been deserted, others had been plundered by the rebels, Ingram had not
been able to keep order, there was no money to meet governmental
expenses, the desertion of servants and slaves to the rebels, and the
absence from the fields of so many small farmers had caused a shortage
of the tobacco and corn crops, many houses had been burned, the courts
in some of the counties were closed. The rebel officers could not
restrain their rough soldiers from wanton destruction--throwing down
fences, destroying crops, burning barns. Soon the longing for peace
and order became general. Time was working for the governor.
However, it was known that Colonel Herbert Jeffreys with 1000 men had
been ordered to go to Virginia to suppress the rebellion, and their
arrival was expected at any moment.
In the meanwhile the tobacco ships began to come in with needed
supplies of clothing, cloth, medicines, etc. The planters still had
some hogsheads of tobacco on hand, and were anxious to resume trade
with the merchants, but when Berkeley issued a proclamation
threatening to denounce as a rebel anyone who traded with the Western
Shore the shippers held back. So the planters realized that the weapon
of economic pressure, of which Goode had warned Bacon, was to be
applied against them.
And they must have been discouraged when, in November, the ship
_Concord_ of 500 tons, armed with 30 guns and commanded by Thomas
Grantham, entered through the capes and anchored in the York river.
Lawrence wrote Grantham a letter telling him that the people had been
grievously oppressed and begging him and the merchants to remain
neutral. Otherwise they were determined to burn their tobacco.
Grantham replied that he would not treat with men who had taken up
arms against the royal authority.
But he did offer his services to effect a reconciliation. Sending a
boat for Berkeley, he received him on board the _Concord_, where he
tried to persuade him "to meekness," pointing out that an unrelenting
temper would only drive the rebels to a desperate resistance. Meekness
was something far from Berkeley's heart, but he was desperately
anxious to end the rebellion before the redcoats arrived. Then he
could tell the King that he, unassisted, had restored order. To
accomplish this he was even willing to forego the satisfaction of
hanging some of the leaders of the rebellion, provided Lawrence and
Drummond were not among them.
So he sent Grantham up the river to the Pate house, where he found
Ingram with about 800 men. After prolonged negotiations Ingram yielded
and surrendered West Point together with 300 men, four great guns, and
many small arms.
Grantham then went to Colonel John West's house, where he found a
garrison of about 400 English and Negroes. They accused him of
betraying them, and some were for shooting him, others for cutting him
in pieces. But after he had put them in better humor with a barrel of
brandy they "surrendered the post, with three cannon, 500 muskets and
fowling pieces, and 1000 pounds of bullets."
Grantham now delivered Ingram, Colonel Langston, and other rebel
officers to Berkeley, who at once pardoned them. He next went to
Ingram's house, marched the garrison there down to Tindall's Point,
took their arms, drums, and colors, and gave them the oath of
allegiance. After the men had toasted the King and the governor, they
gave three shouts and dispersed. We may judge the extent of Berkeley's
elation at the collapse of the rebellion by the fact that he invited
Ingram and Langston to dine with him on shipboard.
But Gregory Wakelett, one of the most active of the rebel leaders, was
still at large with a force of cavalry. So anxious was Berkeley to
secure his submission that he promised him, not only his pardon, but
part of the wampum his men had taken from the Indians. So he too
"declared for the King." When other posts on the James and the York
were surrendered or abandoned, Lawrence, Drummond, and Whaley, with a
force of several hundred men, were all that were left of the rebel
army. They well knew that for them there would be no mercy. But as
they retreated into New Kent their men began to fall off until they
were entirely deserted.
Lawrence and Whaley with three others determined to risk torture at
the hands of the Indians rather than fall into the hands of the
governor. They were last seen on the extreme frontier, pushing on
through the snow into the forest. We shall probably never know their
fate. They may have died of hunger and exposure, they may have been
killed by the Indians; it is barely possible that they found refuge in
one of the northern colonies.
But though the fate of Lawrence and Whaley is shrouded in mystery,
that of many others is known. The enraged governor drew up a long list
of those he had marked for the gallows. When the reports of Berkeley's
savagery reached Charles II, he is said to have remarked "That old
fool has hanged more men in that naked country than I have for the
murder of my father."
Drummond was found hiding in Chickahominy Swamp and brought before the
governor at King's Creek. The vindictive old man made a low bow,
saying, "Mr. Drummond, you are very welcome. I am more glad to see you
than any man in Virginia. Mr. Drummond, you shall be hanged in half an
hour." However, he decided to give him at least the pretence of a
trial. But his ring was snatched from his finger, his clothes taken
from his back, and he was kept overnight in irons. The next morning he
was forced to walk, still in irons, in bitterly cold weather, all the
way to Middle Plantation. There, after a brief hearing, in which he
was not allowed to defend himself, he was hurried away to the
scaffold. His widow and five children were driven out of their house
and forced to flee into the woods and swamps, where they came near
starvation.
When Anthony Arnold, who was one of the sturdiest supporters of the
rebellion, was brought into court, he boldly defended the right of the
people to resist oppression. "It is well known that I have no kindness
for Kings," he told the court. "They have no rights but what they got
by conquest and the sword, and he that can by force of the sword
deprive them of it has as good and just a title to it as the King
himself. If the King should deny to do me right I would make no more
to sheathe my sword in his heart or bowels than of my mortal
enemies." The court was sorry that the country was not "capable of
executing the sentence peculiar to traitors according to the laws and
custom of England." This was to hang the victim for several minutes,
cut him down when still alive, rip him open, cut off his head, and
then quarter him. So they contented themselves with hanging him in
chains, "to be a more remarkable example than the rest."
The executions continued for several months. Thomas Young, James
Wilson, Henry Page, and Thomas Hall were executed on January 12, 1677;
William Drummond and John Baptista on January 20; James Crews, William
Cookson, and John Digbie on January 24; Giles Bland and Anthony Arnold
on March 8; John Isles and Richard Pomfrey on March 15; and John
Whitson and William Scarburgh on March 16. There is no telling how
many Berkeley might have hanged had not the Assembly asked him to
stop.
The people were deeply angered at the governor's brutality. Governor
Notley thought that "were there any person bold and courageous in
Virginia that dared venture his neck, the commons of Virginia would
enmire themselves as deep in rebellion as ever they did in Bacon's
time." And for months in hundreds of humble cottages men were on the
lookout for the return of Lawrence, ready to seize their arms and
follow him in a new uprising.
There was no hope of relief from the new Assembly which met at Green
Spring, February 20, 1677. William Sherwood said that most of the
Burgesses were the governor's "own creatures and chose by his
appointments." Jeffreys testified that they had been "not so legally
nor freely chosen," and that the "Council, Assembly, and people" were
"overawed" by Berkeley. That Berkeley allowed such an Assembly to
re-enact in substantially the same form several of Bacon's laws, shows
that he was not entirely deaf to the rumblings of a new rebellion.
In the meanwhile King Charles had appointed Colonel Herbert Jeffreys,
Sir John Berry, and Colonel Francis Moryson commissioners to go to
Virginia to inquire into the people's grievances. At the same time he
ordered Berkeley to return to England "with all possible speed."
During his absence Jeffreys was to act in his place with the title of
Lieutenant Governor. With them came the redcoats.
No sooner had the commissioners arrived than Berkeley became involved
in a bitter quarrel with them. When they told him to obey the King's
orders to come to England, he made excuses to linger until he had
taken his revenge on the rebels. Jeffreys brought with him a
proclamation pardoning all the rebels with the sole exception of
Bacon, but when Berkeley published it he had the audacity to exempt
from it not only two men who had died during the war, fourteen who had
already been executed, and twenty-six others whom he mentioned by
name, but all those "now in prison for rebellion or under bond for the
same." Of those in prison and not mentioned by name in the
proclamation Robert Stoakes, John Isles, Richard Pomfrey, John
Whitson, and William Scarburgh were later executed.
Berkeley was also determined to make good his personal losses from the
estates of the rebels. "I have lost at least £8000 sterling in houses,
goods, plantation, servants, and cattle, and never expect to be
restored to a quarter of it," he complained. The rebels left "me not
one grain of corn, not one cow.... I have not £5 in the world." So he,
Beverley, Philip Ludwell, and others of the "loyal party," were
furious when Jeffreys insisted that they stop breaking open and
plundering the houses and barns of the former rebels, and take their
complaints to the courts.
For three months Berkeley postponed his departure, but at last, on
April 25, he went on board the _Rebecca_, the vessel which had been of
such vital importance to him during the rebellion, and set sail for
England. But he was now a very ill man. "He came here alive but ...
unlike to live," wrote Secretary Coventry. He died on July 13, 1677,
and was interred at Twickenham.
With the death of Berkeley a main cause of discontent and
insubordination in Virginia was removed. Though Culpeper and
Effingham, who succeeded in turn to the governorship, made onslaughts
on the liberties of the people, they acted, not from any overwhelming
desire to make themselves absolute, but because they reflected the
spirit of the Second Stuart Despotism. But this came to an end with
the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, and from that time to the passage
of the Stamp Act, the people of Virginia had no need to take arms to
defend their liberties. For decades after Bacon's Rebellion, the King
and the governors were wary of bearing down upon them too hard for
fear of causing another uprising. For the time they had learned their
lesson. And had they not forgotten it after the lapse of a century,
there might have been no American Revolution.
When one reviews the tragic events in Virginia during the fateful year
of 1676, one may well ask: "Would the rebellion have occurred had
there been no Indian war?" Possibly not. Berkeley was aging and within
a few years he might have died, and a less despotic governor taken his
place. Had the planters waited, their lot would have been bettered by
the rising price of tobacco. On the other hand, it is possible that if
the war had not touched off the rebellion something else would have
done so.
Would the Indian war have started the rebellion had the mass of the
people had no other grievances? This seems unlikely. When the news of
the uprising reached Charles II he thought it past belief that "so
considerable a body of men, without the least grievance or oppression,
should rise up in arms and overturn the government." And so it would
have been past belief had there been no grievance or oppression.
Had the dispute between Bacon and Berkeley as to how the war should be
conducted been all there was at issue, the people would hardly have
risen in wild anger to overthrow the government, drive the governor
into exile, defy the King, make ready to resist his forces, and risk
death on the gallows. Philip Ludwell said that the rebel army was made
up of men "whose condition ... was such that a change could not make
worse." Had not the English trade laws, misgovernment, and injustice
practically eliminated the middle class there would have been hundreds
to whom the maintaining of law and order was the first consideration.
They would have supported Berkeley's Indian policy, however unwise,
rather than risk their estates. As it was, the governor found himself
practically deserted. Never before was there "so great a madness as
this base people are generally seized with," he complained.
No one will contend that the firing on Fort Sumter was the cause of
the War between the States, or that the murder of the Archduke
Ferdinand was the cause of the first World War. These were but the
matches thrown into the powder kegs. The kegs had been filling up for
many years, and sooner or later explosions were inevitable. So in
Virginia had there been no powder keg, the lighted match of the Indian
war would probably have flickered and burnt itself out.
In most great upheavals men have mixed motives. Of course Bacon and
his men rose in arms partly to protect themselves and their families
from the Indians. They said so repeatedly. But we have abundant
evidence from both sides that they were determined also to put an end
to oppression and misgovernment. "As for Bacon's designs of
prosecuting the Indian war it is most evident that he never intended
anything more in it than a covert under which to act all his
villanies," wrote Philip Ludwell. "If these had not been the chief
motives they had certainly understanding enough to have led them a
fairer way to presenting their grievances than on their swords'
points."
The Council, in a long statement, written when the uprising was but a
few weeks old, declared that Bacon's "only aim has always been and is
nothing else but of total subversion of the government." Thomas
Ludwell and Robert Smith, who at the time were in England, on
receiving reports of the rebellion, said that when the Indian raids
began "some idle and poor people made use of the present conjunction
for their ill designs." William Sherwood, an eyewitness of what took
place, testified that "it is most true that the great oppressions and
abuses of the people by the governor's arbitrary will hath been the
cause of the late troubles there." Colonel Jeffreys, who was
commissioned by the King to investigate the causes of the uprising,
put the blame, not on the Indian war, but upon Philip Ludwell and
Robert Beverley, who "were the great advisors of Berkeley, and as it
may be proved were the chief causes of the miseries that befell the
country in the rebellion."
Governor Notley, of Maryland, stated that "whatever palliations the
great men of Virginia may use at the Council board in England ... yet
you may be sure ... much ... if not every tittle of the accusations
against them is truth." If the new governor, Colonel Herbert Jeffreys
should "build his proceedings upon the old foundation, 'tis neither
him nor all his Majesty's soldiers in Virginia will either satisfy or
rule those people. They have been strangely dealt with by their former
magistracy." Just two days later Nicholas Spencer wrote that though
the rebellion was over, "the putrid humors of our unruly inhabitants
are not so allayed but that they do frequently vent themselves ... and
were they not awed by the overruling hand of his Majesty would soon
express themselves by violent acts."
As for Bacon, he had been in command of the frontier forces but a few
days when he sent messengers to every part of the colony to blast
Berkeley's misgovernment. The Council reported to the Board of Trade
that he had traduced the governor "with many false and scandalous
charges." Later, in manifesto after manifesto, Bacon assailed the
corruption, the inefficiency, and the injustices of Berkeley's regime.
"We appeal to the country itself what and of what nature their
oppressions have been, and by what cabals ... carried on." By taking
on himself "the sole nominating" of civil and military officers he had
made himself master of the colony. He had permitted his favorites "to
lay and impose what levies and impositions upon us they should or did
please, which they for the most part converted to their own private
lucre and gain." As for seeking relief by petitioning the Burgesses,
he said: "Consider what hope there is of redress in appealing to the
very persons our complaints do accuse."
Thomas Mathews tells us that it was "the received opinion in Virginia"
that the Indian war was the excuse for Bacon's Rebellion rather than
the cause. Since Mathews took part in the uprising and later wrote an
account of it, he should know. He even goes so far as to say that it
was Thomas Lawrence, not Bacon, who was chiefly responsible for the
uprising. Bacon "was too young," he points out, "too much a stranger
there, and of a disposition too precipitate to manage things to that
length they were carried, had not thoughtful Mr. Lawrence been at the
bottom."
This man had his personal grievance, Mathews states, for he had been
cheated out of a "considerable estate on behalf of a corrupt
favorite." His wife kept a tavern at Jamestown, which gave him an
opportunity to meet persons from all parts of the colony. So he filled
their ears with complaints of the governor. Mathews himself had heard
him suggest "some expedient not only to repair his great loss, but
therewith to see those abuses rectified that the country was oppressed
with through ... the forwardness, avarice, and French despotic methods
of the governor." As for Bacon and his adherents, they "were esteemed
as but wheels agitated by the weight" of Lawrence's resentments, after
their rage had been raised to a high pitch by Berkeley's failure to
put a stop to the effusions of blood by the Indians.
Lawrence had the hearty support of William Drummond, a Scotsman who
also resided in Jamestown. Like Lawrence he had a grievance against
Berkeley. In fact the governor was inclined to believe that he had
been "the original cause of the whole rebellion." We know that
Lawrence and Drummond stood at Bacon's elbow from the beginning to the
end. The importance of the part they played may be gauged by the
bitterness of Berkeley's resentment. "I so hate Drummond and Lawrence
that though they could put the country in peace in my hands, I would
not accept it from such villains," he declared.
But whatever was the role of these two men, whatever the part played
by Bacon, the rebellion is a landmark in the development of
self-government in Virginia. Though Bacon met an untimely death,
though Drummond was led to the gallows, though Lawrence disappeared in
the icy forest, their efforts were not in vain. They, and the
thousands who supported them, had taught future governors that there
was a limit to oppression beyond which they dare not go. The roar of
their cannon proclaimed to the world that Virginians would resist to
the end all attempts to deprive them of their heritage of English
liberty.
ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES
The opening to investigators of the Marquess of Bath Papers by
the British Manuscripts Project has thrown new light on
Bacon's Rebellion. There are several letters from Bacon to
Berkeley and several from Berkeley to Bacon. They show that
Berkeley went to England during the Civil War to fight for the
King, that Bacon was related to Lady Berkeley, that Lady
Berkeley was in England during most of the rebellion, and that
she corresponded with Philip Ludwell.
The Bath Papers add to the already abundant evidence that
Bacon fought partly to end misgovernment in Virginia. The
evidence comes not only from Bacon's supporters but from
Berkeley himself, Ludwell, and others.
Berkeley's letters explain why he did not hang Bacon when he
had him in his power, why he dissolved the Long Assembly and
called for a new election based on a widened franchise, why he
evacuated the almost impregnable post of Jamestown. There are
several revealing letters by Philip Ludwell.
Historians have long been acquainted with the county
grievances collected by the King's commissioners. They are to
be found in the British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, have
now been transcribed by the Library of Congress and some have
been published in the _Virginia Magazine_, Vols. II and III.
The most detailed and probably the least prejudiced account of
the rebellion is the _True Narrative of the Rise, Progress and
Cessation of the Late Rebellion in Virginia_, by the
commissioners. The only narrative we have of the transactions
of the Assembly of June, 1676, by one of the members is Thomas
Mathews' _The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacon's
Rebellion_, published in C.M. Andrews' _Narratives of
Insurrections_ and elsewhere. Important also are _Bacon's
Proceedings_ and _Ingram's Proceedings_, attributed to Mrs.
Ann Cotton. Bacon's expedition to the Roanoke river, the
defeat of the Susquehannocks, and the battle on Occaneechee
Island are described in a document entitled "A Description of
the Fight between the English and the Indians in May, 1676,"
published in the _William and Mary Quarterly_, Series 1, Vol.
IX, pp. 1-4. The account given by the Council is in the Bath
Papers.
W.W. Hening's _Virginia Statutes at Large_ is a storehouse of
information. It includes not only the laws of the Restoration
period, but many official reports, among them "The
Proclamation of Pardon of October 10, 1676," "Bacon's
Submission", and the proceedings of some of the
courts-martial. The details of the Susquehannock war in
Maryland may be pieced together from the accounts by Thomas
Mathews, the King's commissioners, Mrs. Cotton, and others. By
the aid of an old pen-and-ink diagram of the Susquehannock
fort, I have been able to locate the site, and Mrs. Alice L.L.
Ferguson to uncover parts of it.
The "Dialogue between John Goode and Nathaniel Bacon," which
is in the British Public Record Office, throws light on
Bacon's plans to draw North Carolina and Maryland into his
rebellion, and to resist the redcoats. Important also are the
"Declaration of Thomas Swan and others on August 3, 1676",
(GO1-37-42); Philip Ludwell's letters to Lady Berkeley and to
Thomas Ludwell, and others (Bath Papers); the "Declaration of
the People" (Bath Papers); "Grantham's Account" (Bath Papers);
Berkeley's account of the rebellion written on board Sir John
Berry's ship, February 2, 1677 (Bath Papers).
Among the secondary sources are Mary Newton Stanard, _The
Story of Bacon's Rebellion_; Thomas J. Wertenbaker, _Virginia
Under the Stuarts_; and _Torchbearer of the Revolution_;
Philip Alexander Bruce, _The Economic History of Virginia in
the Seventeenth Century_, and _The Institutional History of
Virginia in the Seventeenth Century_; Wesley Frank Craven,
_The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_; John
Fiske, _Old Virginia and her Neighbors_; John Burk, _History
of Virginia_; Herbert L. Osgood, _The American Colonies in the
Seventeenth Century_.
_The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_, the _William
and Mary Quarterly_, 1st and 2d Series, and _Tyler's Magazine_
have printed much material relating to the rebellion, and Dr.
E.G. Swem's splendid index covering these volumes has greatly
increased their value.
* * * * *
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Typographical errors corrected in text: |
| |
| Page 1: necesssary replaced with necessary |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+