Bacon's Rebellion: Mere Insurrection or Abortive Revolution?

8/3/2019 Bacon's Rebellion: Mere Insurrection or Abortive Revolution?

1/22

BACONS REBELLION:MERE INSURRECTIONOR ABORTIVEREVOLUTION?

BY MICHAEL SCHEARER

RESEARCHAND WRITING SKILLS

DR. GENTILE-FORD

FINAL PAPER

DECEMBER 10, 1996


2/22

Schearer 2

Students of history often think of the American Revolution

in terms of the causes of the outbreak of war in 1775: the

Stamp, Sugar and Quartering Acts, the Boston Tea party, and the

Intolerable Acts of 1774. The ideas of oppressive taxation,

taxation without representation, restraints on trade and limited

freedoms, all factors which precipitated important political

reforms, were surely on the minds of colonial revolutionaries at

the time.

However, a small but heated debate has transpired over a

series of events that took place in 1676 referred to as Bacons

Rebellion. Taking its name from its leader Nathaniel Bacon, the

rebellion is usually considered the first popular uprising of

organized resistance in colonial America. The debate continues

over whether Bacons Rebellion had democratic aims or was simply

an illegal attempt to seize land and power in Virginia. Quite

possibly, the American Revolution may not have started in

Concord and Lexington in 1775, but almost one hundred years

earlier in Virginia, by Nathaniel Bacon. The political reforms

of Bacons Rebellion, as those of the American Revolution, layed

the groundwork for democracy.

In 1767 in the English colony of Virginia, violence erupted

between planters and frontier Indians. The violence claimed the

lives of numerous colonists and Indians. Nathaniel Bacon

assumed leadership against the Indians because it appeared as if


3/22

Schearer 3

Governor William Berkeley was unwilling to provide safety for

the colonists. Bacons unauthorized Indian campaign had begun.

His main targets were the Occaneechees and the Pamunkeys.

Governor Berkeley then raised a force against Bacon, who

swiftly pushed Berkeley out of Jamestown (capital of Virginia)

to Accomack, across the Chesapeake. On May 10, Bacon was

proclaimed a rebel by Berkeley for his unauthorized violence

against the Indians.

In the midst of the rebellion (June 5 to 25), the House of

Burgesses met at Jamestown at passed a series of political

reforms and corrected perceived abuses in the colonial and

county governments. During this period Bacon was captured, but

begged for a pardon and commission. Berkeley promised both, but

reneged on the commission until Bacon returned with a force of

six hundred armed men. Berkeley bared his chest and invited

Bacon to shoot him, assuming Bacon had come for his life. But

Bacon did no such thing, and marched off in search of the

Indians after receiving his commission.

Soon after leaving Jamestown, Bacon was again declared a

rebel. During the next few months, Bacon fought Berkeley for

control of Virginia. By September 19 Bacon had returned to

Jamestown, and captured and burned it. Within six weeks Bacon

passed away, leaving the rebellion with no charismatic leader as

Bacon had been. The rebellion was essentially over.


4/22

Schearer 4

Historians have been torn over the true meaning of the

events that took place during the summer of 1676. Some have

interpreted Bacons Rebellion as a revolt against tyranny with

democratic intentions. Others believe Bacons actions were a

lawless attempt to expand private property at the expense of the

Secondary sources on Bacons Rebellion are relatively rare.

Some secondary materials help to mirror the division that has

emerged over the interpretation of Bacons Rebellion. The

prominent nineteenth century historian George Bancroft, writer

of History of the United States, argues that Bacons Rebellion

was a prologue to the American Revolution a century later. The

causes of Bacons Rebellion, Bancroft believes, were parallel to

those which caused the American Revolution.1

By all accounts, only two full length books have been

authored on the subject. Thomas J. Wertenbakers Torchbearer of

the Revolution: The Story of Bacons Rebellion and Its Leader,

by its obvious title, proclaims Bacon as a hero and martyr for

democracy. By exploring the motives lead to the, Wertenbaker

argues that Bacon championed the cause of freedom and has never

received his proper place in history.2

1

George Bancroft, History of the United States, vol. 2

(Boston: Charles Bowen, 1837), 213-234, reprinted in Bacons

Rebellion: Prologue to the Revolution?, 33-42.2

Thomas J. Wertenbaker, Torchbearer of the Revolution: The

Story of Bacons Rebellion and Its Leader(Gloucester, Mass.:

P. Smith, 1965).


5/22

Schearer 5

The second work, Wilcomb E. Washburns Governor and the

Rebel: A History of Bacons Rebellion in Virginia, dismisses

Wertenbakers nationalistic approach. Washburn argues that the

rebellion was an attempt by Bacon and other landowners to expand

their holdings at the expense of frontier Indians. Through an

analysis of a significant amount of material written by Bacons

contemporaries, Washburn maintains that Bacons Rebellion had no

significant democratic ends; rather it existed out of social and

economic conditions, not political as Wertenbaker asserts.3

Another secondary source written with a nationalistic

fervor is Mary H. Flournoys Essays: Historical & Critical

entitled Bacons Rebellion. Flournoy contends that Bacon was a

hero and patriot, and ranked among others like William Wallace

of Scotland and John Hampden of England.4

Other writers tend to give less faith to patriotism and

more to economic and social conditions. Among them were Philip

Alexander Bruce, who argued that Virginias depressed economic

conditions were an important cause of the rebellion. The

nineteenth-century lecturer and writer John Fiske contends that

class warfare in seventeenth-century Virginia led to the

3

Wilcomb E. Washburn, Governor and the Rebel: A History of

Bacons Rebellion in Virginia (New York: Norton, 1972).4

Mary H. Flournoy, Essays: Historical & Critical (Freeport,

N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1967), 11-21.


6/22

Schearer 6

uprising. Bernard Bailyn, a mid-twentieth century historian,

makes similar claims as Fiske. Bailyn sees a power struggle

among social classes as the primary cause of the rebellion.5

Bacons Rebellion also proves to be a popular source of

fiction for many writers. Bertha Monica Stearns writes that

many fictitious works have tended to glorify Bacon as a hero,

giving credence to Wertenbakers analysis. While Wertenbakers

primary contention has been altered by Washburn, writers of

Bacons Rebellion fiction have remained loyal to the

nationalistic Bacon.6

Both Wertenbaker and Washburn (as well as their supporters)

appear to make compelling arguments for their respective cases.

Both accounts are fairly well researched and documented. What

appears to exist in the case of Bacons Rebellion is what Edmund

Randolph first explains. While most everyone could agree on the

facts of the rebellion, their interpretations could be

5

Philip Alexander Bruce, History of Virginia, vol. 3

(Chicago: American Historical Society, 1924), 183-195; John

Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, vol. 2 (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company, 1897), 97-106; Bernard Bailyn, Politics and

Social Structure in Virginia, Seventeenth-Century America, ed.

James Morton Smith (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press, 1959), 98-106; all reprinted in Bacons Rebellion:

Prologue to the Revolution? ed. John B. Frantz. Problems in

American Civilization, vol. 3. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath

and Company, 1969., 59-75.6

Bertha Monica Stearns, The Literary Treatment of Bacons

Rebellion in Virginia, The Virginia Magazine of History and

BiographyLII (July 1944): 171-179, reprinted in Bacons

Rebellion: Prologue to the Revolution?, 52-58.


7/22

Schearer 7

different, similar to the events and interpretations of the

French Revolution.7

However, both of the major accounts lack a certain respect

for their failure to include a sufficient analysis of the laws

passed by the House of Burgesses during the summer of 1676.

Wertenbaker, who could surely buttress his nationalistic claim

with a cogent examination, devotes less than a page to such

analysis. Similarly, Washburn uses two pages to quote the laws

and less than a page to analyze them. He dismisses their

significance with no real explanation. Only George Bancroft

makes an attempt to analyze the laws, and in that attempt he

fails to underscore their significance.8

Certainly, therefore, it should reason that, along with

Wertenbaker and Washburns traditional primary sources, only

a detailed and explicit analysis of the laws passed during the

summer of 1676 would help to do proper justice to Mr. Bacon and

the role of Bacons Rebellion in American history.

Further, some bias, or at least the potential for it,

exists on the part of Washburn. His analysis of the causes of

Bacons Rebellion are strongly based on the writings of one

Robert Beverly. What Washburn neglects to mention is that

7

Washburn, 13.8

Bancroft, History of the United States, reprinted in

Bacons Rebellion: Prologue to the Revolution?, 33-42.


8/22

Schearer 8

Beverlys father was one of Governor Berkeleys strongest

supporters. While this does not disqualify Beverlys account,

it should be looked on with careful evaluation, as Louis B.

Wright notes in his introduction to Beverlys published works.9

Washburn also too easily dismisses primary source material

which contradicts his thesis, virtually refusing to analyze it

for its supposed bias. A good example is Thomas Mathews The

Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacons Rebellion, which

Washburn fails to properly scrutinize for two seemingly

unsatisfactory reasons. First, Mathew was a Burgess with Bacon

(which would seem to lend at least some faith to his account),

and secondly, that it contradicts with Beverlys account of the

causes of the rebellion. Surely, if Washburns account fails to

reflect the potential bias in Beverlys account, Washburns

utilization of Beverly to dismiss Mathews work cannot be

justified.10

Primary sources, especially those easily dismissed by

Washburn, must be given a second look by students of history. A

new look at existing primary sources and a first sincere review

of the laws of the House of Burgesses can only further our

9

Robert Beverly, The History and Present State of Virginia,

ed. Louis B. Wright (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press, 1947), xxvii.10

Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia: 1659/60-

1693, ed. H.R. McIlwaine (Richmond: Colonial Press, 1914),

microfiche; Washburn, 3-4.


9/22

Schearer 9

understanding of the events of three centuries ago. By applying

this new approach, one can only hope to find the elusive answers

to Bacons Rebellion.

The causes of Bacons Rebellion were Indian threats,

oppressive taxes, restraints on trade, and mismanagement and

abuse in the government. The causes often create as much debate

as the interpretation of the rebellion itself. However, it

remains apparent that the causes of Bacons Rebellion expanded

well beyond the ambition and desire to expand land-holdings at

the expense of frontier Indians. Writing in the midst of the

rebellion, Bacon himself explains his reasons in his Manifesto

Concerning the Present Troubles in Virginia. He emphasizes the

problem that the frontier English had with Indians, who were

enemies...Robbers and Theeves and Invaders... He also claims

Governor Berkeley set up and illegal beaver trade monopoly with

the Indians.11 The significance of the Indian problem is

demonstrated by the concerted effort by Bacon to explain each

and every grievance concerning the Indians.

Thomas Mathew confirms the significance of the Indian

problem that Bacon mentions, in his The Beginning, Progress,

and Conclusion of Bacons Rebellion. He writes how his

11

Nathaniel Bacon, Manifesto Concerning the Present Troubles

in Virginia, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

vol. I (1894): 55-58, reprinted in Bacons Rebellion: Prologue

to the Revolution?, 7-9.


10/22

Schearer 10

herdsman Robert Hen and an Indian were killed by the Doeg

Indians. He also suggests that the Governors monopoly trading

with the Indians may have helped delay the Governors response

Indian threats.12

Finally, a frontier planters petition to Governor Berkeley

in the spring of 1676 virtually begged for a commission to be

granted to defend against the Indians. The planters complained

of murders, barbarous and inhuman treatment, and cruel torture.

They speak of planters being burned alive and fear of leaving

their homes. This document only further confirms the serious

threat that Indians played.13

Other factors helped to precipitate the rebellion, and

Bacon does not limit himself to the Indian threats. He cites,

among other things, government oppression, excessive taxation,

restraints on trade, and spounges [that] have suckt up the

Publique Treasure.14 Most of these are confirmed by Robert

Beverly, who, writing just after the turn of the century in

12

Thomas Mathew, The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of

Bacons Rebellion in Virginia, in the years 1675 & 1676,

(Rochester: G.P. Humphrey, 1897), microfiche, 8.13

England, Public Records Office, Frontier Planters PetitionGovernor Berkeley to Commission Volunteers Against the Indians,

(Spring 1676), C.O. 1/36 fol. 139, reprinted in The Old Dominion

in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia,

1606-1689, ed. Warren M. Billings (Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press, 1975), 207.

14 Bacon, Manifesto, reprinted in Bacons Rebellion:

Prologue to the Revolution?, 7-9.


11/22

Schearer 11

England, made similar conclusions about the cause of the

rebellion. Among the reasons he cites are restraints on trade,

caused by Parliaments Navigation Acts, and the resulting low

price of tobacco. He also considers excessive taxation (as a

result of splitting Virginia into proprietaries, contrary to the

colonys charter) and the Indian threats. However, he discards

government oppression by claiming Berkeley was entirely loved,

and had unanimously chosen; a Gentleman...against whom...there

had never been one single Complaint.15

Causes of the rebellion written in 1677 are similar to

those found during the rebellion. Another source of causes is

the complaints submitted by counties to the Royal Commissioners.

Several counties, among them Surry, Northampton, Rappahannock

(Sitterbourne Parish), and Charles City, submitted grievances.16

Many of these grievances were specifically incorporated into the

laws passed by the House of Burgesses during the summer. Among

those cited by the various counties are the difficulty in

replacing vestries, difficulty in obtaining public records,

15

Beverly, 74-75. It is important to note that Beverlys

father was a strong adherent of Governor Berkeley, and thus not

only his praise of Berkeley must be carefully understood, butthe potential for bias exists.16

After the conclusion of Bacons Rebellion (January 1677), a

Royal Commission of Investigation sought to inquire about the

causes of the rebellion. The investigators asked each county

for a list of grievances. Each county attempted to survey its

people for the prevailing views on the rebellions causes. The

grievances by county are a result of that Commissions request.


12/22

Schearer 12

availability of appeal in legal cases, and term limits for

sheriffs.17

But the grievances are not limited to small complaints.

Specifically, Charles City County charges Berkeley with acting

contrary to the law, failing to protect the frontiersmen from

Indian threats, and government oppression.18

The report of the Royal Commissioners, composed of the

various county grievances, cites what are apparently the most

widespread complaints among the colonists. The Murders,

Rapines and outrages of the Indians became soe much the more

Barbarous, fierce and frequent... The Commissioners also cite

oppressive taxes for the erection of useless forts and the

monopoly trade Berkeley set up with the Indians. Since after

publick Proclamation prohibiting all trade with the Indians

(they complaine) hee privately gave commission to some of his

Friendes to truck with them...19

The major factors which precipitated Bacons Rebellion are

clear from the various sources. Among those which stand out the

most are Indian threats, oppressive taxes, restraints on trade,

17

Journals of the House of Burgesses, 99-101.18

Charles City County Grievances, The Virginia Magazine of

History and Biography, vol. III (1896): 132-147, reprinted in

Bacons Rebellion: Prologue to the Revolution?, 12-22.19

Narratives of the Insurrections: 1675-1690, ed. Charles M.

Andrews, Original Narratives of Early American History (New

York: Barnes & Noble, 1943), 108-109.


13/22

Schearer 13

and mismanagement in the government. However, the small but

surely not insignificant complaints about term limits, public

records and the courts. The grievances, as cited by Bacon, the

various counties, and others of that time, are important because

they show where the colonists wanted change. The grievances

show a growing desire for important political reforms in

Virginia.

Some have attempted to identify Bacon as simply a lawless

rebel, attacking Indians and seizing land because of a few

frontier skirmishes. If Bacon would not have died (presumably

from dysentery), it would have been highly likely that he would

have been placed on trial, specifically (at least) for his

actions against the Indians. However, without a written

constitution and legal underpinnings, it is difficult to

conclude with a reasonable amount of a certainty that Bacon

would have been found guilty. The establishment of some sort of

legal reasoning would have to exist to examine his actions.

However, it appears Bacon was not a lawless rebel as some

would attempt to identify him. A simple legal understanding of

the situation appears to clear Bacon of all charges that may

have been precipitated by his actions against Indians. The

first important document is Bacons Submission, where he was

granted a full pardon for his actions from the beginning of the


14/22

Schearer 14

rebellion (March 1676) to June 9, 1676.20 Since he did not have

a commission to act against the Indians prior to that time, he

was in effect acting against the law. But the pardon forgives

those actions. Bacons commission was obtained on June 24,

1676, allowing him to conduct raids against the Indians by the

legal authority of Berkeley. Since there are no charges against

Bacon after June 9 and before June 24, it appears as if Bacons

actions against the Indians are not prosecutable and not

punishable.

Bacons seizure and burning of Jamestown is a different

case. If Bacons actions to seize and burn Jamestown cannot be

justified, one could say te same about the American Revolution a

century later. That, precisely, is the concept of the

revolution and why Bacons Rebellion is a prologue. A

revolution, by definition, cannot be legal because it attempts

to overthrow an established government or break away as the

colonists did in 1776. History does not judge the legality of

the American Revolution because it succeeded. The same cannot

be said of Bacons Rebellion.

One of the least scrutinized set of sources relating to

Bacons Rebellion are the laws passed by the House of Burgesses

during the summer of 1676. An examination of these laws sends a

20

England, Bacons Submission, Coventry Papers, LXXVII,

fol. 116, reprinted in A Documentary History of Virginia, 273-

274.


15/22

Schearer 15

clear message about what was on the minds of Bacon and his

followers.

The meetings are often labeled Bacons Assembly for his

supposed influence. In fact, Bacon was elected a Burgess from

Henrico County, and the majority of the laws passed deal

specifically with those problems encountered by Bacon and his

followers: Indian threats, oppressive taxes, restraints on

trade, and mismanagement in the government. In this light, the

laws should be seen as solutions and reforms to problems in the

colony and Governor Berkeleys policies. Even further, the laws

should viewed in context to the causes of Bacons Rebellion, as

previously discussed.21

The importance of the Indian threats cannot be underscored

enough by the first three acts of the Assembly, which

specifically dealt with the Indians. Act I named ...Nathaniell

Bacon, junr. Esq. genll. and commander in cheife of the force

raised... against the Indians. It also provided for a force of

one thousand men, as well as any volunteers that wanted to

participate. Act II was a specific blow to the illegal trading

monopoly Berkeley had established with frontier Indians (hence

his failure to provide protection against them). The act

prohibited all trade with the Indians, except those deemed

21

The laws, if they are to be viewed as solutions to problems

in the colony and Berkeleys policies, should only confirm the

causes of the rebellion that have already been discussed.


16/22

Schearer 16

friendly. Act III helped to pay for the Indian war, by

confiscating all land deserted by the Indians, ...dispose to

the use of the publique towards defraying the charge of this

warr.22

The next set of laws proved to be the most intriguing

statutes devised in one hundred years. They are important

political reforms which are similar to those a century later.

While they appear to be relatively simple measures, the

fundamental concepts they involved cannot be overlooked.

Act V provided term limits for sheriff, eliminated plural

officeholding, regulated fees for various dealings with the

local government, and penalties for bribes. The colonists saw

...abuses and other ill management and administration

of...offices... and decided that reform was the only solution.23

Again, Act VI is a relatively simple measure. It begins by

complaining that ...the long continuance of vestries in

severall parishes... was a problem that needed to be remedied.

Act VI began to break up the church aristocracy because it

limited the terms of vestries to three years.24 This could even

22

The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of all the Lawsof Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the

year 1619, ed. William Waller Hening, vol. 1 (Richmond: R. & W.

& G. Bartow, 1823), microfiche, 341-352.

23 Ibid., 353-355.

24 Ibid., 356.


17/22

Schearer 17

be interpreted as the first musings of the separation of church

and state, a truly radical concept for seventeenth-century

Virginia.

Limited suffrage was attained by Acts VI and VII. In

addition to breaking up the church aristocracy, it gave the

right to vote for vestries to freemen (where it had previously

been limited to freeholders). The right to vote for freemen was

extended to voting for burgesses in Act VII.25

Probably the most radical measure was Act VIII, in response

to the complaint that:

Whereas the justices of the county courts of this

country have accustommarily sett and annually laid a rate

or sessment upon the people of their counties, in and under

the name of their countie levie, and whereas it hath been

suspected by divers persons that under colour thereof many

sums have bin raised in divers counties, for the interest

of particular persons to the prejudice of the said

counties...26

Act VIII provided for the election of representatives to vote

with the justices of the county courts. The unmistakable

significance of this act alone cannot be neglected: the

Virginians asserted their right to tax themselves, complaining

of taxation without representation. This revolutionary concept,

often limited and confined to the American Revolution a century

later, is clearly defined by this law.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., 357.


18/22

Schearer 18

Other acts, while certainly not as radical, are important

and should not be included: the elimination of tax exemptions

for Ministers and Councilors, limiting tax collections to

specific times of the year, and correcting government abuses.27

The laws of Bacons Assembly are significant because they

demonstrate solutions of the people to the problems of the

government. The laws were important political reforms which

might seem absurdly obvious of the nature to twentieth-century

scholars, but for 1676 Virginia? Not only do the laws help to

confirm the previously described causes, but they lead to the

addition of taxation without representation, a truly radical

notion in seventeenth-century Virginia, as another cause of

Bacons Rebellion.

The problems of 18th-century colonists which led to

important political reforms are generally accepted: oppressive

taxation, taxation without representation, restraints on trade

and limited freedoms. The causes of Bacons Rebellion were

oppressive taxation, taxation without representation, Indian

threats and the resulting limited freedoms, and restraints on

trade caused by the Navigation Acts. Therefore, the obvious

conclusion is that those factors which precipitated Bacons

Rebellion are strikingly similar to those which caused the

American Revolution a century later.

27 Ibid., 358-365.


19/22

Schearer 19

If students of history chose to call our Founding Fathers

revolutionaries, as no doubt they would, than it must be

concluded that they cannot ignore Nathaniel Bacon and his

followers in their praise. Not only did the American Revolution

and Bacons Rebellion have similar causes, but the remedies

proposed and passed during Bacons Assembly present a clear

case that the rebellion was not simply a social and economic one.

Government mismanagement, government oppression and the

suppression of freedoms and liberties were among the complaints

of Virginians and they chose to fight back. The political

implications of Bacons Rebellion can not and will not be

ignored.

Bacons Rebellion did not produce a democracy, and neither

did the American Revolution. But important political reforms

occured during both periods which set the United States on a

path toward democracy. Neither Bacons Rebellion nor the

American Revolution took place without unspeakable violence on

both sides of the battlefield, but few revolutions ever do. To

claim that Bacons Rebellion had democratic ends seems tenuous.

Similarly, a simple fight over land does not stand up in the

face of a preponderence of evidence otherwise.

Nathaniel Bacon fought not only against Indian threats, but

against the oppressive rule of Sir William Berkeley. He fought

for important political reforms and principles that many today


20/22

Schearer 20

take for granted. He fought for America before anyone knew what

America was.

Some may argue Bacon deserves a place in history that has

long been denied him. But Bacon should be viewed as the

torchbearer of the American Revolution because the political

reforms he advocated are strikingly similar to those during the

American Revolution.

Bacons Rebellion, as a series of events in American

history, should therefore be viewed as the prologue to the

American Revolution, a century earlier. The War of Independence

was fought for the same principles and the same political

reforms. Indeed, the American Revolution did not start in

Concord and Lexington in 1775, but almost one hundred years

earlier in Virginia, by Nathaniel Bacon. The political reforms

of Bacons Rebellion, as those of the American Revolution, layed

the groundwork for democracy.

There is no monument, no statue, no memorial honoring the

first martyr for American independence. There is no tribute, no

recognition, no homage paid to Americas first patriot. There

is but one man in American history that deserves such praise but

has failed to receive it. He is Nathaniel Bacon.


21/22

Schearer 21

WORKS CITED

Bacons Rebellion, ed. Robert Middlekauff. Berkeley Series

in American History. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.

Bacons Rebellion: Prologue to the Revolution? ed. John B.

Frantz. Problems in American Civilization, vol. 3.

Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1969.

Beverly, Robert. The History and Present State of Virginia,

ed. Louis B. Wright. Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press, 1947.

Burk, John. The History of Virginia from its First Settlement

to the Present, vol. 2. Peterburg, Virginia: Dickson &

Pescud, 1805, microfiche.

Flournoy, Mary H. Essays: Historical & Critical. Freeport,

N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1967.

Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia: 1659/60-1693,

ed. H.R. McIlwaine. Richmond: Colonial Press, 1914,

microfiche.

Mathew, Thomas. The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of

Bacons Rebellion in Virginia, in the years 1675 &

1676. Rochester: G.P. Humphrey, 1897, microfiche.

More News from Virginia: Being a True and Full Relation ofall Occurrences in that Countrey, since the Death of Nath.

Bacon. With an account of thirteen persons that have been

tryed and Executed for their Rebellion there. London:

Printed for William Harris, next door to the Turnstile

without Moor-gate, 1677, microfiche.

Narratives of the Insurrections: 1675-1690, ed. Charles M.

Andrews. Original Narratives of Early American History.

New York: Barnes & Noble, 1943.

The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A DocumentaryHistory of Virginia, 1606-1689, ed. Warren M. Billings.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975.

The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of all the Laws of

Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the

year 1619, ed. William Waller Hening, vol. 1. Richmond: R.

& W. & G. Bartow, 1823, microfiche.


22/22

Schearer 22

Stearns, Bertha Monica. The Literary Treatment of Bacons

Rebellion in Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of History

and BiographyLII (July 1944): 171-179.

Strange News from Virginia: Being a full and true Account

of the Life and Death of Nathanael Bacon Esquire, Who was

the only Cause and Original of all the late Troubles in

that Country. With a full Relation of all the Accidents

which have happened in the late War there between the

Christians and Indians. London: Printed for William

Harris, next door to the Turnstile without Moor-gate, 1677,

microfiche.

Tracts and Other Papers, relating principally to the Origin,

Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North

America, from the Discovery of the Country to the year

1776, ed. Peter Force. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter

Smith, 1963.

Washburn, Wilcomb E. Governor and the Rebel: A History of

Bacons Rebellion in Virginia. New York: Norton, 1972.

Webb, Stephen Saunders. 1676: The End of American

Independence. New York: Knopf, 1984.

Wertenbaker, Thomas J. Torchbearer of the Revolution: The

Story of Bacons Rebellion and Its Leader. Gloucester,

Mass.: P. Smith, 1965.

Bacon's Rebellion: Mere Insurrection or Abortive Revolution?

Documents

Transcript of Bacon's Rebellion: Mere Insurrection or Abortive Revolution?