Va-Hist subscribers will no doubt be interested in this review from the
H-Net Southern History discussion list of a new book of Virginia
scholarship.
 
Please respect the letter and spirit of the copyright notice at the end
of the review.
 
Brent Tarter
The Library of Virginia
[log in to unmask]
 
Visit the Library of Virginia's web site at http://www.lva.lib.va.us
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Binnington, H-South [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Crosspost: H-CivWar Review, Woodard on Link, _Roots of
Secession_


H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by [log in to unmask] (January 2004)

William A. Link. _Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum
Virginia_. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. xvii +
387 pp. Illustrations, tables, maps, notes, bibliography, index. $45.00
(cloth), ISBN 0-8078-2771-1.

Reviewed for H-Civil War by David E. Woodard <[log in to unmask]>,
Concordia
University, St. Paul, Minnesota

At first glance, William A. Link's __Roots of Secession: Slavery and
Politics in Antebellum Virginia_ appears to be a rather intricate work
of
history.  Why?  Professor Link attempts to make some fairly wide and
disparate connections.  The author explains that his book will examine
"the interconnections between slavery, slaves, and politics, and the
impact that this relationship had on the origins of secession" (p.1).
Quite a task in itself; and to make matters even more complicated,
economics and market changes are also a critical part of Link's thesis.
Will he be able to offer the evidence and conclusive proof that gives
credence to his complex argument?

What __Roots of Secession__ seems most focused upon is the central
position of slavery in the political debates of the 1850s.  Obviously,
slavery was important.  But Link is attempting to demonstrate much more.
He states that the 1850s is generally viewed as clash over the
institution
of slavery--and we have all read scores of monographs written about the
debate over slavery during the antebellum era.  Link is trying to take
the
historical debate a bit further.  He explains that in most books written
about antebellum politics "slaves remain at the margins" (p. 1).  In
other
words, too many historians have looked at the sectional debate, the
expansion of slavery, and the other territorial issues--but what about
the
slaves themselves?

According to Link, slaves were a central part of the changes that were
taking place in the 1850s.  The author uses the state of Virginia to
make
his point for several reasons.  First, Virginia had more slaves than any
other state.  And of even more importance, Virginia was going through
many
economic changes during the 1850s that affected politics, slavery, and
slaves themselves.  Finally, the state itself possessed many diverse
interests and groups.  Virginia's geography included planters,
entrepreneurs, small farmers, merchants, slave and even anti-slave
factions--making it a great laboratory of study.  How did Virginia act
and
react?  How did slaves respond to these changes?  And what form did the
master-slave relationship take?  Did the economic changes alter the
peculiar institution, or did slavery's permutations alter the political
climate in antebellum Virginia?

At this point, you might be thinking that Link's task was impossible.
But
I am here to report that this book works!  The author has taken a
multitude of issues and connected them in a fine narrative about
antebellum Virginia slavery and politics.  There are two general areas
where I think this book works best:  antebellum market changes and the
simultaneous transformations in the slave system.  These are, I believe,
the two most important themes in the book--and the clearest.  Link's
other
primary theme--Virginia politics--is also good, but I think secondary to
his other premises.

First, the economic changes taking place in antebellum Virginia were
extraordinary.  And the vast geography of the state makes it a fine
laboratory of study, as Link is able to discuss changes in different
geographical regions and sections.  Railroads, factories, mills, and the
subsequent growth of cities were all changing the Virginia political and
economic landscape.  These alterations were also upsetting the
traditional
relationships in Virginia.  Some sections of the state welcomed the
changes, while other sections of Virginia feared the future.  The market
revolution, urbanization, and transportation were changing, for example,
western Virginia and even offering that section more political power
over
the traditional elite of the Tidewater area, which was good for western
Virginia but not for the Tidewater.  For the old, plantation elite, the
changes were causing, among other things, the erosion of traditional
norms
and mores, and a fear of loss of control.

The Southern planters and the slave system did not take kindly to these
sorts of revolutionary societal alterations.  Link makes the connection
well that the slave system itself was being altered by the market
changes.
In fact, planters began making changes themselves with such
"innovations"
as hiring out slaves to other plantations, more freedoms, and additional
sales.  Even though most planters wanted to keep the traditional system
in
tact, the market revolution in Virginia was forcing changes in the slave
system.  And Link offers ample evidence to support this thesis.  But the
author has promised to discuss several other themes.  First, how were
the
slaves themselves affected; and second, how did politics in Virginia
deal
with these economic changes and adjustments in slavery?

Probably the most difficult item to prove historically is how slaves
themselves dealt with the changes taking place in Virginia.  Professor
Link attempts to demonstrate that Virginia slaves were becoming bolder
and
more assertive in the 1850s.  Because planters were starting to lose
their
authority to impersonal market forces, slaves began to take advantage of
these conditions.  Link makes this connection work also--to a certain
degree.  While the lack of sources makes this one of Link's most
difficult
tasks, he does show that there was an increase in slave resistance and
even outright challenges to slaveholders's authority.  The proof that
slaves were getting more restless during the 1850s comes from available
crime statistics, plantation documents, and written evidence of white
paranoia.  The inference made by the author (and I believe he makes a
credible case), is that slaves were becoming increasingly more resistant
as the institution itself was being altered by market forces.  The
response of white plantation owners was predictable--unable to fathom
the
changing nature of slavery, they defined what they saw as an assault on
their power.  It is clear that slaves probably knew things were
changing,
and Virginia whites also knew it.  But how can we be sure?  Link looks
at
Virginia's political campaigns.

It is in the political arena where Link is able to show the strong
feelings, paranoia, and worry of Southern planters.  For politics in
Virginia became a fight between the old and the new orders with all the
issues, including slavery, being played out in the vicious campaigns of
the 1850s.  Since Virginia appears to have been split between the forces
of the old and new, market changes were important during the political
campaigns.  But slavery was also a critical issue; and the slavery
debates
were even more revealing.  One of the most interesting topics concerned
runaway slaves.  It was during the 1850s, amidst these market changes,
that the runaway problem became a volatile issue in Virginia politics.
Runaways had always been a concern, but the paranoia of the 1850s forced
slave-owners to attempt to solidify their position.  What they worried
about was weakening legal-political protection for their property.  This
weakness came about due to the market revolution, the Compromise of
1850,
and other general shifts in political power.  Link shows how
increasingly
insecure these planters became during the 1850s.  They saw their "world"
slipping away, their political power being diluted, and the traditional
system in peril.  This paranoia caused the elite to even try decreasing
any slave privileges:  things like gun ownership and hunting privileges.
These kinds of issues became the primary debates in the volatile
Virginia
campaigns and Link uses the political rhetoric to form a context of what
threats whites were worried about.  Link concludes that, "these threats
appeared all the more menacing because of the ample evidence of
slavery's
transformation" (p. 175).

In summation, the state of Virginia was undergoing great market changes
during the 1850s.  Those market changes were altering the traditional
slave system and also changing the way slavery was conducted.  In
addition, slaves were seeing these changes and taking opportunities to
be
more assertive and aggressive in seeking freedoms within the slave
system.
Those master-slave conflicts can best be seen in the Virginia political
campaigns where planter paranoia and slippage of political power were
staring to show.  The issues debated in Virginia politics demonstrated
how
much slippage was taking place and exhibited the worry and concern of
the
white Tidewater elite.

Does Link prove it all?  I think he does a truly admirable job in _Roots
of Secession_.  This is superb historical scholarship--a work that
attempts to discern important social changes and how those changes
affected nearly every other issue in the era.  I think Link does his
best
work chronicling the market changes and how slavery itself was affected.
His proof about slaves and their assertiveness is impressive, but the
evidence is difficult to come by.  The political parts of the book do
show
the planters worries and concerns.  It all fits together well.  And his
sources are impeccable.  Especially good are his citations of Virginia
newspapers and statehouse records from the era.

I not only like the book very much, but I would go one step further and
say it is a must read for antebellum students.  Those interested in
politics, slavery, and the economy, all can benefit from it.  But it is
even more about the way Link has written the book and the connections he
makes.  _Roots of Secession_ shows how good history can include many
factors and how the complexities of society are so often interconnected.

        Copyright (c) 2003 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits
         the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit,
         educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the
         author, web location, date of publication, originating list,
and
         H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For other uses
         contact the Reviews editorial staff: [log in to unmask]


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html