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."