Nathaniel Bacon

Nathaniel Bacon

Nathaniel Bacon nasceu em Suffolk, Inglaterra, em 2 de janeiro de 1647. Uma disputa com a família de sua esposa o convenceu a emigrar para a América do Norte. Com o apoio financeiro de seu pai, ele comprou duas propriedades ao longo do rio James, na Virgínia.

William Berkeley nomeou Bacon para seu conselho de governo, mas os dois homens logo se desentenderam sobre o desenvolvimento da colônia. Berkeley era favorável a uma política de contenção, enquanto Bacon queria se expandir para áreas controladas por nativos americanos.

Em 1676 Bacon organizou sua própria expedição. Temendo uma guerra em grande escala com os nativos americanos, Berkeley voltou suas forças contra Bacon e seus homens. Bacon capturou Jamestown e William Berkeley foi forçado a fugir para a costa oriental. No entanto, Nathaniel Bacon morreu de febre em outubro de 1676 e, sem sua liderança, a rebelião desmoronou rapidamente.

Reclamações frequentes de derramamento de sangue eram enviadas a Sir William Berkeley das cabeceiras dos rios, às quais eram frequentemente respondidas com promessas de ajuda. Estes nas cabeceiras dos rios James e York (tendo agora a maioria das pessoas destruídas pelos índios) ficaram impacientes com as muitas matanças de seus vizinhos e se levantaram ou sua própria defesa, quem escolher. Bacon para seu líder, muitas vezes enviado ao governador, humildemente suplicando a uma comissão para ir contra aqueles índios por conta própria.

O Sr. Bacon, com cinquenta e sete homens, prosseguiu até o incêndio das paliçadas, invadiu e incendiou o forte e as cabanas e (com a perda de três ingleses) matou 150 índios.

O general Bacon marchou com 1.000 homens para a floresta em busca dos índios inimigos; e, poucos dias depois, nossa próxima notícia foi que o governador havia convocado a milícia dos condados de Gloucester e Middlesex, para o número de 1.200 homens, e lhes propôs seguir e suprimir o rebelde Bacon.

Bacon a invadiu (Jamestown) e tomou a cidade, em cujo ataque foram doze homens mortos e feridos, mas o governador Berkeley, com a maioria dos seguidores, fugiu rio abaixo em seus navios. Aqui, descansando alguns dias, eles concordaram em queimar a cidade. O Sr. Lawrence e o Sr. Drumond, possuindo as duas melhores casas, exceto uma, atearam fogo cada um em sua própria casa, exemplo que os soldados seguiram destruíram toda a cidade (com a igreja e o palácio do governo), dizendo que os bandidos não deveriam mais abrigar lá .

O Sr. Bacon voltou de sua expedição farto de um fluxo; sem encontrar índios inimigos, não tendo ido muito longe por causa dos aborrecimentos atrás de si. Tampouco teve um dia seco em todas as suas marchas para lá e para cá na floresta, enquanto as plantações tiveram um verão tão seco como o milho e o fumo da índia, etc. Em um tempo, Bacon morreu e foi sucedido por seu tenente-general, Ingram.


Bacon & # 8217s Rebellion (1676-1677)

A rebelião de Bacon, travada de 1676 a 1677, começou com uma disputa local com os índios Doeg no rio Potomac. Perseguidos ao norte por milicianos da Virgínia, que também atacaram os Susquehannocks, de outra forma não envolvidos, os índios começaram a invadir a fronteira da Virgínia. O governador, Sir William Berkeley, persuadiu a Assembleia Geral a adotar um plano que isolasse os Susquehannocks enquanto trazia aliados indígenas do lado da Virgínia. Outros viram na Guerra de Susquehannock uma oportunidade para uma guerra geral contra os índios que renderia escravos e terras indígenas e daria vazão ao sentimento popular anti-índio. Eles encontraram um líder em Nathaniel Bacon, recém-chegado à Virgínia e membro do Conselho do Governador. Bacon exigiu uma comissão para lutar contra os índios quando não havia nenhuma, ele liderou "voluntários" contra alguns dos aliados indígenas mais próximos da Virgínia. Isso levou a uma guerra civil entre os seguidores de Bacon e os leais a Berkeley. O conflito costumava ser amargo e pessoal - a certa altura, Berkeley desnudou o peito e desafiou Bacon a matá-lo - e envolvia o saque de propriedades rebeldes e leais. Berkeley expulsou Bacon do Conselho, reintegrou-o e depois o expulsou pela segunda vez. Depois que o governador fugiu de Jamestown para a costa oriental, ele voltou, apenas para ser expulso pelo exército de Bacon, que incendiou a capital. Bacon morreu repentinamente em outubro de 1676, mas a dura luta continuou em janeiro. A Coroa despachou tropas para a Virgínia, que chegaram logo depois que a rebelião foi reprimida. As causas da rebelião de Bacon são contestadas há muito tempo. Hoje é geralmente considerado como parte de uma crise geral nos arranjos sociais, econômicos e políticos da Virgínia. O argumento de que deveria ser visto como uma revolta contra a tirania inglesa e um precursor da Revolução Americana (1775-1783) foi desacreditado.


Bacon e rebelião # 8217s

“… Práticas amotinadas e rebeldes…” -nathaniel bacon, 1676

O que começou como uma disputa entre colonos e índios na fronteira entre Virgínia e Maryland no outono de 1675 rapidamente irrompeu em uma rebelião em grande escala de Nathaniel Bacon contra o governador Sir William Berkeley, um fazendeiro rico, e seu governo no ano seguinte.

No final dos anos 1600, os fazendeiros de elite na Virgínia dependiam do trabalho escravo contratado. Depois que seu serviço terminou, esses indivíduos se mudaram para o interior da região de Tidewater, muitas vezes entrando em conflito com os nativos americanos enquanto eles avançavam para o Piemonte. Temendo o aumento das incursões indígenas e frustrados por anos de preços baixos do tabaco e impostos altos, os colonos se reuniram atrás de Nathaniel Bacon.

Bacon, primo do governador Berkeley por casamento, era um cavalheiro bem relacionado recém-chegado à colônia. Bacon desafiou as tentativas de Berkeley de negociar a paz entre os colonos e as tribos nativas. Ele e seus seguidores buscaram adquirir mais terras expulsando completamente os povos nativos da Virgínia.

A violência aumentou rapidamente. Diante da perda contínua de suas terras, a tribo Doeg atacou os assentamentos europeus. Os colonos retaliaram, mas atacaram a pacífica tribo Susquehannock por engano, o que levou a mais conflitos. Os ataques, muitas vezes liderados pelo próprio Bacon, levaram à morte de muitos povos nativos. De acordo com registros históricos, a tribo Pamunkey, liderada por sua rainha Cockacoeske, fugiu para os pântanos onde seria mais difícil para os rebeldes rastreá-los.

Ao longo desses meses, o governador Berkeley tentou e falhou em negociar a paz. Ele finalmente ordenou a construção de novos fortes e restringiu o comércio com os povos nativos. No entanto, essas decisões foram vistas como limitando ainda mais o poder dos brancos pobres e aumentando seus impostos (fundos necessários para pagar pelas novas fortificações). Bacon, um membro recém-nomeado do Conselho da Virgínia, apelou ao povo em agosto de 1676 em uma crítica acirrada ao governo de Berkeley e à corrupção da elite rica. Berkeley, por sua vez, declarou Bacon rebelde e reuniu forças para se opor a ele.

Em 30 de julho, Bacon e seus 600 seguidores enviaram a “Declaração do Povo da Virgínia” afirmando que Berkeley “abusou e tornou desprezível os Magistrados de Justiça, avançando para lugares da Judicatura, favoritos escandalosos e ignorantes”. Em 19 de setembro, eles marcharam para a capital Jamestown e a queimaram enquanto Berkeley fugia. No mês seguinte, Bacon morreu de “Fluxo Sangrento” (disenteria). Sem seu líder carismático, a rebelião perdeu força. Os partidários de Berkeley derrotaram os rebeldes em janeiro de 1677.

A rebelião de Bacon foi o desafio mais sério para a autoridade real antes da Revolução Americana. Os historiadores costumam relacionar esse evento ao declínio da servidão contratada e ao aumento correspondente da escravidão nas colônias britânicas americanas.


Rebelião de Bacon: a primeira insurreição armada da América

A rebelião de Bacon foi um conflito que começou como uma série de desentendimentos - com uma discussão bêbada. Mas esse levante de curta duração na América colonial do século 17 é considerado como tendo consequências de longo prazo para os assentamentos coloniais, políticas para os nativos americanos e conceitos de raça na América do Norte.

O incidente ocorreu na Virgínia Colonial de 1676 a 1677 e, como ocorreu 100 anos antes da Revolução Americana, a Rebelião de Bacon já foi posta como uma espécie de precursor para derrubar a tirania. Na verdade, Thomas Jefferson considerava o líder da rebelião, Nathaniel Bacon, um patriota.

Mas os historiadores contemporâneos vêem a Rebelião de Bacon à luz do conflito entre colonos e nativos americanos, bem como pelos efeitos que teve no modo como as idéias sobre raça se desenvolveram nas colônias americanas.

Bacon era um recém-chegado à Virgínia quando lançou a rebelião. Então, como ele conseguiu reunir apoio suficiente para desencadear um conflito que mudaria o curso da história?

Nathanial Bacon o Homem

Nascido em Suffolk, Inglaterra em 1647, Bacon foi enviado para a colônia da Virgínia por seu pai porque tentou fraudar um vizinho de 16 anos, de acordo com James Rice, professor e presidente de Walter S. Dickson do departamento de história , Da Tufts University, que diz que Bacon era considerado um & quot pessoa muito desagradável & quot.

Esse parece ser o consenso geral sobre a figura histórica. O site do Serviço de Parques Nacionais diz que & quotBacon era um encrenqueiro e conspirador cujo pai o enviou para a Virgínia na esperança de que ele amadurecesse. & Quot

Apesar da personalidade, as coisas começaram de maneira auspiciosa para Bacon. Ele chegou à Virgínia em 1675 e, graças a seus contatos - era parente do governador William Berkeley por casamento - Bacon recebeu uma concessão de terras e uma cadeira no Conselho do Governador, de acordo com o Museu de História e Cultura da Virgínia. No entanto, sua chegada coincidiu com uma crise na ordem econômica, social e política da Virgínia, na qual ele logo se envolveria.

Problemas na Virgínia

Os plantadores de tabaco da Virgínia haviam experimentado uma queda nos preços do tabaco em uma colônia com disparidade econômica entre os grandes proprietários de terras e os pequenos plantadores, imigrantes pobres e escravos libertos. A maioria dos moradores não estava envolvida na vida política e os não-proprietários não podiam votar. Além desses desafios à estabilidade, os colonos da Virgínia tinham opiniões diferentes sobre como administrar as relações com os povos nativos e tribos locais.

Ao mesmo tempo, a guerra irrompeu entre os índios Susquehannock e os colonos, que começou com uma "disputa comercial", disse Rice em "Rebelião de Bacon no País Indiano", artigo de 2014 que ele escreveu para o Journal of American History. Havia duas idéias sobre como responder.

O governador Berkeley achou que o melhor curso de ação seria travar uma guerra contra Susquehannock, mas permanecer em paz com outras tribos vizinhas. Outros, incluindo Bacon, discordaram e sentiram que o conflito representava uma oportunidade para exterminar todos os nativos, ponto final.

E não foi apenas Bacon, diz Rice. Alguns dos proprietários ricos da área também queriam ir além do plano do governador de guerra limitada. Bacon assumiu o controle de um acampamento de milicianos voluntários para lutar contra Susquehannock e outras tribos.

Quem eram essas milícias? É difícil saber, de acordo com Rice. Ele diz que existe um mito de que os rebeldes de Bacon incluíam fazendeiros ocidentais pobres (de fronteira) contra fazendeiros orientais ricos, de que foi um levante de baixo para cima. No entanto, o status socioeconômico da milícia é difícil de definir, e há evidências de fazendeiros ricos da fronteira, como o próprio Bacon e William Byrd, que foi um dos homens que o recrutou, entre eles.

A historiografia se concentrou em uma guerra civil entre os virginianos, e os índios foram empurrados para as margens da história, diz Rice. Mas a Rebelião de Bacon tinha mais a ver com lutar contra os índios do que com um desentendimento entre colonos ricos e pobres.


Inventando Preto e Branco

Na Virgínia em 1600, Anthony Johnson garantiu sua liberdade da servidão contratada, adquiriu terras e se tornou um membro respeitado de sua comunidade. Elizabeth Key apelou com sucesso ao sistema legal da colônia para libertá-la depois que ela foi injustamente escravizada. Por volta de 1700, as leis e costumes da Virgínia começaram a distinguir Preto pessoas de Branco pessoas, tornando impossível para a maioria dos virginianos de ascendência africana fazer o que Johnson e Key fizeram.

Esta pintura de 1905 por Howard Pyle retrata o incêndio de Jamestown em 1676 por rebeldes negros e brancos liderados por Nathaniel Bacon.

Por que os legisladores da Virgínia fizeram essas mudanças? Muitos historiadores apontam para um evento conhecido como Rebelião de Bacon em 1676 como um ponto de viragem. Nathaniel Bacon era um rico proprietário branco e parente do governador da Virgínia, William Berkeley. Mas Bacon e Berkeley não gostavam um do outro e discordavam sobre questões relativas a como a colônia deveria ser governada, incluindo a política da colônia em relação aos nativos americanos. Bacon queria que a colônia retaliar por ataques de nativos americanos em assentamentos de fronteira e remover todos os nativos americanos da colônia para que proprietários de terras como ele pudessem expandir suas propriedades. Berkeley temia que isso unisse todas as tribos próximas em uma guerra custosa e destrutiva contra a colônia. Em desafio ao governador, Bacon organizou sua própria milícia, consistindo de servos contratados brancos e negros e negros escravizados, que se juntaram em troca de liberdade e atacaram as tribos próximas. Uma luta pelo poder se seguiu com Bacon e sua milícia de um lado e Berkeley, a Casa dos Burgesses da Virgínia e o resto da elite da colônia do outro. Seguiram-se meses de conflito, incluindo escaramuças armadas entre milícias. Em setembro de 1676, a milícia de Bacon capturou Jamestown e queimou-o até o chão.

Embora Bacon morresse de febre um mês depois e a rebelião desmoronasse, os ricos fazendeiros da Virgínia foram abalados pelo fato de que uma milícia rebelde que unia servos e escravos brancos e negros havia destruído a capital colonial. A acadêmica jurídica Michelle Alexander escreve:

Os eventos em Jamestown foram alarmantes para a elite dos proprietários, que temia profundamente a aliança multirracial de [servos contratados] e escravos. A notícia da rebelião de Bacon se espalhou por toda parte, e vários outros levantes de um tipo semelhante se seguiram. Em um esforço para proteger seu status superior e posição econômica, os proprietários mudaram sua estratégia para manter o domínio. Eles abandonaram sua forte dependência de servos contratados em favor da importação de mais escravos negros. 1

Após a rebelião de Bacon, os legisladores da Virgínia começaram a fazer distinções legais entre habitantes "brancos" e "negros". Ao escravizar permanentemente os virginianos de ascendência africana e dar aos pobres servos e fazendeiros brancos alguns novos direitos e status, eles esperavam separar os dois grupos e tornar menos provável que se unissem novamente em rebelião. O historiador Ira Berlin explica:

Logo após a rebelião de Bacon, eles passaram a distinguir cada vez mais entre os descendentes de africanos e os descendentes de europeus. Eles promulgam leis que dizem que os afrodescendentes são escravos hereditários. E cada vez mais dão algum poder a fazendeiros brancos independentes e proprietários de terras. . .

Agora, o que é interessante sobre isso é que normalmente dizemos que escravidão e liberdade são coisas opostas - que são diametralmente opostas. Mas o que vemos aqui na Virgínia no final do século 17, em torno da Rebelião de Bacon, é que a liberdade e a escravidão são criadas ao mesmo tempo. 2

De acordo com o Oxford English Dictionary, a primeira aparição impressa do adjetivo Branco em referência a “um homem branco, uma pessoa de uma raça distinta por uma tez clara” foi em 1671. Cartas coloniais e outros documentos oficiais escritos em 1600 e início de 1700 raramente se referem aos colonos europeus como brancos.

À medida que o status dos afrodescendentes nas colônias britânicas era desafiado e atacado, e os servos contratados brancos recebiam novos direitos e status, a palavra Branco continuou a ser mais amplamente utilizado em documentos públicos e papéis privados para descrever os colonos europeus. Os descendentes de europeus eram considerados brancos e os de ascendência africana eram rotulados de negros. O historiador Robin D. G. Kelley explica:

Muitos dos brancos pobres descendentes de europeus começaram a se identificar, senão diretamente com os brancos ricos, certamente com o fato de serem brancos. E aqui você tem o surgimento dessa ideia de uma raça branca como uma forma de se diferenciar daquelas pessoas de pele escura que eles associam à escravidão perpétua. 3

A divisão na sociedade americana entre negros e brancos, que começou no final dos anos 1600, teve consequências devastadoras para os afro-americanos, pois a escravidão se tornou uma instituição que floresceu por séculos. O advogado e ativista dos direitos civis Bryan Stevenson explica:

A lavoura privava a pessoa escrava de quaisquer direitos legais ou autonomia e concedia ao dono de escravos total poder sobre os negros, mulheres e crianças legalmente reconhecidos como propriedade. . .

A escravidão americana era freqüentemente brutal, bárbara e violenta. Além das adversidades do trabalho forçado, escravos eram mutilados ou mortos por proprietários de escravos como punição por trabalharem muito devagar, visitar um cônjuge que morava em outra plantação ou mesmo aprender a ler. Pessoas escravizadas também foram exploradas sexualmente. 4

Líderes e cientistas dos Estados Unidos e de todo o mundo confiariam cada vez mais nas supostas diferenças entre as raças negra e branca para justificar o tratamento brutal e desumano dado aos escravos.


As muitas vidas de Nathaniel Bacon

Nathaniel Bacon, 1647-1676 Este aparentemente não é Nathaniel Bacon, o rebelde. Desculpe-me pelo erro.

Um dos insights mais poderosos que Edmund Morgan nos ofereceu ao longo de sua longa e ilustre carreira foi que a Rebelião de Bacon, seu contexto e suas consequências fornecem um roteiro inicial para a história das relações raciais e sua intersecção com a política de classe na história americana. (1) Desdobrando uma história de oportunidades perdidas, Morgan sugeriu que a rebelião de Bacon em 1676 marcou uma virada na história da escravidão na Virgínia e nas colônias do sul de forma mais ampla.

Até então, a escravidão ainda não era a instituição central que seria mais tarde, uma vez que tanto os servos contratados quanto os escravos formavam a subclasse do início da Virgínia. No rastro da rebelião de Bacon, em vez de formar uma aliança inter-racial que desafiasse o governo da classe dos cavalheiros, os homens brancos fizeram um acordo faustiano entre as linhas de classe nas costas dos negros, definindo a liberdade como privilégio e escravidão do branco como o status padrão de pessoas de ascendência africana. Assim, a escravidão tornou-se o regime de trabalho preferido no sul, a servidão contratada diminuiu e a negritude e a brancura se arraigaram na lei e nos costumes.

No centro dessa insurgência inicial da Virgínia estava um conhecido espécime americano, o demagogo Nathaniel Bacon. Incitando o ódio aos índios e irritando ressentimentos inflamados contra as elites da Virgínia, Bacon se viu à frente de uma rebelião aberta após uma série complicada de eventos. Muito parecido com o nosso populista contemporâneo do século XXI, Bacon não tinha um projeto claro e mergulhou no populismo sem muito plano. O que ele fez muito bem, entretanto, foi fomentar o ódio de um grupo particularmente volátil de homens brancos, principalmente contra os índios, mas também contra a liderança da colônia que muitos consideravam corrupta e branda com os "selvagens". Novamente, semelhante ao nosso presidente eleito, o próprio Bacon fazia parte da aristocracia da colônia, que mesmo assim atingiu o tom certo com um bloco cada vez mais descontente de brancos.

Mais impressionante do que os detalhes da rebelião em si, o contexto para a erupção da rebelião e a resolução das tensões sociais na Virgínia provaram ser arautos do que está por vir. No final do século 17, a Virgínia era uma sociedade que rapidamente saiu de um “equilíbrio” estabelecido anteriormente, que dependia de altas taxas de mortalidade e da disponibilidade de lucrativas extensões de terra arrancadas à força dos índios locais. Até meados do século, o boom econômico da colônia dependia principalmente da extração de trabalho de servos contratados que eram atraídos para a colônia com promessas de liberdade e terra, uma vez que cumpriam o período designado de trabalho não-livre. Isso provou ser “viável”, desde que as taxas de mortalidade fossem altas e as terras para o cultivo de tabaco abundassem. Desse modo, muitos dos que sobreviveram aos períodos de servidão puderam ingressar na classe dos proprietários enquanto os homens livres e as tensões sociais permaneciam sob controle.

No entanto, durante a segunda metade do século 17, à medida que as pessoas viviam mais e as principais terras de cultivo do tabaco eram tomadas por grandes fazendeiros e especuladores de terras, as fileiras de ex-servos aumentaram e cada vez menos “libertos” se estabeleceram financeiramente. Como resultado, a disparidade de riqueza entre libertos e fazendeiros abastados aumentou e as perspectivas de mobilidade social diminuíram. Esta foi uma receita para agitação social.

De acordo com Morgan, o sucesso de Nathaniel Bacon em fomentar o ódio contra os índios como meio de escorar o apoio popular prenunciou coisas que viriam. Embora Bacon tenha morrido muito rapidamente após assumir o comando da colônia, e após sua morte a rebelião foi facilmente reprimida pelas autoridades reais, o espectro da revolta popular por "muitos" contra os "poucos" levou as elites na Virgínia a recalibrar a ordem social . Eles também empregaram ansiedades raciais como um meio de fortalecer a popularidade e a solidariedade entre as classes, mas em vez de indianos, eles se voltaram para "outros" de ascendência africana como seus bodes expiatórios escolhidos.

Nesse sentido, a escravidão aumentada por um alinhamento racial endurecido emergiu como a forma preferida de trabalho não-livre na esteira da rebelião de Bacon. Isso também aliviou a ansiedade gerada pelas fileiras crescentes de homens voláteis na colônia, pois à medida que a escravidão aumentava e a servidão diminuía, menos trabalhadores não-livres alcançavam a liberdade e ameaçavam a ordem social. “Escravos”, como Morgan observou, “provaram-se de fato menos perigosos do que os trabalhadores livres ou semi-livres”. Ao contrário dos homens brancos, "os escravos estavam desarmados" e - uma vez que os primeiros podiam ser contados para defender a ordem social - os escravos "não precisavam estar armados". (2) Os homens brancos agora se uniriam contra a ameaça dos índios e de uma insurreição de escravos.

A pergunta incômoda que parece se repetir indefinidamente na história americana é quem é o culpado pelo sinistro pacto que nos trouxe o patriarcado branco como o conhecemos na história americana. É revelador que, em seus comentários finais sobre o realinhamento social na Virgínia, Morgan tenha aplicado a voz passiva ao discutir a situação dos homens brancos de classe baixa após a rebelião. “[E] ei [pequenos plantadores]”, afirma Morgan, “foram permitidos não apenas para prosperar, mas também para adquirir vantagens sociais, psicológicas e políticas que desviaram o impulso da exploração deles e os alinharam com os exploradores [grifo meu]. ” Da mesma forma, ele esboçou a organização social tripartida da Virgínia no segundo quartel do século XVIII: “uma força de trabalho escrava isolada do resto da sociedade por raça e racismo, um corpo de grandes proprietários, firmemente comprometidos com o país, que se tornaram praticantes na política e manobras políticas e um corpo maior de pequenos proprietários que foi persuadido que seus interesses eram bem atendidos pela liderança de seus grandes vizinhos [grifo meu]. ”(3)

Para Morgan, como tem sido para muitos outros, os “exploradores” eram os grandes homens da Virgínia, enquanto os brancos da classe baixa eram apenas antigos agentes históricos nesse caso. Numerosos estudos brilhantes lançaram luz sobre este problema, sem oferecer uma resolução completa para esta questão persistente. Em primeiro lugar, é claro, foi W.E.B. Du Bois em seu magistral Reconstrução Negra na América (1935). Alguns anos depois, em 1938, C. Vann Woodward continuou esta tradição com suas interpretações inovadoras do populismo e do Novo Sul que começaram com Tom Watson: rebelde agrário e continuou em seu trabalho posterior. No O nome da guerra (1998) e Nossos vizinhos selvagens (2008), Jill Lepore e Peter Silver traçaram como os colonos brancos uniram forças com consequências genocidas para os índios durante a Guerra do Rei Phillip e a Guerra dos Sete Anos, respectivamente. Publicado apenas este ano, Robert Parkinson espelhou essas análises em seu estudo exaustivo sobre raça e nacionalismo durante a Revolução Americana: A causa comum (2016). E David Roediger e Alexander Saxton fizeram um caso semelhante para os períodos Jacksoniano e pré-guerra com O salário da branquidade (1991) e A ascensão e queda da República Branca (1990), respectivamente.

A dinâmica do racismo na história americana é clara: os "salários da brancura", como David Reodiger enquadrou a conceituação de Du Bois, provaram-se repetidamente mais atraentes do que benefícios materiais. O povo branco comum priorizou consistentemente a identidade racial em relação a qualquer outra forma de lealdade ao forjar um coletivo dedicado à liberdade. Normalmente, havia também alguns benefícios materiais envolvidos para a maioria dos brancos - embora nunca uma reestruturação fundamental da economia.

Nathaniel Bacon teve muitas vidas: ele apareceu para nós como Andrew Jackson, Tom Watson, Padre Coughlin e agora Donald Trump. No entanto, talvez mais importante do que o legado particular de vários indivíduos que ganharam proeminência explorando o animus racial e o ressentimento anti-autoritário, ficamos mais uma vez com uma escolha incômoda. Devemos considerar os homens brancos comuns como agentes plenos neste conto americano tantas vezes contado, ou devemos expressar nossa frustração com o demônio sempre evasivo da falsa consciência e colocar toda a culpa nas elites brancas? O caminho mais produtivo para avançar provavelmente está em algum lugar no meio. Em uma coisa, espero, muitas pessoas podem concordar, devemos fundamentalmente desafiar a ordem capitalista e racista que resultou na miséria de quase todos os outros.

[1] Este foi o centro de seu livro American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (Nova York: Norton, 1975).


Nathaniel Bacon (2 de janeiro de 1647 & # x2013 26 de outubro de 1676) foi um colono da Colônia da Virgínia, famoso como o instigador da Rebelião de Bacon de 1676, que entrou em colapso quando o próprio Bacon morreu de disenteria. [1]

Bacon nasceu em 15 de janeiro de 1647 em Friston Hall em Suffolk, Inglaterra, filho de pais comerciantes ricos Thomas Bacon e sua esposa Elizabeth Brooke Bacon. Nathaniel era o único filho de seus muitos filhos e recebeu educação na Universidade de Cambridge. Ele fez uma grande viagem pela Europa sob a tutela de John Ray, bem como estudou Direito na Pousada Gray. No entanto, Nathaniel se casou com Elizabeth Duke, a filha de Sir Edward Duke, sem permissão. Após acusações de que Natanael enganou outro jovem em relação à sua herança, Thomas Bacon deu a seu filho a considerável soma de & # x20a41800 e o jovem navegou para o exílio através do Atlântico. [2]

Ao chegar na Virgínia, Nathaniel Bacon comprou duas plantações de fronteira no rio James. Como seu primo era um coronel da milícia proeminente e amigo do governador William Berkeley, Bacon se estabeleceu em Jamestown, a capital. Logo o próprio Bacon foi nomeado para o conselho do governador. [3] A esposa de Berkeley, Frances Culpeper, também pode ter sido prima de Bacon por casamento. [4]

Antes que a "Rebelião da Virgínia", como era chamada então, começasse a sério em 1674, alguns proprietários livres na fronteira da Virgínia exigiram que os nativos americanos, incluindo aqueles em tribos amigáveis ​​que viviam em terras protegidas por tratado, fossem expulsos ou mortos. [3] Eles também protestaram contra a corrupção no governo do governador Berkeley, que o historiador Stephen Saunders Webb chamou de & quotincorrigivelmente corrupto, desumanamente opressor e indesculpavelmente ineficaz, especialmente na guerra. & Quot [5] Após um ataque de índios no condado de Stafford, Virgínia, que matou dois brancos homens associados com o comerciante Mathews que um relatório posterior encontrou regularmente índios "aquecidos e abusados", um grupo de milicianos da Virgínia invadiu assentamentos das tribos Doeg e Susquehannock, incluindo através do rio Potomac em Maryland. O governador de Maryland, Calvert, protestou contra a incursão e o Susquehannock retaliou. A milícia de Maryland então se juntou às forças da Virgínia e atacou uma vila fortificada de Susquehannock. Depois que cinco chefes aceitaram o convite do líder de Maryland para negociar, eles foram massacrados, uma ação que provocou investigações legislativas e reprimendas posteriores. [6] [7] Os Susquehannocks retaliaram com força contra as plantações: matando 60 colonos em Maryland e outros 36 em seu primeiro ataque em solo da Virgínia. Em seguida, outras tribos se juntaram, matando colonos, queimando casas e campos e abatendo gado até os rios James e York. [8]

Buscando evitar uma guerra maior semelhante à Guerra do Rei Filipe na Nova Inglaterra, Berkeley defendeu a contenção, propondo a construção de várias fortificações defensivas ao longo da fronteira e instando os colonos da fronteira a se reunirem em uma postura defensiva. Os colonos da fronteira rejeitaram o plano como caro e inadequado, e também o questionaram como uma possível desculpa para aumentar as taxas de impostos. [3]

Nesse ínterim, Bacon, cujo supervisor em uma plantação de James River foi morto por invasores indígenas, emergiu como um líder rebelde. [9] Quando Berkeley se recusou a conceder a Bacon uma comissão militar para atacar todos os índios, Bacon reuniu sua própria força de 400-500 homens e subiu o rio James para atacar as tribos Doeg e Pamunkey. Embora ambos tivessem vivido pacificamente com os colonos e não tivessem atacado os assentamentos da fronteira, suas terras cultivadas eram valiosas. Em março, Berkeley tentou garantir que guerreiros da tribo Pamunkey lutassem contra tribos hostis de acordo com tratados anteriores. A rainha de Pamunkey, Cockacoeske, lembrou apaixonadamente ao Conselho do Governador as mortes, há 20 anos, de seu marido e de 100 guerreiros que trabalhavam em uma situação semelhante. O presidente ignorou sua reclamação, em vez disso continuou a exigir mais guerreiros (e recebendo uma promessa em troca de fornecer uma dúzia). Berkeley prendeu Bacon e o removeu do Conselho, mas os homens de Bacon rapidamente garantiram sua libertação e forçaram Berkeley a realizar eleições legislativas. Enquanto isso, os homens de Bacon continuaram sua ofensiva contra os Pamunkeys, que fugiram para o Pântano do Dragão. Quando o amigo Occoneechee conseguiu capturar um forte Susquehannock, as forças de Bacon exigiram todos os despojos, embora não tivessem ajudado na luta. Eles então atacaram o Oconeechee por traição, matando homens, mulheres e crianças. [10]

Apesar do status de fora-da-lei de Bacon, os eleitores do condado de Henrico o elegeram para a Câmara dos Burgesses recomposta. Esse órgão promulgou uma série de reformas abrangentes, limitando os poderes do governador e restaurando o direito de sufrágio aos homens livres sem terra. [3] Eles também sujeitaram a venda de qualquer arma a qualquer índio à pena de morte. Os seguidores de Bacon não se acalmaram, acusando Berkeley de se recusar a autorizar retaliação contra os nativos por causa de seus próprios investimentos no comércio de peles e monopólios concedidos a seus favoritos. After a number of verbal alterations, including a quarrel in a Jamestown street, Berkeley retreated to his plantation and signed the military commission Bacon demanded.[11] Scouting parties accordingly set out to requisition supplies, as well as to kill and enslave Indians, prompting protests from citizens of Gloucester County subjected to the militia's exactions.[12] Bacon's forces retreated to Middle Plantation (later renamed Williamsburg).

On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his makeshift army issued a Declaration of the People of Virginia,[7] which criticized Berkeley's administration, accusing him of levying unfair taxes, appointing friends to high positions, and failing to protect outlying farmers from Indian attack. They also issued a 'Manifesto' urging the extermination of all Indians, charging that they did not deserve legal protections because they "have bin for these Many years enemies to the King and Country, Robbers and Thieves and Invaders of his Majesty's Right and our Interest and Estate."[13] Months of conflict ensued, including a naval attempt across the Potomac and in Chesapeake Bay by Bacon's allies to capture Berkeley at Accomac. Bacon himself focused on the Pamunkey in Dragon Swamp his forces seized 3 horse loads of goods, enslaved 45 Indians and killed many more, prompting the queen (who narrowly escaped with her son) to throw herself on the mercy of the Governor's Council. Berkeley raised his own army of mercenaries on the Eastern Shore, as well as captured Bacon's naval allies and executed the two leaders. Bacon's forces then turned against the colony's capital, burning Jamestown to the ground on September 19, 1676.[7][14]

Before an English naval squadron could arrive, Bacon died of dysentery on October 26, 1676. Although Joseph Ingram took control of the rebel forces, the rebellion soon collapsed. Governor Berkeley returned to power, seizing the property of several rebels and ultimately hanging twenty-three men, many without trial.[3] After an investigative committee returned its report to King Charles II, criticizing both Berkeley and Bacon for their conduct toward friendly tribes, Berkeley was relieved of the governorship, returned to England to protest, and died shortly thereafter.[7] Charles II later supposedly commented, "That old fool has put to death more people in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father." This is, however, likely to be a colonial myth, arising about 30 years later.[15]

  • BACON, Thomas (c.1620-97), of Friston, Suff. and Wandsworth, Surr.
  • b. c.1620, o.s. of Nathaniel Bacon of Friston by Anne, da. of Sir Thomas Le Gros of Crostwick, Norf. educ. Corpus Christi, Camb. 1637 G. Inn 1640, called 1651, ancient 1658. m. (1) Elizabeth (d. 2 Jan. 1649), da. of Sir Robert Brooke† of Cockfield Hall, Yoxford, Suff., 1s. d.v.p. 1da. (2) Martha, da. of Sir John Reade of Wrangle, Lincs., wid. of Edward Empson of Boston, Lincs., 1da. suc. fa. 1644.1
  • Offices Held
    • Commr. for assessment, Suff. 1644-52, 1657, Aug. 1660-80, j.p. 1645-53, 1657-87 elder, Saxmundham classis 1647 commr. for militia, Suff. 1648, Mar. 1660, scandalous ministers 1654, recusants 1675.2

    Nathaniel Bacon was born in Suffolk, England on 2nd January, 1647. A dispute with his wife's family persuaded him to emigrate to North America. With the financial support of his father, he purchased two estates along the James River in Virginia.

    William Berkeley appointed Bacon to his governing council but the two men soon fell out about the development of the colony. Berkeley favoured a policy of containment, whereas Bacon wanted to expand into areas controlled by Native Americans.

    In 1676 Bacon organized his own expedition. Fearing a large-scale war with Native Americans, Berkeley turned his forces against Bacon and his men. Bacon captured Jamestown and William Berkeley was forced to flee to the Eastern Shore. However, Nathaniel Bacon died of fever in October, 1676, and without his leadership, the rebellion quickly collapsed.

    Nathaniel, born in England and resident of Suffolk, came to Virginia in 1676 he was a General. He was the hero of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. See John Fisk's "Old Virginia and Her Neighbors" Vol II Sparks Library Am.

    General Nathaniel Bacon was of an old family of Suffolk England. His father Thomas Bacon of Triston Hall was a cousin of the great Lord Bacon and his mother was the daughter of Sir Robert Brooke Kt. He studied at Cambridge, read law at Grays Inn and after extensive travel on the continent came to America bringing with him his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward and sister of Sir John Duke of Benhill Lodge, Suffolk. Historians are not agreed as to the year of his birth, they range from 1644 to '48, the former is probably correct. Though less than thirty years of age when he arrived in Virginia such were his character and abilities that he was at once given a seat in the Council. He is described as "an impetuous youth, brave, cordial, fiery at times and gifted with a persuasive tongue". He was tall, lithe, of swarthy complexion, melancholy eyes and had a somewhat lofty demeanor. In addition to the estate upon which he lived at Curl's Wharfe (Richmond) he owned another further up on the site marked in the city of Richmond by the name "Bacon Quarter Branch". There had after his settlement for some time been much trouble on the border from the Indians but Governor Berkeley had refused to send troops against them or to permit the people to organize companies to punish them. "If the red skins meddle with me" quoth the fiery young man "damn my blood but I'll harry them!" This threat he had soon to make good. One morning in May 1676 news came to Curl's Wharfe that the Indians had attacked his upper estate and killed his over-seer and one of his men. A crowd of men at once assembled (planters on horseback) and offered to march under Bacon's lead. Making then an eloquent speech he accepted the command and sent a courier to Gov. Berkeley for a commission. Berkeley answered evasively. Bacon sent him a polite note thanking him for the promised commission and started on his campaign. He had not gone many miles before a proclamation from the governor overtook him, ordering the party to disperse. A few obeyed. Bacon and the rest kept on their way and inflicted a severe defeat on the Indians. This was the beginning of the trouble between Bacon and Governor Berkeley, which resulted in what is called "Bacon's Rebellion" an account of which is to be found in almost every history of the U.S. The anxieties and exposure of his Indian campaigns, of which there were several, and his war with the governor undermined his health and this pioneer of the rights of the people in America passed away in early manhood (he died in 1676) his work remaining to be accomplished just a hundred years later by that greatest Virginian George Washington.

    References - Bancroft's History U.S. Vol. 1

    John Fiske. Old Virginia & her neighbors

    Sparks Library Am. Biography

    Mills Va. Carolurum - Va. Magazine etc.

    No one knows for certain when he was born. An earlier attribution of him as the Nathaniel Bacon born in 1646 or 1647 appears to be spurious, based on no firm foundation, although widely repeated in later literature including Encyclop๭ia Britannica. The 1922 edition of the Dictionary of National Biography does not give him a specific birthdate but does say he was "of Friston Hall". Although, from a contemporary document, his father is said to be "Thomas Bacon", his mother is Elizabeth Brooke.


    Nathaniel Bacon - History

    Economic and social power became concentrated in late seventeenth-century Virginia, leaving laborers and servants with restricted economic independence. Governor William Berkeley feared rebellion: “six parts of Seven at least are Poore, Indebted, Discontented and Armed.” Planter Nathaniel Bacon focused inland colonists’ anger at local Indians, who they felt were holding back settlement, and at a distant government unwilling to aid them. In the summer and fall of 1676, Bacon and his supporters rose up and plundered the elite’s estates and slaughtered nearby Indians. Bacon’s Declaration challenged the economic and political privileges of the governor’s circle of favorites, while announcing the principle of the consent of the people. Bacon’s death and the arrival of a British fleet quelled this rebellion, but Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of white and black acting together to challenge authority.

    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, but no visible effects in any measure adequate for not having, during this long time of his government, in any measure advanced this hopeful colony either by fortifications, towns, or trade.

    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 for having in it 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 having, when the army of English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty’s country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote places and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all places, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.

    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 and safeguard of this his Majesty’s colony.

    7. For having, with only the privacy of some few favorites without acquainting the people, only by the alteration of a figure, 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, which being happily and without bloodshed prevented for having the second time attempted the same, thereby calling down our forces from the defense of the frontiers and most weakly exposed places.

    8. For the prevention of civil mischief and ruin amongst ourselves while the barbarous enemy in all places did invade, murder, and spoil us, his Majesty’s most faithful subjects.

    Of this and the aforesaid articles we accuse Sir William Berkeley as guilty of each and every one of the same, and as one who has traitorously attempted, violated, and injured his Majesty’s interest here by a loss of a great part of this his colony and many of his faithful loyal subjects by him betrayed and in a barbarous and shameful manner exposed to the incursions and murder of the heathen. And we do further declare these the ensuing persons in this list to have been his wicked and pernicious councilors, confederates, aiders, and assisters against the commonalty in these our civil commotions.

    John West, Hubert Farrell, Thomas Reade, Math. Kempe

    And we do further demand that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the persons in this list be forthwith delivered up or surrender themselves within four days after the notice hereof, or otherwise we declare as follows.

    That in whatsoever place, house, or ship, any of the said persons shall reside, be hid, or protected, we declare the owners, masters, or inhabitants of the said places to be confederates and traitors to the people and the estates of them is also of all the aforesaid persons to be confiscated. And this we, the commons of Virginia, do declare, desiring a firm union amongst ourselves that we may jointly and with one accord defend ourselves against the common enemy. And let not the faults of the guilty be the reproach of the innocent, or the faults or crimes of the oppressors divide and separate us who have suffered by their oppressions.

    These are, therefore, in his Majesty’s name, to command you forthwith to seize the persons above mentioned as traitors to the King and country and them to bring to Middle Plantation and there to secure them until further order, and, in case of opposition, if you want any further assistance you are forthwith to demand it in the name of the people in all the counties of Virginia.

    General by Consent of the people.

    Source: "Declaration of Nathaniel Bacon in the Name of the People of Virginia, July 30, 1676,"Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 4th ser., 1871, vol. 9: 184󈟃.


    Nathaniel Bacon - History

    Bacon in most incens'd manner threatens to be revenged on the Governor and his party, swearing his soldiers to give no quarter and professing to soorne to take any themselves, and so in great fury marches on towards James Towne, onely halting a while about New Kent to gain some fresh forces, and sending to the upper parts of James River for what they could assist him with.

    Having increased his number to about 300 in all, he proceeds direcdy to towne, as he marcheth the people on the high wayes coming forth praying for his happiness and railing ag't [against] the Governour and his party, and seeing the Indian captives which they led along as in a shew of tryumph, gave him many thankes for his care and endeavours for their preservation, bringing him forth fruits and victualls for his soldiers, the women telling him if he wanted assistance they would come themselves after him.

    Intelligence coming to Bacon that the Governour had good in towne a 1000 men well arm'd and resolute, "I shall see that," saith he, "for I am now going to try them.".

    In the evening Bacon with his small tyr'd body of men comes into Paspahayes old Fields and advancing on horseback himselfe on the Sandy Beech before the towne commands the trumpet to sound, fires his carbyne, dismounts, surveys the ground and orders a French worke to be cast up.

    All this night is spent in falling of trees, cutting of bushes and throwing up earth, that by the help of the moone light they had made their French worke before day, although they had but two axes and 2 spades in all to performe this work with.

    About day-break next morning six of Bacons soldiers ran up to the pallasadees of the Towne and fired briskly upon the guard, retreating safely without any damage at first (as is reported). [T]he Governor gave comand that not a gun should be fir'd ag't Bacon or his party upon paine of death, pretending to be loath to spill bloode and much more to be beginner of it, supposing the rebells would hardly be so audacious as to fire a gun against him, But that Bacon would rather have sent to him and sought his reconciliation so that some way or other might have bin found out for the preventing of a warr, to which the Governour is said to have shewne some inclination upon the account of the service Bacon had performed (as he heard) against the Indian enemy, and that he had brought severall Indian prisoners along with him, and especially for that there were several! ignorant people which were deluded and drawne into Bacon's party and thought of no other designe than the Indian warr onely, and so knew not what they did.

    But Bacon (pretending distrust of the Governor) was so fair from all thought of a Treaty that he animates his men against it, celling them that he knew that party to be as perfidious as cowardly, and that there was noe trust to be reposed in such, who thinke it noe Treachery by any wayes to Suppresse them, and for his tendernesse of Shedding Blood which the Governor pretends, and preventing a warr, sayes Bacon, "There are some here that know it to be no longer since than last weeke that hee himself comanded to be Fired against us by Boats which the Governor sent up and downe to places where the country's Provisions were kept for mainteinance of the Indian Warr, to fetch them away to support a warr amongst ourselves, and wounded some of us (which was done by Sorrell) which were against the designe of converting these stores to soe contrary a use and intention of what they were raised for by the People." Bacon moving downe towards the Towne and the Shipps being brought before the Sandy Beach the better to annoy the enemy in case of any attempt of theirs to storme the Palassadoes, upon a signall given from the Towne the Shipps fire their Great Gunns, and at the same tyme they let fly their Small-shot from the Palassadoes. But that small sconce that Bacon had caused to be made in the night of Trees, Bush and Earth (under w'ch they lay) soe defended them that the shott did them noe damage at all, and was return'd back as fast from this little Fortresse. In the heat of this Firing Bacon commands a party of his men to make every one his Faggott and put it before his Breast and come and lay them in order on top of the Trench on the outside and at the end to enlarge and make good the Fortification, which they did, and orders more spades to be gott, to helpe to make it yet more defensible, and the better to observe their motion [Bacon] ordered a constant sentinel in the daytime on top of a brick chimney (hard by) to discover from thence how the men in Towne mounted and dismounted, posted and reposted, drew on and off, what number they were, and how they moved. Hitherto their happen'd no other action then onely firing great and small shott at distances.

    But by their movings and drawings up about towne, Bacon understood they intended a sally and accordingly prepares to receive them, drew up his men to the most advantageous places he could, and now expected them (but they observ'd to draw off againe for some tyme) and was resolved to enter the towne with them, as they retreated, as Bacon expected and foretold they would do. In this posture of expectation Bacons forces continued for a hour till the watchman gave notice that they were drawne off againe in towne, so upon this Bacons forces did so too. No sooner were they all on the rebells side gone off and squandered but all on a sudden a sally is made by the Governors party,. . . But we cannot give a better account, nor yet a truer (so far as we are informed) of this action than what this Letter of Bacons relates.

    & quot. Yesterday they made a sally with horse and foote in the Van they came up with a narrow Front, and pressing very close upon one anothers shoulders that the forlorne might be their shelter our men received them so warmly that they retired in great disorder, throwing downe theire armes, left upon the Bay, as also their drum and dead men, two of which our men brought into our trenches and buried with severall of their armes. They shew themselves such pitifull cowards, contemptable as you would admire them. It is said that Hubert Farreii is shot in the belly, Hartwell in the legg, Smith in the head, Mathewes with others, yet as yet we have no certaine account. & quot

    After this successless sally the courages and numbers of the Governors party abated much, and Bacons men thereby became more bold and daring in so much that Bacon could scarce keepe them from immediately falling to storme and enter the towne but he (being as wary as they rash) perswaded them from the attempt, bidding them keepe their courages untill such tyme as he found occasion and opportunity to make use of them, telling them that he doubted not to take the towne without losse of a man, and that one of their lives was of more value to him than the whole world.

    Having planted his great guns, he takes the wives and female relations of such gentlemen as were in the Governors service against him (whom he had caused to be brought to the workes) and places them in the face of his enemy, as bulworkes for their battery, by which policy he promised himself (and doubdess had) a goode advantage, yet had the Governors party by much the odds in number besides the advantage of tyme and place.

    But so great was the cowardize and baseness of the generality of Sir William Berkeley's party (being most of them men intent onely upon plunder or compell'd and hired into his service) that of all, at last there were onely some 20 gende-men willing to stand by him, the rest (whom the hopes or promise of plunder brought thither) being now all in haste to be gone to secure what they had gott so that Sir Wm. Berkeley himselfe who undoubtedly would rather have dyed on the place than thus deserted it, what with importunate and resisdess solicitations of all, was at last over persuaded, now hurryed away against his owne will to Accomack and forced to leave the towne to the mercy of the enemy.

    Bacon haveing early intelligence of the Governor and his party's quitting the towne the night before, enters it without any opposition, and soldier like considering of what importance a place of that refuge was, and might againe be to the Governor and his party, instandy resolves to lay it level with the ground, and the same night he became poses'd of it, sett fire to towne, church and state house (wherein were the country's records which Drummond had privately convey'd thense and preserved from burning). The towne consisted of 12 new brick houses besides a considerable number of frame houses with brick chimneys, ail which will not be rebuilt (as is computed) for fifteen hundred pounds of tobacco.

    Now those who had so lately deserted it, as they rid a little below in the river in the shipps and sloop (to their shame and regret) beheld by night the flames of the towne, which they so basely forsaking, had made a sacrifice to ruine.

    1 (1677). In Charles M. Andrews, ed., (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915), pp. 129-36. A True Narrative of the Rise, Progresse, and Cessation of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, Most Humbly and Impartially Reported by His Majestyes Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the Affaires of the Said Colony Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690


    Mattocks Family Heritage Resources

    Source: Charles Hervey Townshend, “The Bacons of Virginia and Their English Ancestry,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 37[1883].

    Grimbaldus, a Norman gentleman, it is said, came into England at the time of the Conquest in company with William DE WARREN, Earl of Surry, to whom he was related, and was granted lands at Letheringsete,* near Holt, in the County Norfolk, and had issue three sons, Radulph, Edmund and Ranulf, and here he founded a church, appointing for its parson his second son Edmund.**

    His younger son Ranulf, or Reynold, resided at Thorp, Norfolk, and took the name of BACON and as there were several Thorps, this place was called Bacons-Thorpe,*** as Reynold was Lord of the town, and from him sprang this illustrious family, many members of it being distinguished for talent and brilliancy of mind. This Ranulf was father of George, whose son Roger BACON released to his own sister Agnes all the lands belonging to this family in Normandy, and from him down through many generations descended the BACONs of Drinkstone and Hessett in the County Suffolk.****

    [* See Note I. At the end of this article. – EDITOR]

    ** See Blomefield’s Norfolk, Kimber and Johnson’s Baronetage. The history of Grimbaldus and his immediate descendants, which we here repeat, needs investigation.

    Of this (the Hessett) family, we find a John BACON, who married Cecilly HOO, sister of John HOO or HOWE, perhaps of Hessett, who with his brother in law John BACON were probably the builders of the beautiful church there, as proved by evidence still extant on the exterior and interior of this edifice, as shown in heliotype by the Rev. Canon COOKE in his introductory history of HESSETT, published in the “Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archæology and Natural History.”

    He had sons John and Nicholas BACON. Nicholas was chaplain of Hessett. John of the same place married Hellen GEDDING, and had issue another John BACON, who married for first wife Hellena, daughter of Sir George TILLOTTS, of Rougham, and secondly, Julian, daughter of —- BARDWELL. From this first marriage came Sir Nicholas BACON (the Lord-Keeper and father of the great Lord BACON), and from the second marriage the BACONs of Hessett, who flourished there more than five hundred years, when the male line ended in Henry BACON, the son of Edmund and Elizabeth (CORNWALLYS) BACON, who died without issue there in 1651, and the estates were all parcelled out among his sisters, viz.: Elizabeth, wife of Calibut WALPOLE Frances, wife of George TOWNSEND Katherine, wife of William COLEMAN Susan, wife of Henry LAMB Anne, wife of John ALDRICH Cordelia, wife of —- HARRIS, of Maldon, and Abigail, wife of John GRIGBYE.

    His father Edmund BACON, son of John BACON of Hessett, and grandson of Edmund BACON by wife Elizabeth, daughter of John PAGE of Westley, Suffolk, of which family perhaps Philip PAGE, father of Robert PAGE, Lord of the Manor of Gedding, and whose marriage to Alice HOO is recorded at Hessett, July 21, 1545, is interesting to note. This John BACON, son of Edmund and Elizabeth (PAGE) BACON aforesaid, married first, Barbara, sister of Sir Ambrose JERMYN of Rushbrook, Knt., and secondly, Katherine PERIENTE, sister of Elizabeth PERIENTO (Lady Style) mother of Henry TOWNSEND of Bracon Ash, Norf. And Gedding, Suff., and by her had a son Captain Robert BACON, who married the Lady Cordilia, daughter of John GYLL or GILL, and widow of Sir Thomas HARRIS, Knt.*

    We now return to John BACON, son of John and Helena (TILLOTTS) BACON, who married Margery THORPE, daughter and heir of John, son of William and grandson of Sir William THORPE by the daughter and heir of Sir Roger BACON, a celebrated commander in the wars, temp. Edward II. and Edward III., and lineally descended from Grimbald, the patriarch of this family.

    The said John BACON was father of Edmund BACON of Drinkstone, whose son John by wife Agnes COKEFIELD had son Robert BACON who was buried at Hessett with Isabella his wife, daughter of John CAGE of Pakenham in Suffolk, and by whom he had three sons and two

    * These families, the DRURYs, BACONs, PAGE, TOWNSENDs, HOW or HOO, were all connected and interested in early settlements in Virginia and New England, as the records show.

    daughters, viz.: 1st, Thomas BACON of Northaw in Hertfordshire, who married the daughter of Mr. BROWN, but died without issue. 2nd, Sir Nicholas BACON, the Lord Keeper. 3d, James BACON, Esquire, Alderman of London, who died June 15, 1573, and was buried in the Church of St. Dunstans in the East, London and had by first wife Mary, daughter of John GARDINER of Grove Place, county Bucks, an only son and three daughters, all dying young except Anne, wife of John REVETTS,* Esquire, of Brandiston, who died 1616, aged 77. His second wife was Margaret, daughter of William RAWLINS, of London, and widow of Richard GOULDSTON, Salter, by whom he also had issue, William BACON, second son, of —-, Essex, and a son and daughter who died young, also his eldest son Sir James BACON, of Friston Hall, Suffolk, who was knighted at White Hall in 1604, and died at Finsbury, London, January 17, 1618, and buried in St. Giles Church on the 11 February, 1618.

    This worthy Knight, by Elizabeth, daughter of Francis and Anne (DRURY**) BACON of Hessett, had two sons, Nathaniel and James and three daughters, the latter all dying young. The eldest son, Nathaniel BACON, Esq., of Friston, “son and heir and of full age,” January 17, 1644, by Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas LE GROSS of Crostwick, Norfolk, Knt., had a daughter Anne who died unmarried, and also Elizabeth, wife of Nathaniel, second son of Sir Nathaniel BARNARDISTON of Kelton, Knt., also a son Thomas BACON, who by first wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert BROOKE of Cockfield Hall, Yoxford, Knt., who died January 2, 1647, aged 25, and was buried at Friston, Suffolk, had issue Elizabeth, wife of Mr. HOVENER of London, and a son and heir, Nathaniel BACON, Esq., who emigrated to Virginia as early as 1670, where his father’s cousin,*** Colonel Nathaniel BACON (the governor****) resided, being possessed of large landed estates in York, Nanceymond and other counties bordering on the James River. The first Nathaniel BACON became so notorious in Virginia history on account of the conspicuous part he took in opposing Governor BERKELEY that he acquired the cognomen of “The Rebel.”***** A quarrel between the settlers and natives caused the former to choose BACON their general, and disregarding the

    * See pedigree in The Brights of Suffolk, where this gentleman connects with numerous New England families.

    ** See pedigree of the DRURY family of Rougham, co. Suff., in Cullum’s History of Hawstead. John NEWGATE’s (of Boston, N.E.) grandfather Walter HOO or HOWE, leased from the DRURYs Rougham Hall, and of this family was William DRURY, LL.D., whose widow Mary SOUTHWELL married Robert FORTH, LL.D., grandfather of Thomas TOWNSEND. See TOWNSEND family of Lynn, in Old and New England.

    **** He may have held the courtesy title of governor, as an English pedigree has it. He was of the Council, and in 1688 was its presiding officer and acting governor. His cousin Nathaniel BACON the general was a delegate from Henrico Plantation, where he held an estate near the Falls of the James River.

    ***** Gent. Mag. Oct. 1816, vol. lxxxvii, p. 124 Burke’s Hist. Virg. Vol. ii. Barber’s Hist. Coll. Virg. Campbell’s Hist. Virg. As early as 1663 we find Nathaniel BACON, “a hopeful young gentleman,” one of the company of RAY, who sets out on his travels in foreign parts in company with Mr. WILLOUGHBY and Sir Philip SKIPPON. Gen. BACON’s father seems to have objected to his marriage to Elizabeth, a sister of Sir John DUKE of Benhall Lodge, near [footnote continued on next page]

    orders of the governor, who refused him a commission, he put himself at the head of a company of colonists and punished the Indians. For this act the governor in May, 1676, proclaimed him a rebelde, and soon after arrested him at Jamestown, where he was tried before the Governor and Council, but acquitted and promised a commission, which the governor refused to sign. BACON therefore raised a regiment of six hundred men and compelled the governor to grant the commission. After prosecuting the Indian war with success, he was again proclaimed a rebel. He then turned his forces against the governor, whom he defeated, and burnt Jamestown, and was following up his advantages, when he died suddenly, October 1, 1676. He was very popular in the colony, and subsequent historians seem to justify the part he took as “rebellion in good cause.” […]

    [footnote continued from previous page] Saxmundham, co. Suff., and so he emigrated to Virginia where his cousin Col. BACON resided. After Gen. BACON’s death his wife married second Mr. JARVIS, a merchant, and thirdly Mr. MOLE. Some writers say BACON died of brain fever, others of a disease contracted in the trenches before Jamestown. There was another Nathaniel BACON who has often been confused with Col. BACON the Councillor and Gen. BACON the “Rebel,” or “Patriot,” as called by some. He was Recorder of Ipswich, co. Suff., and wrote several books. His work, “Of the Uniformity of the Governments of England,” published in 1647, was far in advance of his time, and his publishers were prosecuted and fined, and hundreds of copies seized and burnt.

    These three Nathaniel BACONs had also a cousin Sir Nathaniel BACON of Culford, Suff., who excelled in landscape painting (whose uncle Sir Nathaniel BACON of Stiffkey, Norfolk, who died Nov. 7, 1622, had daughter Anne, wife of Sir John TOWNSEND of Raynham, Knt., who was also buried the same day as her father Sir Nathaniel, in Stiffkey Church [see Stiffkey Register], who died 1627), and gave his estate to Lady Jane his wife, who was buried at Culford, May 8, 1659, aged 79. His son Nicholas BACON died sans issue, 1660, and this property went to his half brother Frederick Lord CORNWALLYS, son of Lady Jane by her first husband, Sir William CORNWALLYS, and ancestor of Charles Earl CORNWALLYS, who by wife Elizabeth TOWNSHEND (aunt to George Marquis TOWNSHEND, to whom Quebec capitulated upon the death of Gen. WOLFE) was father of Charles, first Marquis CORNWALLIS, whose surrender of his army at Yorktown, Va., to General WASHINGTON, brought to a close the struggle for American independence.

    There was also a Nathaniel BACON living in New England as early as 1661 (see Savage), and in the New Haven Records there are three depositions, taken October 17, 1661, and recorded by the secretary, James BISHOP. The first by John FLETCHER of Milford, second by Mary FLETCHER of Milford, and the third by John WARD of Branford, which last we copy verbatim, and print at the end of this article. The first two mention the family of BACON living in Stretton, and moving to Clipsam, co. Rutland.

    Michael BACON, of Dedham, Mass. (see Will, REGISTER, vol. vii. p. 230-1), and ancestor of the late Leonard BACON, D.D., LL.D., of New Haven, came from the neighborhood of Ipswich, co. Suffolk, Eng., perhaps Barham, Suffolk. Tradition says he held the office of captain of a company of yeomanry there.

    N.B. – Monument in Barham Church says Ellen, daughter of Thomas LITTLE, married Edward BACON, third son of the Lord Keeper. They are said to have had 19 sons and 13 daughters, [See Note V. – ED.] This family held 22 manors, besides lands in 19 parishes in co. Suffolk. This Edward BACON’s daughter Jane married Francis STONER, whose mother Mabel was daughter of Roger HARLAKENDEN, whose family were also interested in New England settlement. – Bury St. Edmunds and Environs, p. 81. […]

    DEPOSITION OF JOHN WARD OF BRANDFORD. – [N. Hav. (Ct.) T. Recs.]

    Know all men whom it may concern y t I John WARD of Brandford in ye Colony of New Haven in New England and aged about thirty Six yeares doe declare & upon my knowledge testify on oathe that I well knew for ye space of six or seven yeares one Henry BACON of Clipsam in ye County of Rutland within ye realme of England & One William BACON brother to ye sayd Henry BACON in the same county of Rutland abouvesayd, and I never knew or heard of any brother or bretheren more y t they had by ye fathers side and I doe further testify y t I well knew Thomas BACON sonne of Henry BACON & Nephew to Sayd William BACON & I never knew or heard the sayd Henry BACON had any other child but only the sayd Thomas BACON whoe I have heard went to the Barbadoes and died there and further I the sayd John WARD upon Certaine knowledge doe testify, y t I well knew Nathaniel BACON to be the eldest son of William BACON, brother to the sayde Henry BACON, and the sayd Nathaniel BACON is now liveing in New England & was p’sent at my attesting hereoff and further sayth not.

    This is a true record of the originall P’ JAMES BISHOP, secret.

    NOTES BY JOHN COFFIN JONES BROWN, ESQ., OF BOSTON.

    Observação I. – Letheringsete was não granted to Grimbaldus, but was one of the many manors granted to the veteran soldier Walter GIFFARD, formerly Lord of Longueville, afterward first Earl of Buckingham, and one of the commissioners who superintended the compilation of the Domesday Boke.

    The name of GIFFARD comes from “fat-cheeks,” and, in the gíria of the Normans, cooks were called “Giffardi” in reference to their popular representation as fat and rubicund.

    Grimbaldus 1 was undoubtedly an early tenant, and the history of his descendants furnishes a key to the method of obtaining patronymics, if a changeable family name could be so styled. Edmund, 2 who is usually called the third son, took the name of seu abode for a surname, and so did Ranulph, 2 whose son Gilbert 3 DE LARINGSETA had a son Jordan 4 DE LARINGSETA, whose son Adam, 5 in accordance with another custom, signed his name as Adam-FITZ-JORDAN (or Adam, son of Jordan), while his son Peter 6 assumed again the name of the location, and in 1268 held an eighth of the fee, of the Earl of Clare, into whose possession Walter GIFFARD’s family estates had passed.

    Observação II. – The word Thorp is Saxon for village. Becuns-Thorp means Beach-tree Village and in such a one the remaining son of Grimbaldus undoubtedly located, and was known by seu place of residence as Ralph 2 DE BACONS-THORP. The early monumental brasses of the family have effigies under trees, an evident allusion to the origin of the name. A Sir William BACON or Sir Roger BACON is taken notice of, among knights bearing banners, as well Norman as of other provinces, in the reign of Philip III. of France, and bore for his arms a beech-tree. Roger 3 DE BACONSTHORP, son of Ralph, 2 was father of Robert, 4 who assumed the name of BACON and to make his identity clear, during the change of patronymic, was styled Robert-FITZ-ROGER. He was a person of great power and cousin of Jeff RIDEL, Bishop

    of Ely in 1174. He was father of Reginald, 5 who was father of Richard, 6 who having five sons, one of them, the fifth son, Sir Henry 7 BACON do Letheringsete, a justice itinerant, or Circuit Judge, would seem by the affix to his name to be in possession of the estate of his distant cousin Peter 6 DE LETHERINGSETE.

    Observação III. – Mr. TOWNSHEND has given attention to the later part of the family history. The early history is in a state of bewilderment, which is hardly worth clearing up for general readers. Joseph FOSTER, one of the most eminent genealogists of the world, says “the early descent of this family, which was very widely spread through Suffolk, is variously set forth, as may be seen on reference to Davy’s MS. Collections relating to the County. In “Collectanea Genealogica” he has given a long list of the MS. Pedigrees in the British Museum, which are of importance to students of this family history. To show the variety in pedigrees, the best guide would be the QUAPLADDE quartering, of which the family is proud, derived from Margaret QUAPLADDE, an heiress in Dethrick’s Grant of 1568, preserved by the family, she is stated to be the wife of Edmund BACON, about the time of Edward II., and eight generations are given between her and Sir Nicholas, the Lord Keeper, while Playfair finds that she did not marry a BACON direct, but was wife of William THORP, a grandson of Roger (12th generation from Grimbaldus) BACON, and that her grandchild Margaret THORP was the wife of John 16 BACON, of Drinkston, the great-great-grandfather of Sir Nicholas, Dethrick giving eight generations between them, while Playfair gives but five. Playfair gives the line of descent from George 3 as follows: Roger, 4 Robert, 5 Reginald, 6 Richard 7 (he was the first to bear the arms, Gu. on a chief. Ar. two mullets sa), Reginald, 8 Richard, 9 Sir Henry, 10 Sir Henry 11 (he married Margaret LUDHAM, who bore 3 inescutcheons), Sir Roger 12 (whose daughter Beatrix 13 was wife of Sir William THORP, their son William 14 THORP, married Margaret QUAPLADDE, whose arms, barry of six or. and az. a bend gules, are generally quartered with descendants of the Drinkston line – John 15 THORP, whose daughter Margaret 16 THORP married John BACON of Drinkston. He was the John 4 of Mr. TOWNSHEND’s pedigree, which begins with John, 1 married Cicilly HOO.

    The Hessett line from John, 3 by his second marriage with Julian BARDWELL, bore different arms, viz.: Ar. on a fesse engrailed between three inescutcheons gu. three mullets or. I think these inescutcheons came from Margaret LUDHAM, wife of Sir Henry 12 BACON, instead of the D’AVILIERs, to whose connection with the BACON family they have sometimes been attributed.

    Observação 4. – It will be seen in Mr. TOWNSHEND’s article that the great-grandfather of Nathaniel BACON of Virginia, the rebel, was first cousin to the celebrated Lord BACON, from whom Nathaniel 5 BACON, the leader of the rebellion, was fifth in descent through Sir James, 2 Nathaniel, 3 and Thomas 4 his father. Sir James 2 had another son, Rev. James, 3 who was father of Col. Nathaniel 4 BACON of Virginia, who, I suppose, may, in Mr. SHATTUCK’s nomenclature (REG. i. 355-9), be termed the cousin-uncle of his namesake.

    The numbers indicating generations in this and the following note, begin with the Lord Keeper Nicholas and his brother James.

    Observação V. – Foster, in the “Register of Admissions to Gray’s Inn, 1521-1881,” p. 29, states that Edward 2 BACON “was one of five sons, who with his five sons were all members of Gray’s Inn.” o first Nathaniel 2 of the family was his brother, Sir Nathaniel 2 BACON of Stiffkey, Knight, whose first wife was Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas GRESHAM of London, Knight, the founder of the Royal Exchange. Another brother, Sir Nicholas 2 BACON of Redgrave, Bart., was the first Baronet ever created in England, May 22, 1611. The cost of this honor was £1095. Simple knighthood had become a pretence for the exaction of penalties and fees, yet the title was eagerly sought for by men of wealth, and conferred so generally that persons of high character preferred the payment of fines for non-acceptance of the honor! The names of BACON and TOWNSHEND can be found in such a list. James I. knighted 240 while on his way from Scotland to England, July 23, 1603 he knighted 400 in one day, 900 the first year, and 2333 during his reign. This Sir Nicholas 2 BACON, Bart., was father of Nathaniel 3 BACON, the artist of Culford. Edward’s 2 half brothers were Anthony 2 and Sir Francis 2 BACON, the Philosopher – usually styled Lord BACON, but whose real title was Francis, Baron Verulam and Viscount St. Albans. These were the five sons of Sir Nicholas 1 BACON, the Lord Keeper.

    Edward 2 BACON’s third son Nathaniel 3 was recorder of Ipswich and Bury St. Edmunds, and was the distinguished republican writer of CROMWELL’s time, whose principal work is referred to by Mr. TOWNSHEND. […]


    Assista o vídeo: . History. Bacons Rebellion