Final answer:
Bacon's actions in Bacon's Rebellion were partly motivated by personal ambition but were also justified by the ideal of justice for commoners. Berkeley's governance was self-serving but also aimed at maintaining order, justified as necessary for the colony's prosperity. Each man appealed to different 'higher authorities' to justify their actions.
Step-by-step explanation:
To what degree were Bacon's and Berkeley's actions driven by personal self-interest versus principles and ideals? Both men, in different ways, appealed to principles of morality and justice to justify their actions during the conflict known as Bacon's Rebellion.
Nathaniel Bacon initially sought more power and was seen as a troublemaker upon his arrival in Virginia. His personal ambition was clear when he exploited his aging cousin Governor Berkeley's perceived weakness to gain support among smaller planters. However, he positioned his actions as a fight against the unfair treatment of these colonists, high taxes, and the need to protect the colony from Indian attacks. His rebellion was thus framed as a response to the neglect of the common people's welfare and safety.
On the other hand, Governor William Berkeley had established a governing style that catered to the wealthiest colonists, thus maintaining a status quo favoring the elite. Although it can be argued that Berkeley's governance style was self-serving, he could justify his actions as maintaining order and stability within the colony, and he likely viewed his approach as necessary for a prosperous colony.
Each man felt validated by a different 'higher authority': Bacon by a sense of justice for the common people and Berkeley by the traditional order and prosperity of the colony. In the end, the rebellion led by Bacon did not result in a decisive shift in power, as both men eventually died without seeing through the aftermath of the conflict. Berkeley was recalled to England, and Bacon died of natural causes.