Teaching my fourth-grader history today, it occurred to me that what we are seeing in recent events, predictably, parallels historical drama. I encourage you to draw your own conclusions about similarities between the recent 'Hutaree Militia's' plots/arrests and the famous 'Bacon's Rebellion' of 1676.
Bacon's Rebellion occurred one hundred years before our successful revolution against the most powerful military nation in the world. Many of you probably have heard of Bacon's Rebellion from middle school history, but do you actually recall what it was or why it was significant?
We are so detached from the seriousness of such "Rebellions", but I'm sure it was viewed just as audacious by the populace in 1676 as today's "home-grown" terrorists and right-wing militias are viewed today. I have Facebook friends commenting on the horror of these 'crazy people'. I challenge you to take a hard look at the dynamics of the situation and in the spirit of compassion, examine what may be in the minds and hearts of the Hutaree Militia that would prompt them to take such drastic action.
Bacon and his followers were planters situated along the "frontier" of the American Colonies, what is now considered central Virginia. They were experiencing Indian trouble, as tribes were coming into farm land, pillaging and burning settlers' homesteads. Bacon and other Virgina Colony pioneers pleaded with the King-appointed governor Berkeley for troops and support. This request was not honored. Taking measures into their own hands, Bacon and his followers raised a militia to deal with the Indian invasions. Bacon's success led him to instigate an overhaul in the House of Burgesses and encouraged criticism of the king-appointed governor for overtaxing and under-serving the people. Neighboring Maryland launched their own similar rebellion against the status quo as a result of the energy created around Virginia's movement.
The fight against Indians was the first uniting of blacks and whites under a shared cause. Because Bacon's followers were mostly non-aristocrats, this threatened the wealthy landowners who held power and resulted in a hardening of racial lines which would continue for another two hundred years.
Governor Berkley was furious and clearly threatened. In response to Bacon's success, Berkeley raised his own 'sanctioned' army. Bacon's militia marched east to the capital, Jamestown, captured it, burned it to the ground, sending Berkeley and his men retaliating in defeat across the Chesapeake. Bacon began to set up his own government. Unfortunately for his cause, Bacon died of dysentery before the completion of his campaign. Successors were not inspirational enough to maintain the cause and Berkeley recaptured lost ground and hung most of Bacon's followers, confiscating their property.
Although it is suggested that Bacon may not have been the most exemplary political leader, he did stir up a great deal enough trouble to drive change with the Virginia people to re-elect the House of Burgesses, have the King of England (Charles II) remove Berkeley as governor and return to England to answer for the Virginia chaos.
History books suggest the importance of Bacon's Rebellion was limited to the Indian wars or the cause of long term racial divisions. But I see where a great deal of seed-planting was taking place by way of questioning government, bucking high taxes and shedding light on a general disregard for the 'common man'. Although it took a couple of generations, it manifested into a tangible cause that could be won and a new government, the likes of it never before and never since created, was born.
Do you see similarities between colonial Virginia's aristocratic leadership and today's Hollywood elite and ruling class? When someone speaks out about preserving freedoms, they are mocked, ridiculed, and treated as if they had no compassion for others on issues such as universal health care or education.
What is so misunderstood about the cause of freedom preservation is that many American citizens hold their freedoms as a matter of life or death. These people have very likely studied history, yet are labeled as red-necked, uneducated and uncivilized. On the contrary, these people know that history shows us that bloodshed is typically the only way to recapture lost freedoms. This is a world historical fact. I believe that we are seeing early tendencies toward this recapturing and unless freedom purists are heard, the homegrown 'terrorism' or 'freedom fighters' will continue to make headlines.
Peace and Understanding
~H. Whitley
Recently the Bennington Banner published an editorial slamming the Tea Party patriots and the liberty movement in general. Today there was a mocking cartoon of the famous "Don't Tread on Me" snake with a microphone for its head and the words "civil discourse" written on its body. The implication, of course, is that those who are angry about the direction this country is taking are guilty of incivility. Well, so what if we are? For too many years we have been shut out of the public forum. As you said, we are mocked and ridiculed for defending the very ideas on which this nation was founded. And now they wonder why our frustration is starting to bubble over?
ReplyDeleteCivil discourse becomes important to them only when our ideas start to shape the public debate - to them that alone is must be considered uncivil. But maybe if our ideas had been listened to in the first place many of the problems facing us now could have been avoided and this country would have moved forward in a spirit of respect and cooperation rather than one of estrangement and distrust.
This is very interesting. Once again, you're right on, Whitley.
ReplyDeleteCould you please clarify what the liberties are that you think are under threat in America today? The breadth of individual liberties extended to more and more people than ever before in the 220 year Constitutional history of the U.S. seems to belie your argument, so I'm confused as to what exactly the source of a contemporary "Liberty movement" would be.
ReplyDeleteFrom a historical perspective, I'd also like to hear a more detailed explanation of how Bacon's Rebellion was in any way a "fight for liberty": a group of white and black folks wanted land; they were told they could not start a war with Indians who were on that land that they wanted; so they followed a man who wanted to be governor of Virginia, who was using popular violence to get into power. While I certainly understand the subordinate position of the majority of poor free blacks and whites in colonial virginia, I hardly see how going to war against the Indians was justified. It seems to me, in this case, that it was the Indians who were the freedom fighters, fighting for their homes and families against the bloody invasion of foreigners.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're arguing that "liberty" is the right to do whatever you want to do, including armed insurrection, if the government does anything differently that you think it should be done. That is a thoroughly undemocratic point of view, meaning a misunderstanding about how democracy actually works: namely, sometimes you lose an election and the winners/majority runs the show for a while. If you are no longer free if your candidates/policies don't win a vote, then there is no freedom for anyone under democracy at all, unless everyone is identical in politics, values, culture. Carried to its logical conclusion, your argument means that only *your* rights matter, and the rights of people who are different from you (politics, values, culture) are of secondary importance (be they Indians, or perhaps today's "liberals").
Given where your argument leads logically, I find that I'm completely baffled by how this relates to "compassion" at all, conservative or otherwise. Doesn't compassion demand that you understand the entirety of a situation, and that you see the standpoints of everyone, including the Indians? If so, how does compassion in any way justify the actions of Bacon's rebellion? And how would compassion make me change my mind about the people who today call themselves the "Liberty Movement" (etc.) when all of their arguments are about reducing other people's freedoms in order to maintain their own lifestyle, coupled with their baffling belief that when a different majority wins an election, that means their rights have been violated (that's Jr. High School civics territory right there, and utterly undeserving of my compassion).
In all I found your post confused about history, inconsistent in its ethics, and cherry-picking in its logic. Any clarifications you wish to offer would be most welcome.
Clearly, I'm leaving aside the entirely specious and deeply immoral comparison you make with those planning the murders of police officers and their families in Michigan. That is so off-kilter offensive I don't even know how to address that argument.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone for your insightful comments.
ReplyDeleteTo address some of the very eloquent points brought forth by 'bkyu': I'd like to say it feels like this is a different interpretation of a historical event. And a different personal application of "compassion".
We can't pretend to fully know whether Bacon's designs on the governor's post were purely to serve, or selfish for wealth and power, as you imply. For purposes of historical analysis, does it really matter?
It has always been my understanding of this period, that the absolute monarchy of England appointed English friends and connections to govern each state. William Penn is an excellent example. When the colonists began to 'act up', the King would order the House of Burgesses be dismantled or the governor simply reappointed. Regarding the House of Burgesses, the colonists would simply re-elect the same men and the movement would continue. However, any real attempts at relinquishing power from the monarchy could only come as a result of violence.
I implore you to show me a few examples of real historical events where freedoms lost (or never had) could be regained without bloodshed of some sort. This is really important.
Today's Tea Party Movements and related over-the-top behaviors produced by people with this internal 'knowing' that we are on the brink of losing some significant freedoms regarding our healthcare personal decisions, the momentum of which is so significant that once accepted, we live under a new set of expectations.
I see supporters of the healthcare movement having the limited view that coverage is all good for the poeple who really need it. OF COURSE IT IS! Many are not arguing or knocking the very good *intentions* of the program. But the high-road question responsible people ask themselves (if they don't have the audacity to ask outloud)is this: regardless of providing such an honorable service to citizens, what is the cost in regard to our freedoms? Because as American citizens, we are obligated to uphold the constitution and the states freedoms therein but once we turn over to government a piece of our freedoms, there really is no turning back - without violence.
In my book, compassion is trying to find understanding with the goal of acquiring more knowledge, regardless of the magnitude of the perceived crime. I believe (and even some Christians would disagree with me) that the worth of every soul is great in the eyes of God and that striving to understand even the most hiddeous of crime's is showing compassion.
Compassion and understanding in hopes of attaining greater knowledge is vastly different than toleration and acceptance of what groups like Hutaree promote. Can you see the difference? I feel this is a more enlightened approach than the rapid fire judgment and condemning without a vigorous pursuit of something greater in their very misguided workings.
perhaps this kind of compassion comes from being a woman, a wife, a mother. I don't know, but I sincerely hope that you can see my words properly s the compassion intended and not a jsutification or acceptance of the evil intentions of the Hutaree militia group. There is a vast difference, do you understand?
Thank you for subscribing to my feed and participating in this crucial dialog.
~H. Whitley