In addition to agreeing with Harold Forsythe's general view of Kevin Phillips
as having some greater historical introspection than most modern political
commentators, I think that Phillips has hit at least the board if not the
nail. Certainly Southern economic and political "powers" were concentrated
among large planters, those large planters almost universally owned slaves,
and those large planters strongly supported the Revolutionary interests. At
least this has been the clear case of my examination of the planter class in
Eastern North Carolina. Almost to a man, the militia leaders (being also of
the planter class) who supported the Crown, Gov. Tryon, against the Regulator
insurgency were within six years at the forefront of the state's civilian and
military Revolutionary leadership. In both cases their economic interests
coincided with (drove) their political allegiances. Slavery was to this group
very much an economic interest. It was not the only economic interest, but it
was paramount to the maintenance of the plantation system. As the geography
changed Westward, the reliance on slavery changed as did the commitment to
the Revolutionary cause. Had not the British stirred up the Indian tribes on
the frontier, the frontiersmen in Virginia and the Carolinas might have sat
out the conflict. As it was, this economic class of small farmers contributed
a great deal of the Tory manpower in these areas.

Bill Russell

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