of the American Revolution which followed exactly 100 years later. More recently, others have argued that Bacon’s Rebellion was simply a power struggle between a couple of selfish, stubborn leaders, namely Governor William Berkeley and colonist Nathaniel Bacon. Probably the most common interpretation has been that the uprising was a dispute over colonial “Indian policy”. While there had been skirmishes with certain groups of Native Americans, there were so many causes leading to the rebellion that it was easy for Indian policy to become a convenient scapegoat.

Virginia depended on tobacco plantations as her primary industry and source of income. Through imports and taxation, King Charles II of England also came to depend greatly on the tobacco crops. Requiring huge amounts of labor, the Virginia plantation owners depended heavily on indentured servants. Poor English immigrants were enticed to leave England with free transportation to the other side of the Atlantic, where they were promised cheap land and/or higher wages, following a period of indentured servitude in the tobacco fields.

Rarely were the promises for a richer life ever fulfilled. Most prime land was already taken by established and prosperous plantation owners. Freed servants who tried to compete by clearing and developing land on the “outskirts” usually experienced extreme physical and economic hardship, and they feared raids by threatened or angry Indians. Instead, they became hired workers or “tenant farmers” of the large plantation “proprietors”. The proprietors could afford to pay the King’s high taxes. Plantation workers and tenant farmers, however, first had to pay half their income to the proprietors, so the King’s taxes almost ate them alive, and there was nothing they could do about it.

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. Nevertheless, colonists were accustomed to European monarchies; they “accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government officials ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept,” however, “ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (Roark, et al, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 2009)

It is generally agreed that Bacon’s Rebellion was sparked in large part because the government tried to calm disputes between Indians and colonists, instead of seeking revenge after Indian raids. Also, Bacon “urged the colonists to ‘see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure.’ He charged that ‘Grandees,’ or elite planters, operated the government for their private gain, a charge that made sense to many colonists.” (Roark, p. 91)

The fact that Bacon’s charges made sense to the colonists is the point. No matter what the actual “cause” of the rebellion, it would never have gained such momentum had not the colonists empathized with Bacon’s cause. Bacon’s Rebellion was successful because there was such political, social, and especially economical distance between Virginia’s wealthy elite and her poor. In fact, the economical distance between the wealthy elite and the poor resulted in social and political distance.

The historian, T.H. Breen (PhD Yale, 1968), speaks of social discrimination and economic oppression in “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia.” (The name of the paper is self explanatory regarding content of the text.) On page 10 of the text, Breen quotes Bacon, “The poverty of the country is such that all the power and sway is got into the hands of the rich, who by extorious advantages, having the common people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all manner of wayes.” Breen proceeds to explain that “Although historians may discover the Virginian gentry was not as selfish as Bacon claimed, the leader’s class rhetoric appealed to a large number of colonists.” It is evident that Breen is giving consideration to Bacon’s thoughts, but I don’t think he is justifying Bacon’s purpose for the rebellion. I also don’t justify the rebellion by Bacon’s reasoning, but this quote, I think, isn’t exaggerated far beyond the truth.

Historian John C. Rainbolt (Ph.D. diss, Washington University, 1970), author of “The Alteration in the Relationship between Leadership and Constituents in Virginia, 1660 to 1720.” Included within the passage (pages 413-414), he speaks about the economic distance between the poor and the wealthy elite. He states,

In their aggressive quest for wealth and the status and gentility that they imagined would accompany it, members of this rising elite engaged in fraudulent practices to secure land and having obtained it concealed quitrent obligations. Indentured servants were exploited during their service and then denied land, part of the freedom dues many had anticipated. The members of the new gentry used their commercial connections and strategic landholdings to engross trade. They ignored the Navigation Acts and engaged in illegal commerce. In short, their striving for land, wealth, and position was intense and, at times, ruthless.

This passage demonstrates that the poor were denied competition with the upper class by being rejected land from the wealthy elite. Being unable to compete with the upper class, the lower class had no economical significance. Therefore, the lower class was incapable of participating in the production and distribution of wealth. As a result, the poor became poorer, the rich became richer. The aftermath of this phenomenon was social and political discrimination toward the impoverished.

Another Historian, Howard Zinn (PhD Columbia University, 1958), speaks about Bacon’s Rebellion within Volume One, Chapter Three of his writing “A Young People’s History of the United States.” Included in the text, Zinn writes about the distance between the rich and the poor. Zinn states,

Class lines hardened during the colonial period. The difference between rich and poor grew sharper. At the very beginning of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1630, Governor John Winthrop showed the thinking of colonial leaders when he said that “in all times some must be rich, some poore.” The leaders of the colonies were men of money and status. They wanted society in North America to mirror England, where a small number of people controlled the best land and much of the wealth.

As I read this passage, I felt it marked the genesis of a superior upper class, impervious and careless of the sufferings of lower classes. Indeed, it seems evident from Bacon that the intentions of the leaders quoted manifested themselves in future colonies.


On page 7 of “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia, T.H. Breen writes

Although little is known about the relative treatment of whites and blacks in Virginia before Bacon's Rebellion, it is doubtful that English servants fared better than Negroes. Evidence from Barbados at this time reveals that planters there regarded white servants as a short-term investment to be exploited ruthlessly and thus, "for the time the servants have the worser lives [than the Negroes] ,for they are put to very hard labour, ill lodging, and their dyet very sleight."38 If such conditions prevailed on the mainland, it would help explain why some poor and indentured whites voluntarily joined with black men to challenge the planters' authority.

In summary, T.H. Breen is suggesting that because some poor and indentured whites were treated similarly if not the same as blacks, lower class whites felt compelled to assemble with the blacks to form a larger authority in order to confront the elite planters. I interpreted this to mean that different categories of class felt compelled to congregate regardless of race. So, at this time, social discrimination seemed to exist within class.

On page 11 of “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia,” T.H. Breen explains the accounts of Thomas Grantham. After Bacon had died, Thomas Grantham, an English sea captain, volunteered to serve as an intermediary between Governor Berkeley and his enemies, Bacon’s followers. Governor Berkeley accepted the offer. Breen proceeds to state, “The presence of so many black rebels at West’s plantation provides evidence that many Virginians in Berkeley’s time regarded economic status, not race, as the essential social distinction. Even the gentry seems to have viewed the blacks primarily as a component of the ‘giddy multitude.’” In general, Breen is stating, based on Thomas Grantham’s witnessing, that the occurrence of mass congregation of different races within the lower class suggests that class determined social discrimination. In my perspective, this makes it evident that at this time, class discrimination was similar to racism.

It wasn’t until more slaves began to be imported into Virginia that the economy became much less dependent on indentured servants. When indentured servants were substituted for slaves, social discrimination didn’t exist as “classism”, but as racism instead. Black and white colors in the lower class no longer meshed together. Later, as slaves began to represent an independent class, the lowest class, a harsh differentiation was created between whites and blacks. Social discrimination of the poor, by the wealthy, distanced the common poor from the wealthy elite, intensifying the discontent among the impoverished at that time.


Remainder of the body, discussion and conclusion will be completed.

Rough draft: Bacon's Rebellion Essay

The Poor Get Poorer, the Rich Get Richer

One of the most intriguing years of American history was 1676. That’s right, not 1776 – which was also intriguing, to say the least – but rather 1676. In that year, Jamestown, Virginia, the first recognized American colony to be settled by Europeans, was the hub of “Bacon’s Rebellion”, a confusing series of affairs which has been scrutinized by historians ever since.

Sometimes referred to as the “Virginia Rebellion of 1676”, Bacon’s Rebellion has been tagged by some as a glorious fight against unfair taxation and tyranny, an early signal and precursor of the American Revolution which followed exactly 100 years later. More recently, others have argued that Bacon’s Rebellion was simply a power struggle between a couple of selfish, stubborn leaders, namely Governor William Berkeley and colonist Nathaniel Bacon. Probably the most common interpretation has been that the uprising was a dispute over colonial “Indian policy”. While there had been skirmishes with certain groups of native Americans, there were so many causes leading to the rebellion that it was easy for Indian policy to become a convenient scapegoat.

Virginia depended on tobacco plantations as her primary industry and source of income. Through imports and taxation, King Charles II of England also came to depend greatly on the tobacco crops. Requiring huge amounts of labor, the Virginia plantation owners depended heavily on indentured servants. Poor English immigrants were enticed to leave England with free transportation to the other side of the Atlantic, where they were promised cheap land and/or higher wages, following a period of indentured servitude in the tobacco fields.

Rarely were the promises for a richer life ever fulfilled. Most prime land was already taken by established and prosperous plantation owners. Freed servants who tried to compete by clearing and developing land on the “outskirts” usually experienced extreme physical and economic hardship, and they feared raids by threatened or angry Indians. Instead, they became hired workers or “tenant farmers” of the large plantation “proprietors”. The proprietors could afford to pay the King’s high taxes. Plantation workers and tenant farmers, however, first had to pay half their income to the proprietors, so the King’s taxes almost ate them alive, and there was nothing they could do about it.

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. Nevertheless, colonists were accustomed to European monarchies; they “accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government officials ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept,” however, “ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (Roark, et al, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 2009)

It is generally agreed that Bacon’s Rebellion was sparked in large part because the government tried to calm disputes between Indians and colonists, instead of seeking revenge after Indian raids. Also, Bacon “urged the colonists to ‘see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure.’ He charged that ‘Grandees,’ or elite planters, operated the government for their private gain, a charge that made sense to many colonists.” (Roark, p. 91)

The fact that Bacon’s charges made sense to the colonists is the point. No matter what the actual “cause” of the rebellion, it would never have gained such momentum had not the colonists empathized with Bacon’s cause. Bacon’s Rebellion was successful because there was such economic, political and social distance between Virginia’s wealthy elite and her poor.

The historian, T.H. Breen (PhD Yale, 1968), speaks of social discrimination and economic oppression in “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia.” (The name of the paper is self explanatory regarding content of the text.) On page 10 of the text, Breen quotes Bacon, “The poverty of the country is such that all the power and sway is got into the hands of the rich, who by extorious advantages, having the common people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all manner of wayes.” Breen proceeds to explain that “Although historians may discover the Virginian gentry was not as selfish as Bacon claimed, the leader’s class rhetoric appealed to a large number of colonists.” It is evident that Breen is giving consideration to Bacon’s thoughts, but I don’t think he is justifying Bacon’s purpose for the rebellion. I also don’t justify the rebellion by Bacon’s reasoning, but this quote, I think, isn’t exaggerated far beyond the truth.

Another Historian, Howard Zinn (PhD Columbia University, 1958), speaks about Bacon’s Rebellion within Volume One, Chapter Three of his writing “A Young People’s History of the United States.” Included in the text, Zinn writes about the distance between the rich and the poor. Zinn states,

Class lines hardened during the colonial period. The difference between rich and poor grew sharper. At the very beginning of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1630, Governor John Winthrop showed the thinking of colonial leaders when he said that “in all times some must be rich, some poore.” The leaders of the colonies were men of money and status. They wanted society in North America to mirror England, where a small number of people controlled the best land and much of the wealth.

As I read this passage, I felt it marked the genesis of a superior upper class, impervious and careless of the sufferings of lower classes. Indeed, it seems evident from Bacon that the intentions of the leaders quoted manifested themselves in future colonies.


On page 7 of “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia, Breen writes

Although little is known about the relative treatment of whites and blacks in Virginia before Bacon's Rebellion, it is doubtful that English servants fared better than Negroes. Evidence from Barbados at this time reveals that planters there regarded white servants as a short-term investment to be exploited ruthlessly and thus, "for the time the servants have the worser lives [than the Negroes] ,for they are put to very hard labour, ill lodging, and their dyet very sleight." If such conditions prevailed on the mainland, it would help explain why some poor and indentured whites voluntarily joined with black men to challenge the planters' authority.

In summary, T.H. Breen is suggesting that because some poor and indentured whites were treated similarly if not the same as blacks, lower class whites felt compelled to assemble with the blacks to form a larger authority in order to confront the elite planters. I interpreted this to mean that different categories of class felt compelled to congregate regardless of race. So, at this time, social discrimination seemed to exist within class.

On page 11 of “Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia,” T.H. Breen explains the accounts of Thomas Grantham. After Bacon had died, Thomas Grantham, an English sea captain, volunteered to serve as an intermediary between Governor Berkeley and his enemies, Bacon’s followers. Governor Berkeley accepted the offer. Breen proceeds to state, “The presence of so many black rebels at West’s plantation provides evidence that many Virginians in Berkeley’s time regarded economic status, not race, as the essential social distinction. Even the gentry seems to have viewed the blacks primarily as a component of the ‘giddy multitude.’” In general, Breen is stating, based on Thomas Grantham’s witnessing, that the occurrence of mass congregation of different races within the lower class suggests that class determined social discrimination. In my perspective, this makes it evident that at this time, class discrimination was similar to racism.

It wasn’t until more slaves began to be imported into Virginia that the economy became much less dependent on indentured servants. When indentured servants were substituted for slaves, social discrimination didn’t exist as “classism”, but as racism instead. Black and white colors in the lower class no longer meshed together. Later, as slaves began to represent an independent class, the lowest class, a harsh differentiation was created between whites and blacks. Social discrimination of the poor, by the wealthy, distanced the common poor from the wealthy elite, intensifying the discontent among the impoverished at that time.


Remainder of the body, discussion and conclusion will be completed.

Draft: The Irony of It

Within Olaudah Equiano’s recollection of his dramatic memories as a slave, he remembers thinking he was going to be killed and eaten by the English. The English thought the Africans were evil or lower in stature than them. In contrast, Olaudah Equiano thought he was going to be cannibalized by the English. Both the English and the Africans acted on immoral intentions. Olaudah Equiano was randomly kidnapped by Africans when he was eleven years old. He was eventually sold to a slave ship on the coast. Although he eventually became free, the devastating effects this had on many Africans could be likened to the actual killing of a person. The African’s will to live probably dwindled down to being dependent on a splinter of hope that they just might become free in the future. But, maybe the most corrupt or morally undignified of them all were the many Africans that sold their own people as slaves to the English. This supported the English slave exportation system while manifesting a web of turmoil within their country; ultimately resulting in African’s turning against themselves, while being blind of the true enemy, the English. Isn’t it ironic?