Colonial America

by Richard Middleton, Anne Lombard

  Settler societies in the Chesapeake by 1660 were obsessed by the search for wealth, and had become ruthlessly exploitative. Servants were worked to the limit, their existence made doubly hard by the lack of prospects once their service was completed. Mortality rates, though not as terrible as in the period before 1624, remained high. Although land itself was relatively cheap, former servants still had to pay the surveyor's fees and then find enough capital to buy livestock and other essential equipment, for which their freedom dues were totally inadequate. Another problem was that by the 1660s all the best land had been claimed. A freed servant might find a plot of land to rent, but distance from shipping routes could add so much to his production costs that he would be unable to save enough money ever to buy land of his own. Thus only 6 percent of all servants actually became successful enough to purchase their own labor force. Fully 25 percent failed to become landowners at all, continuing to work as tenant farmers, foremen, or laborers.

  A related problem, for immigrant men, was the shortage of women. After Virginia's reorganization as a royal colony in 1625, the population had grown steadily, reaching nearly 30,000 by 1670. But unlike the rapidly growing settler population in New England, the settlers of Virginia and Maryland were still predominantly male. Among new immigrants entering Virginia after 1625, men generally outnumbered women by a ratio of at least four to one. Even after men were freed from servitude, large numbers of them were unable to marry and for many decades the settler population remained dominated by bachelors. This had important consequences for Cheseapeake society, since early modern English people treated bachelors as outsiders, granting men full social respect and membership in the community only if they married and owned land. Many unmarried men in the Chesapeake therefore felt less than fully committed to maintaining Virginia's social order, and disorderly behavior was common.1 As Virginia's governor himself complained of the potentially explosive situation, “Six parts of seven at least are Poore, Indebted, Discontented and Armed.”

  Another source of dissatisfaction was Virginia's government, which had become more oligarchical after the colony was placed under royal control. Following the Restoration, Sir William Berkeley had returned to Virginia as its royal governor without resistance. Berkeley's previous period in office had been widely approved because of his handling of the Indian war of 1644–6 and his readiness to work with the assembly. Yet by 1670 this esteem was beginning to erode. Berkeley had found his allies in the 1662 house so amenable to his desires that he determined to retain them, and refused to call any new elections for the House of Burgesses. Meanwhile, the colony was growing rapidly, with many new counties being added and fortunes being made.

  The sense of exclusivity was reinforced by the Franchise Act of 1670 which for the first time since 1619 significantly curtailed freemen's voting rights. In the future only freehold landowners and householders were to have the vote, to prevent propertyless and disorderly men from disrupting elections. Parish councils were similarly ceasing to be elective, their membership being instead coopted. Thus at both a provincial and a local level, Virginians had a growing sense that government was becoming the preserve of a small clique of colonists who owed their position to Berkeley. Their inequitable system of taxation became an additional grievance. Virginia's government obtained most of its revenues from a poll tax, levied on each person in a household. The burden of poll taxes fell more heavily on poor farmers than on rich ones because paying them required a larger percentage of poor men's annual incomes. The House of Burgesses refused to pass a land tax, which would have alleviated inequity by taxing large landowners more heavily than small ones. Moreover, the governor and members of his council were exempt from taxes of any kind.

  Map 8 Mid-seventeenth-century Maryland and Virginia.

  The effects of the navigation laws on the local economy were a further cause for concern. The legislation passed in 1660 and 1663 had been, in Berkeley's words, “mighty and destructive” of Virginia's economy, having reduced the market for tobacco while excluding the cheaper goods and services of the Dutch. Virginia was seemingly being sacrificed for the benefit of a few English merchants. The economy had already become depressed because of a slump in tobacco prices caused by overproduction; annual output was now running at between seven million and nine million pounds for the Chesapeake as a whole. Falling tobacco prices reduced planters' profits, causing particular hardship for newly freed servants and tenant farmers, for whom growing indebtedness made it increasingly difficult to purchase land. Resentment increased after the enactment of an even more comprehensive Navigation Act in 1673 and the creation of an oversight board, the Lords of Trade and Plantations, to ensure the enforcement of the navigation laws.

  Wars with the Dutch also worsened economic hardships for colonial tobacco planters. In 1667 18 tobacco vessels were seized at the end of the second war with the Dutch. Two years later the province had to contend not only with another Navigation Act but also with a third Dutch war, during which 11 tobacco vessels were captured by the fleet heading for New York. This was despite the construction of several forts near the entrance to Chesapeake Bay. Coming as it did on top of reduced markets and poor prices, this misfortune was a body blow. Many planters, especially bitter that so much money had been spent on the defense of the Chesapeake to so little effect, protested at Lawne's Creek in Surry County in an attempt not to pay any taxes.

  The Crown's propensity to use colonial land claims as a way to raise money did not help matters either. In 1673 news arrived that Charles II had consigned his land rights in Virginia to Lord Arlington and Lord Culpepper for 31 years. They could create new counties, appoint sheriffs, and dispose of all unsettled lands. More alarming, they were empowered to collect quitrents throughout Virginia and to control the Anglican Church. Charles II had acted to pay off yet another debt, but his measure was singularly ill-considered, threatening as it did existing institutions. Berkeley himself was quick to express “the people's grief ” at an act which undermined all confidence in the future. A delegation was immediately sent to England to try to overturn the grant and, so as to prevent the recurrence of such an action, to seek a formal charter, which Virginia had lacked since 1624. Though the grant to Culpepper and Arlington was eventually reduced, the damage had been done. Nothing disturbed the settlers more than the questioning of their land titles and the diminishing of their assemblies.

  While many of the small planters' grievances were about the structure of government and imperial policies, what finally brought them into open conflict with Virginia's governing elite was an ongoing dispute about relations with the Indians. Some of the colony's settlers (particularly recent immigrants, newly freed servants hoping to acquire land, and land speculators) wanted the colony to expand into new territory. Such expansion was likely, of course, to antagonize Virginia's Native American neighbors, for whom the clearing of forests meant shrinking food supplies. Therefore the long-established landowners who dominated the House of Burgesses favored restricting new settlement. Since 1646, Governor Berkeley had tried to contain white settlement behind a defensive perimeter of forts so as to avoid conflict with the Indians. Recent settlers resented having to pay taxes to support these forts, which they saw as designed to impede their opportunities rather than to protect them.

  Tensions between the settlers and Native Americans increased in the early 1670s as the Iroquois expanded their control over the fur trade between the Chesapeake and the Ohio River, forcing several new groups of Indians, including the Doegs and the Susquehannocks, to move east into the Chesapeake region. A major source of conflict between settlers and the Indians concerned the settlers' livestock. Instead of keeping their animals fenced in, as was common in England, settlers in North America commonly allowed them to range freely in search of food. This made sense for the settlers since they were perennially short of labor. However, for the Indians this practice had disastrous results. Herds of swine and cattle wandered into Indian cornfields and hunting grounds where they devour
ed the plants that normally sustained deer and other game. Frustrated by the destruction of their meadows and forests, Indians from time to time responded by confiscating and killing the animals.2

  In the spring of 1675 a settler vigilante group attacked and murdered several Doeg Indians in a dispute over some missing hogs. The Indians retaliated by killing the ringleader's son and two of his servants. Local settler leaders George Mason and John Brent gathered up the Stafford County militia and pursued the Indians. Coming upon two cabins, they began shooting the inmates; only after killing 14 of them did Mason discover that he had shot friendly Susquehannocks by mistake.

  Although Governor Berkeley favored an investigation, his deputies decided instead to escalate the fighting. This time Colonel John Washington commanded the militia of all the Rappahannock counties. Washington's orders were to inflict “such Execution upon the said Indians as shall be found necessary.” In due course the force joined a party of Marylanders and surrounded a Susquehannock fort. Indicating a desire to treat, five chiefs came out to parley, denying any knowledge of the recent killings and blaming a Seneca war party from the north. Their answer did not satisfy the Virginians, since several Susquehannocks had been found near the scene of recent incidents with the clothing of murdered whites. The chiefs were accordingly executed, though on whose orders it is not clear, since the Virginians subsequently tried to exculpate themselves by blaming the Marylanders.

  The Susquehannocks quickly launched a series of retaliatory attacks on the Virginian backcountry as far south as Surry County. Berkeley's first response was to propose a new militia expedition, but fearing an escalation of the troubles and recognizing that the Indians were not entirely to blame, he ordered the expedition to return. Aware that a ferocious war had broken out with the Indians in New England and fearing a united Indian uprising, Berkeley ordered the Virginians to remain inside their perimeter forts. The frontier settlers argued such forts were inadequate; soon Berkeley was accused of pursuing this policy simply to protect his fur trade interests.

  Planters on the frontier in Charles and Henrico counties, who were isolated and seemingly ignored by the governor and his clique at Jamestown, found a leader in a wealthy and well-connected young man who had recently come from England to establish a plantation out on the western frontier. Nathaniel Bacon had an uncle on the council and had himself been invited to join because, as Berkeley commented, “Gentlemen of your quality come very rarely into this country.” Bacon, whose own overseer had just been killed in an attack, convinced his followers to launch an expedition against the Susquehannocks in defiance of Berkeley. Bacon and his men solicited help from a group of Ocaneechee Indians, tracked down a party of the Susquehannocks, and butchered most of them in a surprise attack. After the attack, Bacon and his men claimed the spoils. Their native allies objected, having expected reciprocity from the Englishmen. Bacon and his men therefore turned on the Ocaneechee men, women, and children, burning them to death in their cabins and shooting them as they attempted to flee. Bacon proudly boasted, “In the heat of the Fight we … destroyed them all,” and he gloated that his forces had “left all nations of Indians … ingaged in a civil war amongst themselves [to] their utter ruin and destruction.” Later he justified his action to Berkeley by declaring that the Indians were “all our enemies.”

  News of these events infuriated Berkeley, who concluded the attacks had jeopardized all hopes of peaceful relations with the Indians and represented a direct challenge to his own authority. He therefore declared Bacon a traitor. Berkeley, however, was aware of his own unpopularity, and not simply with the frontiersmen. The tidewater counties, too, were alienated from the Green Spring clique which controlled the assembly, local government, and the granting of land. Accordingly, in May 1676 Berkeley attempted to placate Bacon instead of challenging him directly. He ordered fresh elections for the first time in 14 years, inviting all those with grievances to state them openly and defending his long association with the province.

  Initially, this ploy seemed to work. Bacon himself was elected for Henrico County and requested the governor's pardon for his late escapade. Berkeley agreed, though by now both men distrusted each other, as Bacon demonstrated by keeping a considerable guard about him. Berkeley even agreed to grant Bacon a commission to march against the Indians with a force raised from all the inhabitants. In addition, Berkeley asked the assembly to pass a measure prohibiting all trade except with “friendly Indians,” while any deserted land was to revert to the colony. And finally, at Bacon's request, the assembly passed several reforms to appease the small planters, most significantly annulling the Franchise Act of 1670 and restoring the vote to all freemen rather than just freeholders.

  Unfortunately Berkeley's attempts to placate the small planters were not enough to quell the frontier uprising. On June 23, 1676, Bacon arrived in Jamestown with 400 armed men. The plan to levy a force from the whole population apparently did not please him or his associates – Giles Bland, William Drummond, and William Lawrence – who wanted to recruit men from Henrico and New Kent, believing that they would be more effective and doubtless more amenable. Bacon also desired his commission immediately, not in three months' time when the necessary taxes had been raised. A confrontation ensued on the steps of the general assembly, with the timorous representatives beseeching Berkeley to give in and Bacon threatening fire and the sword if his demand was refused. Although Berkeley finally gave way, Bacon and his comrades would not depart until they had compelled the assembly to pass an act of indemnity in compensation for their proceedings.

  This humiliation was too much for the governor. As soon as Bacon had marched off to attack the Indians, Berkeley declared him a traitor again and summoned the militia to his aid. Now Berkeley experienced the full effects of his alienation from the tidewater counties. Though a few Berkeley loyalists tried to muster the Gloucester and Middlesex levies, the militia simply melted away when Bacon reappeared in July 1676. This time Berkeley had to flee to the eastern shore, while Bacon issued a manifesto “in the Name of the People of Virginia,” accusing Berkeley of graft and corruption, of levying huge taxes for personal profit, and of condoning murder by the native inhabitants to preserve his illegal trading monopoly. Bacon's intention was “to represent our sad and heavy grievances to his most sacred majesty.” In the meantime, being “general by Consent of the people,” he issued a list of Berkeley's “wicked and pernicious councillors” who were to surrender immediately. Any colonists giving them aid would have their property confiscated.

  Document 12

  Declaration of Nathaniel Bacon in the name of the people of Virginia, July 30, 1676, reprinted in W. Keith Kavenagh, Foundations of Colonial America: A Documentary History (New York, 1973), Vol. 3, 1783–4

  Bacon's declaration was calculated to appeal both to the tidewater areas about high taxes and the monopolization of office by the clique that surrounded Berkeley, and the backcountry, which wanted a more aggressive policy towards the Indians. Questions to consider: How does Bacon characterize the Indians? How does he characterize the backcountry settlers? Do you think that Bacon was a champion of democratic values?

  Charges against Sir William Berkeley

  1. For having, upon specious pretenses of public works, raised great unjust taxes upon the commonalty for the advancement of private favorites and other sinister ends …

  2. For having abused and rendered contemptible the magistrates of justice by advancing to places of judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites.

  3. For having wronged his Majesty's prerogative and interest by assuming monopoly of the beaver trade and having for unjust gain, betrayed and sold his Majesty's country and the lives of his loyal subjects to the barbarous heathen.

  4. For having protected, favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.

  5. For hav
ing … when we might with ease have destroyed them … sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions …

  6. And lately, when upon the loud outcries of blood, the assembly had, with all care raised and framed an army for the preventing of further mischief … for having, with only the privacy of some few favorites without acquainting the people … forged a commission, by we know not what hand, not only without but even against the consent of the people, for the raising and effecting civil war and destruction.

  Of this and the aforesaid articles we accuse Sir William Berkeley as guilty of each and every one the same.

  Having secured his position, Bacon marched inland once more. His target this time was the English-allied Pamunkey people, who had to flee into a swamp for safety. Berkeley meanwhile returned to Jamestown, only to be attacked by Bacon once more. During the assault on September 18 the town was burned, and Berkeley for a second time had to take refuge on the eastern shore. In the aftermath armed servants and slaves took advantage of the general lawlessness to exact revenge on those who had used them ill. Among the sacked plantations was Berkeley's at Green Spring.

  It is difficult to predict quite how long these events might have lasted had not Bacon fallen ill and died in October. Deprived of his charismatic influence, the movement soon disintegrated. Bacon's confederates were steadily rounded up and brought before the embittered Berkeley. Twenty-three were summarily hanged, despite a royal proclamation pardoning everyone except Bacon.

  Ultimately the Crown reasserted its control, sending Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, who arrived in February with 1,000 troops to quell the disorders. Berkeley was forced to surrender his governorship, and the executions stopped. In the course of an inquiry conducted by Colonel Jeffreys into the causes of the rebellion, the inhabitants of Gloucester County emphasized the hardships caused by the various taxes, the fear that the Arlington–Culpepper patent would lead “to the enslaving” of the inhabitants, and the terror created by conflicts with the Indians, all of which had given Bacon the opportunity to exploit the situation. The commissioners themselves blamed Bacon's ability to exploit the “giddy headed multitude,” most of whom “had but lately crept out of the condition of servants.” However, they conceded that high taxes had been a factor.