Grantham now delivered Ingram, Colonel Langston, and other rebel officers to Berkeley, who at once pardoned them. He next went to Ingram's house, marched the garrison there down to Tindall's Point, took their arms, drums, and colors, and gave them the oath of allegiance. After the men had toasted the King and the governor, they gave three shouts and dispersed. We may judge the extent of Berkeley's elation at the collapse of the rebellion by the fact that he invited Ingram and Langston to dine with him on shipboard.

But Gregory Wakelett, one of the most active of the rebel leaders, was still at large with a force of cavalry. So anxious was Berkeley to secure his submission that he promised him, not only his pardon, but part of the wampum his men had taken from the Indians. So he too "declared for the King." When other posts on the James and the York were surrendered or abandoned, Lawrence, Drummond, and Whaley, with a force of several hundred men, were all that were left of the rebel army. They well knew that for them there would be no mercy. But as they retreated into New Kent their men began to fall off until they were entirely deserted.

Lawrence and Whaley with three others determined to risk torture at the hands of the Indians rather than fall into the hands of the governor. They were last seen on the extreme frontier, pushing on through the snow into the forest. We shall probably never know their fate. They may have died of hunger and exposure, they may have been killed by the Indians; it is barely possible that they found refuge in one of the northern colonies.

But though the fate of Lawrence and Whaley is shrouded in mystery, that of many others is known. The enraged governor drew up a long list of those he had marked for the gallows. When the reports of Berkeley's savagery reached Charles II, he is said to have remarked "That old fool has hanged more men in that naked country than I have for the murder of my father."

Drummond was found hiding in Chickahominy Swamp and brought before the governor at King's Creek. The vindictive old man made a low bow, saying, "Mr. Drummond, you are very welcome. I am more glad to see you than any man in Virginia. Mr. Drummond, you shall be hanged in half an hour." However, he decided to give him at least the pretence of a trial. But his ring was snatched from his finger, his clothes taken from his back, and he was kept overnight in irons. The next morning he was forced to walk, still in irons, in bitterly cold weather, all the way to Middle Plantation. There, after a brief hearing, in which he was not allowed to defend himself, he was hurried away to the scaffold. His widow and five children were driven out of their house and forced to flee into the woods and swamps, where they came near starvation.

When Anthony Arnold, who was one of the sturdiest supporters of the rebellion, was brought into court, he boldly defended the right of the people to resist oppression. "It is well known that I have no kindness for Kings," he told the court. "They have no rights but what they got by conquest and the sword, and he that can by force of the sword deprive them of it has as good and just a title to it as the King himself. If the King should deny to do me right I would make no more to sheathe my sword in his heart or bowels than of my mortal enemies." The court was sorry that the country was not "capable of executing the sentence peculiar to traitors according to the laws and custom of England." This was to hang the victim for several minutes, cut him down when still alive, rip him open, cut off his head, and then quarter him. So they contented themselves with hanging him in chains, "to be a more remarkable example than the rest."

The executions continued for several months. Thomas Young, James Wilson, Henry Page, and Thomas Hall were executed on January 12, 1677; William Drummond and John Baptista on January 20; James Crews, William Cookson, and John Digbie on January 24; Giles Bland and Anthony Arnold on March 8; John Isles and Richard Pomfrey on March 15; and John Whitson and William Scarburgh on March 16. There is no telling how many Berkeley might have hanged had not the Assembly asked him to stop.

The people were deeply angered at the governor's brutality. Governor Notley thought that "were there any person bold and courageous in Virginia that dared venture his neck, the commons of Virginia would enmire themselves as deep in rebellion as ever they did in Bacon's time." And for months in hundreds of humble cottages men were on the lookout for the return of Lawrence, ready to seize their arms and follow him in a new uprising.

There was no hope of relief from the new Assembly which met at Green Spring, February 20, 1677. William Sherwood said that most of the Burgesses were the governor's "own creatures and chose by his appointments." Jeffreys testified that they had been "not so legally nor freely chosen," and that the "Council, Assembly, and people" were "overawed" by Berkeley. That Berkeley allowed such an Assembly to re-enact in substantially the same form several of Bacon's laws, shows that he was not entirely deaf to the rumblings of a new rebellion.

In the meanwhile King Charles had appointed Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, Sir John Berry, and Colonel Francis Moryson commissioners to go to Virginia to inquire into the people's grievances. At the same time he ordered Berkeley to return to England "with all possible speed." During his absence Jeffreys was to act in his place with the title of Lieutenant Governor. With them came the redcoats.

No sooner had the commissioners arrived than Berkeley became involved in a bitter quarrel with them. When they told him to obey the King's orders to come to England, he made excuses to linger until he had taken his revenge on the rebels. Jeffreys brought with him a proclamation pardoning all the rebels with the sole exception of Bacon, but when Berkeley published it he had the audacity to exempt from it not only two men who had died during the war, fourteen who had already been executed, and twenty-six others whom he mentioned by name, but all those "now in prison for rebellion or under bond for the same." Of those in prison and not mentioned by name in the proclamation Robert Stoakes, John Isles, Richard Pomfrey, John Whitson, and William Scarburgh were later executed.

Berkeley was also determined to make good his personal losses from the estates of the rebels. "I have lost at least L8000 sterling in houses, goods, plantation, servants, and cattle, and never expect to be restored to a quarter of it," he complained. The rebels left "me not one grain of corn, not one cow.... I have not L5 in the world." So he, Beverley, Philip Ludwell, and others of the "loyal party," were furious when Jeffreys insisted that they stop breaking open and plundering the houses and barns of the former rebels, and take their complaints to the courts.

For three months Berkeley postponed his departure, but at last, on April 25, he went on board the Rebecca, the vessel which had been of such vital importance to him during the rebellion, and set sail for England. But he was now a very ill man. "He came here alive but ... unlike to live," wrote Secretary Coventry. He died on July 13, 1677, and was interred at Twickenham.

With the death of Berkeley a main cause of discontent and insubordination in Virginia was removed. Though Culpeper and Effingham, who succeeded in turn to the governorship, made onslaughts on the liberties of the people, they acted, not from any overwhelming desire to make themselves absolute, but because they reflected the spirit of the Second Stuart Despotism. But this came to an end with the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, and from that time to the passage of the Stamp Act, the people of Virginia had no need to take arms to defend their liberties. For decades after Bacon's Rebellion, the King and the governors were wary of bearing down upon them too hard for fear of causing another uprising. For the time they had learned their lesson. And had they not forgotten it after the lapse of a century, there might have been no American Revolution.

When one reviews the tragic events in Virginia during the fateful year of 1676, one may well ask: "Would the rebellion have occurred had there been no Indian war?" Possibly not. Berkeley was aging and within a few years he might have died, and a less despotic governor taken his place. Had the planters waited, their lot would have been bettered by the rising price of tobacco. On the other hand, it is possible that if the war had not touched off the rebellion something else would have done so.

Would the Indian war have started the rebellion had the mass of the people had no other grievances? This seems unlikely. When the news of the uprising reached Charles II he thought it past belief that "so considerable a body of men, without the least grievance or oppression, should rise up in arms and overturn the government." And so it would have been past belief had there been no grievance or oppression.

Had the dispute between Bacon and Berkeley as to how the war should be conducted been all there was at issue, the people would hardly have risen in wild anger to overthrow the government, drive the governor into exile, defy the King, make ready to resist his forces, and risk death on the gallows. Philip Ludwell said that the rebel army was made up of men "whose condition ... was such that a change could not make worse." Had not the English trade laws, misgovernment, and injustice practically eliminated the middle class there would have been hundreds to whom the maintaining of law and order was the first consideration. They would have supported Berkeley's Indian policy, however unwise, rather than risk their estates. As it was, the governor found himself practically deserted. Never before was there "so great a madness as this base people are generally seized with," he complained.

No one will contend that the firing on Fort Sumter was the cause of the War between the States, or that the murder of the Archduke Ferdinand was the cause of the first World War. These were but the matches thrown into the powder kegs. The kegs had been filling up for many years, and sooner or later explosions were inevitable. So in Virginia had there been no powder keg, the lighted match of the Indian war would probably have flickered and burnt itself out.

In most great upheavals men have mixed motives. Of course Bacon and his men rose in arms partly to protect themselves and their families from the Indians. They said so repeatedly. But we have abundant evidence from both sides that they were determined also to put an end to oppression and misgovernment. "As for Bacon's designs of prosecuting the Indian war it is most evident that he never intended anything more in it than a covert under which to act all his villanies," wrote Philip Ludwell. "If these had not been the chief motives they had certainly understanding enough to have led them a fairer way to presenting their grievances than on their swords' points."

The Council, in a long statement, written when the uprising was but a few weeks old, declared that Bacon's "only aim has always been and is nothing else but of total subversion of the government." Thomas Ludwell and Robert Smith, who at the time were in England, on receiving reports of the rebellion, said that when the Indian raids began "some idle and poor people made use of the present conjunction for their ill designs." William Sherwood, an eyewitness of what took place, testified that "it is most true that the great oppressions and abuses of the people by the governor's arbitrary will hath been the cause of the late troubles there." Colonel Jeffreys, who was commissioned by the King to investigate the causes of the uprising, put the blame, not on the Indian war, but upon Philip Ludwell and Robert Beverley, who "were the great advisors of Berkeley, and as it may be proved were the chief causes of the miseries that befell the country in the rebellion."

Governor Notley, of Maryland, stated that "whatever palliations the great men of Virginia may use at the Council board in England ... yet you may be sure ... much ... if not every tittle of the accusations against them is truth." If the new governor, Colonel Herbert Jeffreys should "build his proceedings upon the old foundation, 'tis neither him nor all his Majesty's soldiers in Virginia will either satisfy or rule those people. They have been strangely dealt with by their former magistracy." Just two days later Nicholas Spencer wrote that though the rebellion was over, "the putrid humors of our unruly inhabitants are not so allayed but that they do frequently vent themselves ... and were they not awed by the overruling hand of his Majesty would soon express themselves by violent acts."

As for Bacon, he had been in command of the frontier forces but a few days when he sent messengers to every part of the colony to blast Berkeley's misgovernment. The Council reported to the Board of Trade that he had traduced the governor "with many false and scandalous charges." Later, in manifesto after manifesto, Bacon assailed the corruption, the inefficiency, and the injustices of Berkeley's regime. "We appeal to the country itself what and of what nature their oppressions have been, and by what cabals ... carried on." By taking on himself "the sole nominating" of civil and military officers he had made himself master of the colony. He had permitted his favorites "to lay and impose what levies and impositions upon us they should or did please, which they for the most part converted to their own private lucre and gain." As for seeking relief by petitioning the Burgesses, he said: "Consider what hope there is of redress in appealing to the very persons our complaints do accuse."

Thomas Mathews tells us that it was "the received opinion in Virginia" that the Indian war was the excuse for Bacon's Rebellion rather than the cause. Since Mathews took part in the uprising and later wrote an account of it, he should know. He even goes so far as to say that it was Thomas Lawrence, not Bacon, who was chiefly responsible for the uprising. Bacon "was too young," he points out, "too much a stranger there, and of a disposition too precipitate to manage things to that length they were carried, had not thoughtful Mr. Lawrence been at the bottom."

This man had his personal grievance, Mathews states, for he had been cheated out of a "considerable estate on behalf of a corrupt favorite." His wife kept a tavern at Jamestown, which gave him an opportunity to meet persons from all parts of the colony. So he filled their ears with complaints of the governor. Mathews himself had heard him suggest "some expedient not only to repair his great loss, but therewith to see those abuses rectified that the country was oppressed with through ... the forwardness, avarice, and French despotic methods of the governor." As for Bacon and his adherents, they "were esteemed as but wheels agitated by the weight" of Lawrence's resentments, after their rage had been raised to a high pitch by Berkeley's failure to put a stop to the effusions of blood by the Indians.

Lawrence had the hearty support of William Drummond, a Scotsman who also resided in Jamestown. Like Lawrence he had a grievance against Berkeley. In fact the governor was inclined to believe that he had been "the original cause of the whole rebellion." We know that Lawrence and Drummond stood at Bacon's elbow from the beginning to the end. The importance of the part they played may be gauged by the bitterness of Berkeley's resentment. "I so hate Drummond and Lawrence that though they could put the country in peace in my hands, I would not accept it from such villains," he declared.

But whatever was the role of these two men, whatever the part played by Bacon, the rebellion is a landmark in the development of self-government in Virginia. Though Bacon met an untimely death, though Drummond was led to the gallows, though Lawrence disappeared in the icy forest, their efforts were not in vain. They, and the thousands who supported them, had taught future governors that there was a limit to oppression beyond which they dare not go. The roar of their cannon proclaimed to the world that Virginians would resist to the end all attempts to deprive them of their heritage of English liberty.



ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

The opening to investigators of the Marquess of Bath Papers by the British Manuscripts Project has thrown new light on Bacon's Rebellion. There are several letters from Bacon to Berkeley and several from Berkeley to Bacon. They show that Berkeley went to England during the Civil War to fight for the King, that Bacon was related to Lady Berkeley, that Lady Berkeley was in England during most of the rebellion, and that she corresponded with Philip Ludwell.

The Bath Papers add to the already abundant evidence that Bacon fought partly to end misgovernment in Virginia. The evidence comes not only from Bacon's supporters but from Berkeley himself, Ludwell, and others.

Berkeley's letters explain why he did not hang Bacon when he had him in his power, why he dissolved the Long Assembly and called for a new election based on a widened franchise, why he evacuated the almost impregnable post of Jamestown. There are several revealing letters by Philip Ludwell.

Historians have long been acquainted with the county grievances collected by the King's commissioners. They are to be found in the British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, have now been transcribed by the Library of Congress and some have been published in the Virginia Magazine, Vols. II and III. The most detailed and probably the least prejudiced account of the rebellion is the True Narrative of the Rise, Progress and Cessation of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the commissioners. The only narrative we have of the transactions of the Assembly of June, 1676, by one of the members is Thomas Mathews' The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion, published in C.M. Andrews' Narratives of Insurrections and elsewhere. Important also are Bacon's Proceedings and Ingram's Proceedings, attributed to Mrs. Ann Cotton. Bacon's expedition to the Roanoke river, the defeat of the Susquehannocks, and the battle on Occaneechee Island are described in a document entitled "A Description of the Fight between the English and the Indians in May, 1676," published in the William and Mary Quarterly, Series 1, Vol. IX, pp. 1-4. The account given by the Council is in the Bath Papers.

W.W. Hening's Virginia Statutes at Large is a storehouse of information. It includes not only the laws of the Restoration period, but many official reports, among them "The Proclamation of Pardon of October 10, 1676," "Bacon's Submission", and the proceedings of some of the courts-martial. The details of the Susquehannock war in Maryland may be pieced together from the accounts by Thomas Mathews, the King's commissioners, Mrs. Cotton, and others. By the aid of an old pen-and-ink diagram of the Susquehannock fort, I have been able to locate the site, and Mrs. Alice L.L. Ferguson to uncover parts of it.

The "Dialogue between John Goode and Nathaniel Bacon," which is in the British Public Record Office, throws light on Bacon's plans to draw North Carolina and Maryland into his rebellion, and to resist the redcoats. Important also are the "Declaration of Thomas Swan and others on August 3, 1676", (GO1-37-42); Philip Ludwell's letters to Lady Berkeley and to Thomas Ludwell, and others (Bath Papers); the "Declaration of the People" (Bath Papers); "Grantham's Account" (Bath Papers); Berkeley's account of the rebellion written on board Sir John Berry's ship, February 2, 1677 (Bath Papers).

Among the secondary sources are Mary Newton Stanard, The Story of Bacon's Rebellion; Thomas J. Wertenbaker, Virginia Under the Stuarts; and Torchbearer of the Revolution; Philip Alexander Bruce, The Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, and The Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century; Wesley Frank Craven, The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century; John Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbors; John Burk, History of Virginia; Herbert L. Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century.

The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, the William and Mary Quarterly, 1st and 2d Series, and Tyler's Magazine have printed much material relating to the rebellion, and Dr. E.G. Swem's splendid index covering these volumes has greatly increased their value.



* * * * *



- Typographical errors corrected in text: Page 1: necesssary replaced with necessary -

THE END