American History

Freedom can be described as an individuals special right to say or do something without being suppressed by anyone in any given way, as distinctly spelt out in the constitution. Freedom of an individual or a citizen can be viewed from a variety of angles and it varies from country to country and from time to time. Different countries dispense different levels of freedom to their citizens, for instance the freedoms enjoyed by an American citizen is not the same as the freedom enjoyed by a Chinese. Moreover, the freedom currently enjoyed by the citizens of the United States is not comparable to the freedom that Americans in the seventeen and successive centuries enjoyed.

Freedom for that reason can be broadly defined as the state or circumstance of not being incarcerated, enslaved or constrained. In a free society, citizens have free will meaning they possess the capacity to exercise exclusive control regarding their decisions, actions and ultimately their choices. In a free society, the citizens enjoy political freedom. Political freedom refers to the lack of interference with individuals sovereignty by means of aggression or coercion. Freedom can as well be viewed from an economic angle, where individuals can freely manufacture or produce goods and services, partake in trade and consume the goods and services in a surrounding that is bereft of thievery, force or fraud.
The American society is widely regarded in the international circles as the most liberated society in the world. The constitutional dispensation enjoyed by the American citizens presently, is a culmination of the long struggle by civil right activists and noble citizens since the colonial and slavery periods (Ferguson, 1969). Nevertheless, freedom is relative state that varies form place to place. The absence or denial of some constitutional rights would therefore determine the degree or amount of freedom enjoyed by a citizen.

In the present America, every citizen has a right to freely speak his mind out. The denial of such a fundamental right constitutes a major trample on the freedom of speech and therefore reduces the freedom enjoyed by the citizens. Denying a citizen the ability to worship, move around the whole country freely, expressing himself or herself in a manner that does interfere with other peoples rights and owning property amounts to denying him or her freedom. A citizen should be able to live without fear from the government and from fellow citizens or vigilante groups. He or she should be able to associate freely with other citizens across the country, as long as such associations do not pose a threat to national security. A citizen ought to have freedom of information the constitutional right to know any public information the government possesses that concerns its citizens and the organizations in the country. The freedom of holding public meetings is also entrenched in the American law (Foner, 2007).

The denial of the above rights is tantamount to the denial of the freedom of a citizen. Such rights and freedom seem so basic and essential and therefore impossible to imagine their absence in the current century, but three centuries ago they seemed like a mirage. Freedom can therefore be presently described as the right to do or say anything as long as it does not trample on the rights of other citizens and it does not pose a threat to national security.  

Nathaniel Bacon
Born in Englands Suffolk region on the second day of 1647, Nathaniel Bacon owned estates in Virginias James River. Bacon served in William Berkeleys governing council, although he fell out with the latter after they disagreed on how to handle the Native American Indians. Berkeley wanted the colony they had established to contain the Indians but Bacon was against the proposal of containment. After the colony was developed, Bacon insisted on spreading out to the areas owned and therefore controlled by the native Indians, a view that put him on collision course with Berkeley (Foner, 2006).

Bacons policy of extending out to the areas owned by the Indians highlights his thoughts on the freedom to be accorded to the Indians. The idea of extending out to the regions controlled by the native Indians was a major affront to the Indians right to own property, and specifically treaty land. This suggests that Bacon thought of the Indians as not worthy of freely possessing land, a fact that he emphatically proves by attacking the Indians. According to Bacons crusade, the native Indians had the option of vacating the lands or otherwise they would be killed. Berkeley on the flipside recommended the erection of numerous defensive fortifications down the boundary lines.

Bacons intolerance to Berkeleys containment policy hints at his refusal to accommodate diverse views, as well as his reluctance to accommodate the Native Indians freedom to freely express themselves. The rebellious Bacons later exploits in Jamestown, where he slew twelve men and drove away Governor Berkeley and those loyal to him, further confirms his intolerance to divergent views and his persistent quest to rid Virginia of dissent voices (Foner, 1999). To Nathaniel Bacon, freedom meant the settlers acquire as much land as possible from the Indians. He also viewed freedom as a situation where the settlers were very safe from the attacks of the native Indians.

As much as Bacon fought to suppress the views of the Native Americans, he also clamoured for sweeping changes in the manner Berkeley governed. He helped in establishing legislative elections, endorsed reforms, and restored suffrage rights to the landless settlers (Ferguson, 1969). These actions largely make him a believer in the freedom and the right of the citizens to choose their own leaders in transparent processes. Nevertheless, he still treated the native Indians with cruelty.

Sir Edmund Andros
Sir Edmund Andros was born on the sixth of December, 1937. He was an Anglican and in 1981 he repealed the infamous ban on Christmas celebrations that had initially been put in place by the Puritans (pilgrims) in 1959 (Foner, 2006). On top of that he revoked a prohibition on holding festivities on Saturday that had been put in place by pilgrims. The actions to revoke the bans on religious festivities point to Sir Edmunds tolerance for Anglican religious ceremonies. Andros curbed the religious enthusiasm of many, a reflection of his aversion for religious freedom.

Sir Edmund had a domineering character and this perhaps translated into the way he ruled. He oversaw an arbitrary administration in which he restricted the legislature, constrained the towns to just a solitary yearly assembly, and implemented toleration of Anglicans and the Navigation Acts (Foner, 2007). The limiting of the towns meeting to a single annual assembly denied the citizens of Dominion of New England the freedom to freely assemble. This makes Sir Edmund a non-believer in the freedom of assembly.  Andros rampantly interfered with the colonial laws, a move that vexed many Puritans (Foner, 1999).  

With every of their political incapacity under Sir Edmund, New York citizens were successful and consequently moderately happy. Sumptuousness had not damaged their tastes, and there was hardly any wants a person with three thousand dollars was affluent one with five thousand dollars very opulent. There were no beggars but religions were numerous, and out of faith matters grew a host of controversies. There appeared slight reasons for the residents of the domain to be forlorn but the divine freedom instincts, which required a free effect of the rights of independence, made numerous of them unhappy and in some circles rebellious.

Anthony Johnson
An African of Angolan origin, Anthony Johnson was taken to the United States as a servant in 1620. Back then the English law had no definite description of racial slavery and he therefore passed as servant in the 1925 Virginia census. Anthony Johnson experienced a remarkable turnaround as he turned from an indentured servant to an owner of slaves himself. His story offers a paradoxical twist to the slavery identity. It is ironic that an African American who went through the slavery could actually own slaves of his own kind later on.
Anthony Johnsons story lays bare his bearing on the slavery issue and confirms his lack of belief in the freedom from servitude even having been enslaved himself. He does not subscribe to the freedom against slavery crusade as he clearly condemns his fellow African Americans to indentured servitude.

Conclusion
Nathaniel Bacon, Sir Edmund Andros and Anthony Johnson offer interesting similarities and differences in their outlook towards freedom and the way they relate to others. Nathaniel Bacon and Sir Edmund Andros both have imperious characters which they translate into their leadership styles (Ferguson, 1969). They both coerce their subjects to like their views on particular issues Bacon severely clashes with Berkeley when he does not agree with the latters containment policy and Sir Edmund rubs shoulders with the pilgrims when he revokes the Christmas day ban. They both personally decide which rights to dispense and which ones to deny.

All of them agree on limiting some of the freedom enjoyed by the subjects or antagonists. Bacon wants to constrain the native Indians, Andros limits the number of assemblies held annually and Anthony monitors the movements of his slaves. The major difference between Bacon and Anthony is that Bacon, an English settler, antagonizes and limits the freedom enjoyed by native Indians. Anthony, in contrast to Bacon, limits the freedom of his fellow African Americans.

Freedom is a relative term that is used depending on who enjoys it. Nathaniel Bacon attacks the Native Americans because he believes they are a source of threat to the colonial base. He does not empathize with their situation because he does not experience the limited freedom that they do. When Sir Edmund Andros curbs the religious enthusiasm of others, he gets away with it without a major mutiny because he is in a position of influence (Ferguson, 1969). It is the Puritans who are affected, not him. Anthony Johnson forgets about the freedom he was initially denied and gets slaves of his own. It is only the citizens existing in limited freedom that understand the preciousness of free society.