Archive for the ‘Colonization’ Category

Christine Heyrman on the 1st Great Awakening

The First Great Awakening
Christine Leigh Heyrman
Department of History, University of Delaware

from http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/grawaken.htm

What historians call “the first Great Awakening” can best be described as a revitalization of religious piety that swept through the American colonies between the 1730s and the 1770s. That revival was part of a much broader movement, an evangelical upsurge taking place simultaneously on the other side of the Atlantic, most notably in England, Scotland, and Germany. In all these Protestant cultures during the middle decades of the eighteenth century, a new Age of Faith rose to counter the currents of the Age of Enlightenment, to reaffirm the view that being truly religious meant trusting the heart rather than the head, prizing feeling more than thinking, and relying on biblical revelation rather than human reason.

The earliest manifestations of the American phase of this phenomenon–the beginnings of the First Great Awakening–appeared among Presbyterians in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Led by the Tennent family–Reverend William Tennent, a Scots-Irish immigrant, and his four sons, all clergymen—the Presbyterians not only initiated religious revivals in those colonies during the 1730s but also established a seminary to train clergymen whose fervid, heartfelt preaching would bring sinners to experience evangelical conversion. Originally known as “the Log College,” it is better known today as Princeton University.

Religious enthusiasm quickly spread from the Presbyterians of the Middle Colonies to the Congregationalists  (Puritans) and Baptists of New England. By the 1740s, the clergymen of these churches were conducting revivals throughout that region, using the same strategy that had contributed to the success of the Tennents. In emotionally charged sermons, all the more powerful because they were delivered extemporaneously, preachers like Jonathan Edwards evoked vivid, terrifying images of the utter corruption of human nature and the terrors awaiting the unrepentant in hell. Hence Edwards’s famous description of the sinner as a loathsome spider suspended by a slender thread over a pit of seething brimstone in his best known sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

These early revivals in the northern colonies inspired some converts to become missionaries to the American South. In the late 1740s, Presbyterian preachers from New York and New Jersey began proselytizing in the Virginia Piedmont; and by the 1750s, some members of a group known as the Separate Baptists moved from New England to central North Carolina and quickly extended their influence to surrounding colonies. By the eve of the American Revolution, their evangelical converts accounted for about ten percent of all southern churchgoers.

The First Great Awakening also gained impetus from the wide-ranging American travels of an English preacher, George Whitefield. Although Whitefield had been ordained as a minister in the Church of England, he later allied with other Anglican clergymen who shared his evangelical bent, most notably John and Charles Wesley. Together they led a movement to reform the Church of England (much as the Puritans had attempted earlier to reform that church) which resulted in the founding of the Methodist Church late in the eighteenth century. During his several trips across the Atlantic after 1739, Whitefield preached everywhere in the American colonies, often drawing audiences so large that he was obliged to preach outdoors. What Whitefield preached was nothing more than what other Calvinists had been proclaiming for centuries–that sinful men and women were totally dependent for salvation on the mercy of a pure, all-powerful God. But Whitefield–and many American preachers who eagerly imitated his style–presented that message in novel ways. Gesturing dramatically, sometimes weeping openly or thundering out threats of hellfire-and-brimstone, they turned the sermon into a gripping theatrical performance.

But not all looked on with approval. Throughout the colonies, conservative and moderate clergymen questioned the emotionalism of evangelicals and charged that disorder and discord attended the revivals. They took great exception to “itinerants,” ministers who, like Whitefield, traveled from one community to another, preaching and all too often criticizing the local clergy. And they took still greater exception when some white women and African Americans shed their subordinate social status long enough to exhort religious gatherings. Evangelical preachers and converts rejoined by lambasting their opponents as cold, uninspiring, and lacking in piety and grace. Battles raged within congregations and whole denominations over this challenge to clerical authority as well as the evangelical approach to conversion from “the heart” rather than “the head.”

So the first Great Awakening left colonials sharply polarized along religious lines. Anglicans and Quakers gained new members among those who disapproved of the revival’s excesses, while the Baptists (and, in the 1770s, the Methodists) made even more handsome gains from the ranks of radical evangelical converts. The largest single group of churchgoing Americans remained within the Congregationalist and Presbyterian denominations, but they divided internally between advocates and opponents of the Awakening, known respectively as “New Lights” and “Old Lights.” Inevitably, civil governments were drawn into the fray. In colonies where one denomination received state support, other churches lobbied legislatures for disestablishment, an end to the favored status of Congregationalism in Connecticut and Massachusetts and of Anglicanism in the southern colonies.

Guiding Student Discussion
Now let’s cut to the classroom. You’ve sketched out the story of the first Great Awakening–its beginnings in the mid-Atlantic, its transit to New England, and its culmination in the South, its legacy of debate and division. And you’ve emphasized that it was only the colonial manifestation of a religious revival of much broader geographic scope–it spread the length of British North America (where, indeed, the only public figure whose name was known to virtually all colonials was George Whitefield!) and reverberated throughout the Protestant countries of Europe as well.

So your next move might be to pose the question: What could account for the tremendous appeal of evangelical Christianity to men and women living on both sides of the Atlantic during the latter half of the eighteenth century?

Chances are that most students will simply look confused at this inquiry–although some Christians among them might suggest that divine providence inspired large numbers of people to embrace “true Christianity.” If that happens, you have a prime opportunity to point out that while such an explanation might well be persuasive from the standpoint of faith (that is, the perspective of a believer), historians (no matter what their personal religious convictions might be) strive to explain the IMMEDIATE causes of why things happened without reference to acts of God. (Otherwise they’d all be out of business, since the ULTIMATE cause of every historical event, from the standpoint of faith, is the will of God.)

With a little luck, those remarks will return the class to thinking about the SPECIFIC HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES that might have enhanced the appeal of evangelical Christianity, with its formidable array of emotional consolations and moral certitudes, to large numbers of people in the eighteenth century.

To keep the discussion on that track–and to make such connections more accessible to students–you might try tossing out the observation that religious culture in America today bears many resemblances to that of the eighteenth century. As many commentators, both scholarly and popular, have noted, recent decades have witnessed an evangelical revival–what some regard as yet another “Great Awakening.” Since the 1960s, membership in conservative evangelical Protestant churches has grown dramatically, while the membership of national organizations like the Promise Keepers and local bible study groups have also expanded at an astonishing rate. Some of your students will be aware of those trends–and therefore will have greater confidence when it comes to speculating about the social sources of contemporary evangelicalism’s popular appeal–the transient lives of many Americans as population shifts to the South and West, the high incidence of family fragmentation in the face of staggering divorce rates, the uncertainty over gender roles fueled by feminism, the threats that recent scientific discoveries and “secular humanism” are perceived by many to pose to “traditional values,” and so forth.

Okay, here’s the payoff lurking at the end of this seeming digression into the religious culture of the late twentieth century: by now at least some students will see the connection between popular religious inclinations and broader social trends. So this is the moment for you to steer them back into the eighteenth century by noting that this, too, was an era of extraordinary upheaval and crisis for ordinary people. Remind them that England was entering the Industrial Revolution and that evangelicals like the Methodists attracted large numbers of converts among miners and factory workers. Remind them that northern Ireland and Germany, other hotbeds of evangelical enthusiasm, were wracked by warfare, famine, or both–harsh conditions that prompted hundreds of thousands to migrate to British North America. And, finally, remind them that in the American colonies, the same epoch witnessed a massive internal shift of population to the embattled frontiers of the South and West, where ordinary families endured hardscrabble, rootless lives and the ever-present threat of attack from dispossessed Indian tribes. Such circumstances also thrust women into newly responsible roles for the survival of migrating households as families were fragmented by movement and death.

It follows that men and women faced with such stark challenges might have sought opportunities for fellowship, solace, and emotional release–and that is exactly what evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic offered. Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists touted their churches as havens from all the evils afflicting ordinary people–as islands of disciplined stability and Christian charity in a churning sea of social chaos and cultural confusion.

If you’d like more information about the First Great Awakening, the first book to consult is Patricia Bonomi’s Under the Cope of Heaven. This is probably the best overview of religious history in the American colonies, and it offers a superb discussion of both the First Great Awakening and how it bore upon the American Revolution. Another key source is J. M. Bumsted and John E. Van de Wetering, What Must I Do to Be Saved? For a vivid evocation of how revivalism flourished on both sides of the Atlantic during the eighteenth century, you could not choose a better book than Leigh Eric Schmidt’s Holy Fairs. Finally, for a magisterial survey of the sweep of spiritual awakenings throughout America’s past, you should take a look at William McLoughlin’s American Revivalism.

Historians Debate
There are two notable trends in recent scholarship on this subject. The first is represented by those historians who argue that the revivals became a means by which humbler colonials challenged the prerogatives of their social “betters”–both by criticizing their materialistic values and undermining their claims to deference and respect. The strongest case for this interpretation in the North has been advanced by Gary Nash in The Urban Crucible, a wide-ranging study of major seaports in the eighteenth century; a similar view of the Awakening in the upper South appears in Rhys Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. Indeed, some scholars like Harry Stout (The New England Soul) have argued that the first Great Awakening radically transformed and democratized modes of mass communication, thereby setting the stage for the emergence a new popular politics in the revolutionary decades that followed.

But this interpretation has been sharply criticized by other scholars like Christine Leigh Heyrman (Commerce and Culture) and Christopher Jedrey (The World of John Cleaveland) who view the first Great Awakening, at least in the North, as an essentially conservative movement, a continuation of earlier religious traditions. As for the South, even those scholars who credit the potentially radical implications of early evangelical teachings in that region argue that challenges to slavery and class privilege faded quickly in the wake of the revolution; see, for example, Christine Leigh Heyrman, Southern Cross, and Rachel Klein, The Unification of a Slave State.

That skepticism about the social and political effects of colonial revivalism is shared by another scholar who has offered the most sweeping rejection of the long-held view that the first Great Awakening marked a watershed in early American history: Jon Butler, in his essay, “Enthusiasm Described and Decried: The Great Awakening as Interpretive Fiction,” Journal of American History, 69 (1982-83), 305-25.

Chapter 5 questions

Questions over Chapter 5– due August 26
Colonial Society on the Eve of Revolution

Hand-written and legible, please.

(Remember — these were handed out in class on August 20, and you can always find the chapter questions to all chapters in the category “Chapter Questions” as well as in the specific chapter category in the archives)

1. What effect(s) did population growth in the colonies have upon the colonies’ relationship with England? How much of this growth was from immigration, and how much from natural reproduction? What was the average age of colonists by 1775, and what does this imply regarding questions of authority?
2. What were the defining characteristics of the Scots-Irish, and where did they tend to predominate? Why did they resent English rule in particular?
3. Describe the two rebellions that are associated with the Scots-Irish.
4. What were the characteristics of the African population in America by 1775?
5. What did Crevecoeur mean when he spoke about the “strange mixture of blood” described on pp. 90-91 (read the text in the brown box too)? Where were the most and least diverse regions in America? Was diversity a blessing or a curse?
6. Was 18th century America truly a shining land of equality and opportunity especially when compared with the 17th century? Evaluate this claim.
7. How did the presence of slavery impact class structure and wealth distribution in the South? What dangers did some colonies, such as South Carolina, recognize in the continued importation of slaves to America, and what did they attempt to do about it?
8. Besides Africans, who else was forcibly relocated to the Americas, and why? What impact did this have on colonial order and attitudes toward Britain?
9. What were the most and least honored professions in America, and why were they viewed thusly?
10. Why were early attempts at inoculation against contagious disease discouraged?
11. Compare the primary economic activities among the northern, middle, Chesapeake, and southern colonies. How common were agricultural occupations? What were the primary manufacturing activities, although only of secondary importance?
12. How did the triangular trade work? How profitable was it?
13. What was the impact of each of the maritime industries (lumber, shipbuilding, naval stores, etc) on the colonial economy?
14. What was the specific goal of the Molasses Act by the British Parliament? What did it do?
15. What was ironic about the colonial desire to trade with countries other than Britain?
16. What are “established” churches? Which ones were they and where?
17. What was happening to levels of piety as the Revolution approached? Was this new? What’s ironic about all of this?
18. What was Arminianism? What religious doctrine did it supplant? How did the growth of Arminianism contribute to the Great Awakening? Where and why did the Great Awakening begin?
19. Contrast the Old Lights with the New Lights in terms of beliefs. What were the effects of the Great Awakening on colonial society (don’t forget education as part of this)?
20. Describe the work of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield. How did they convert people, exactly? What is orthodoxy and heterodoxy?
21. How did American ideas about education differ with traditional English ideas? Where in the colonies was education most promoted, and why? Describe the main course of study at a colonial college. Were any colleges mentioned in this chapter free from sectarian control?
22. Why was American art viewed as being “provincial” by connoisseurs?
23. Who was the “first civilized American,” and what achievements earned him this (snarky) title?
24. What was the significance of the Zenger trial? How did he get into trouble, and what was his defense? What was the significance of the case?
25. What powers did colonial legislatures have during the 18th century? How did their power clash with that of royal governors—and by extension, the British government?
26. What were the limits on democracy in colonial America?

A Model of Christian Charity

As you read, consider: How did Winthrop expect faithful Puritans to treat each other and why?

A Model of Christian Charity –excerpt
By John Winthrop, aboard the Arbella as it was sailing toward America

…First of all, true Christians are of one body in Christ (1 Cor. 12). Ye are the body of Christ and members of their part. All the parts of this body being thus united are made so contiguous in a special relation as they must needs partake of each other’s strength and infirmity; joy and sorrow, weal and woe. If one member suffers, all suffer with it, if one be in honor, all rejoice with it.

Secondly, the ligaments of this body which knit together are love.

Thirdly, no body can be perfect which wants its proper ligament.

Fourthly, All the parts of this body being thus united are made so contiguous in a special relation as they must needs partake of each other’s strength and infirmity, joy and sorrow, weal and woe. (1 Cor. 12:26) If one member suffers, all suffer with it; if one be in honor, all rejoice with it.

Fifthly, this sensitivity and sympathy of each other’s conditions will necessarily infuse into each part a native desire and endeavor, to strengthen, defend, preserve and comfort the other. To insist a little on this conclusion being the product of all the former, the truth hereof will appear both by precept and pattern. 1 John 3:16, “We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” Gal. 6:2, “Bear ye one another’s burden’s and so fulfill the law of Christ.”

For patterns we have that first of our Savior who, out of his good will in obedience to his father, becoming a part of this body and being knit with it in the bond of love, found such a native sensitivity of our infirmities and sorrows as he willingly yielded himself to death to ease the infirmities of the rest of his body, and so healed their sorrows. From the like sympathy of parts did the Apostles and many thousands of the Saints lay down their lives for Christ. Again the like we may see in the members of this body among themselves. Rom. 9 — Paul could have been contented to have been separated from Christ, that the Jews might not be cut off from the body. It is very observable what he professeth of his affectionate partaking with every member; “Who is weak (saith he) and I am not weak? Who is offended and I burn not?” And again (2 Cor. 7:13), “Therefore we are comforted because ye were comforted.” Of Epaphroditus he speaketh (Phil. 2:25-30) that he regarded not his own life to do him service. So Phoebe and others are called the servants of the church. Now it is apparent that they served not for wages, or by constraint, but out of love. The like we shall find in the histories of the church, in all ages; the sweet sympathy of affections which was in the members of this body one towards another; their cheerfulness in serving and suffering together; how liberal they were without repining, harborers without grudging, and helpful without reproaching; and all from hence, because they had fervent love amongst them; which only makes the practice of mercy constant and easy….

… Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.

Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.…

The Differences Between the New England Confederation and the Dominion of New England

The colonies were very much separate in terms of their governance and operation regardless of our discussion of similarities in culture and beliefs among the Chesapeake and New England. However, there were some definite disadvantages to too much independence, especially when it came to matters of defense.

One of the earliest attempts at colonial unity (a theme that runs throughout the development of America to the present day) was the New England Confederation, which was formed in 1643. This was an invitation-only alliance among the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth, and the two colonies that eventually made up Connecticut. Only those who were orthodox Puritans were welcomed– Rhode Island didn’t make the cut. The main goal of the Confederation was, first of all, mutual defense against attacks from Native tribes or other European colonial powers. The Confederation also dealt with the extradition of runaway criminals or servants.

The Confederation was seen as necessary due to the salutary neglect from the mother country. As you may have noticed, there is always tension between liberty or freedom and security in making decisions about how much power to surrender to government or other outside groups. The Confederation is an example of this in a very mild way– the colonies in the Confederation were willing to give up a limited amount of autonomy (your text notes that the Confederation was very weak) in order to improve security. But note that each individual colony still retained much of its independence– which may have doomed the chances of success of this enterprise. Confederation by its very name implies cooperation.

Why were the colonists so leery of unity? The problem is, unity takes away autonomy. That is one of the reasons why England attempted to impose unity on the New England colonies to enhance control.

Just before the Glorious Revolution, the English government realized that its colonies had been given far too much leeway, particularly when it came to obedience to the Navigation Laws. These laws restricted the colonists to trade only with the mother country or other English possessions. The laws also listed, or enumerated, goods that colonists were not allowed to manufacture– usually goods produced in the mother country. This kind of law would create an artificial monopoly and prevent competition from developing manufactures in the colonies. Lack of enforcement of these laws was costing the mother country money in the form of taxes and higher prices.

Therefore, the Dominion of New England was created in 1686 by the English government under James II and was imposed upon the colonies. The use of the term “Dominion” is indicative of the desire of England to — rightfully in its view– dominate colonial affairs and trade. Amalgamating the several colonies into one organizational struction would enhance English control. In this much more powerful structure, town meetings– a staple of New England’s political landscape– were sharply limited and civil rights, such as freedom of the press and colonial courts (as in a “jury of one’s peers”) were limited to enhance English authority over its colonial subjects. Under the direction of the autocratic Sir Edmund Andros, enforcement of the Navigation Laws– and severe restrictions on smuggling– ensued.

Naturally, intense resentment arose on the part of many colonists at this new attempt to restrain their independence and liberty. Thus when the Glorious Revolution of 1688 produced a massive upheaval of English political structures, the colonists utilized the chaos to run Andros out of town– in a dress, no less. The Dominion of New England then collapsed again, and salutary neglect resumed.

The ultimate difference between the New England Confederation and the Dominion of New England is that the Confederation was imposed upon the member colonies at their own instigation, and was only as powerful as the colonists were willing to allow it to be. The Dominion of New England was imposed from without, and was an attempt to strip the colonies of autonomy and independence that was seen as a threat to the interests of the mother country. The Dominion left the colonists ever more leery of ceding their autonomy to anyone– a fear that would make their dealings with England much more complex.

Historians Review: Edmund S. Morgan

(Periodically I will include information about prominent historians to help you explore historiography, deepen your understanding of history, and help you understand key concept and interpretations of history.)

Dr. Edmund S. Morgan has taught at the University of Chicago, Brown, and Yale. His specialty is colonial and revolutionary history. He has written biographies of Benjamin Franklin and Roger Williams. The works for which he is best known for include Birth of the Republic (1956)The Puritan Dilemma (1958), American Slavery, American Freedom (1975) and Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1988), which won the Bancroft Prize in 1989.

His latest work is a collection of essays entitled American Heroes: Profiles of Men and Women Who Shaped Early America, which was published in 2009. He was awarded a special Pulitzer Prize in 2006 for the impact of his work on the understanding of American history.

Dr. Morgan’s work is mentioned on p. 66 in chapter 3 as well as in the bibliography for that chapter (his biography of Benjamin Franklin) as well as on p. 108 and p. 170.

Here is a link to his bio on the History News Network: http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/24049.html. This includes a personal anecdote about his study of history as well as brief quotes from his work. Good reading.

Anne Hutchinson: Rebel/Theologian?

Go to this site for a brief discussion of Anne Hutchinson’s role in colonial Massachusetts Bay: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h577.html .

Her greatest crime was in suggesting that actions did not really matter –as much as did faith, but that part often gets overlooked. Her argument threatened the authority of the ministers/leaders of Massachusetts Bay, particularly as some influential people seemed attracted to her discussion sessions that she led in her home, which was in itself shocking. What did some of the religious leaders of Massachusetts have to say about her?

I look at her as a dangerous instrument of the devil, raised up by Satan amongst us to raise up divisions and contentions and take away hearts and affections, one from another.–Reverend John Wilson (assigned minister to the Boston militia that conducted the Pequot war)

Governor John Winthrop called Anne Hutchinson an American Jezebel who was given the chance to repent but instead kept a back doore to have returned to her vomit again.

Deputy Governor Thomas Dudley stated: I am fully persuaded that Mrs Hutchinson is deluded by the devil would inspire her hearers to take up arms against their prince and to cut the throats of one another.

Reverend John Cotton said, Your opinions fret like an Gangrene and spread like a Leproise, and infect far and near, and will eate out the very Bowells of Religion, and hath soe infected the churches that God knows when they will be cured.

(Quotes found at http://www.annehutchinson.net/nindex.shtml)

Bacon’s Declaration in the Name of the People

Declaration in the Name of the People
(Modernized Spelling Version)
Nathaniel Bacon, 30 July 1676

The Declaration of the People.

1. For having upon specious pretences of public works raised great unjust taxes upon the Commonality 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 that 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 a 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 blood shed 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, whilst 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 hath 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 doe further declare these the ensuing persons in this list, to have been his wicked and pernicious counselors Confederates, aiders, and assisters against the Commonality in these our Civil commotions.

Sir Henry Chichley
William Claiburn Junior
Lieut. Coll. Christopher Wormeley
Thomas Hawkins
William Sherwood
Phillip Ludwell
John Page Clerke
Robert Beverley
John Cluffe Clerke
Richard Lee
John West
Thomas Ballard
Hubert Farrell
William Cole
Thomas Reade
Richard Whitacre
Mathew Kempe
Nicholas Spencer
Joseph Bridger

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 hidden, 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 doe declare, desiring a firm union amongst our selves that we may jointly and with one accord defend our selves 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.

Nathaniel Bacon
General by Consent of the people.