ebooks Forced Founders: Indians; Debtors; Slaves; and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Published by the Omohundro Institute of Early ... and the University of North Carolina Press) by Woody Holton in History

Review

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. A Great Re-Examination of the Founders!By RDDIn Forced Founders; Woody Holton argues “that the Independence movement was…powerfully influenced by British merchants and by three groups that today would be called grassroots: Indians; farmers; and slaves.” Holton argues against the tendency to transpose the New England narrative of the American Revolution onto the South; explaining how the road to revolution in Virginia was unique to the circumstances within that colony. Holton constructs his narrative using letters; court documents; publications in newspapers; and a close reading of the Declaration of Independence itself. In examining the letters and publications of gentry tobacco farmers; Holton “casts doubt upon the Progressive historians’ claim that free Virginians participated in the American Revolution in order to repudiate their debts.” While debt is a prevailing theme in Holton’s work; he makes clear that it worked in conjunction with the social system of Virginia; with its conflicts between white Virginians and slaves; English colonists and Indians; and smallholders and the gentry. With its admittedly limited focus; Forced Founders demonstrates that traditionally subaltern groups played a crucial role in shaping the course of the American Revolution.Holton discusses threatened slave uprisings and conflicts between Native Americans and the Virginia gentry through the role of debt and power disparities in creating and maintaining relationships between the gentry; those beneath them on the social ladder; and British merchants. Indians’ land claims and the Proclamation of 1763 threatened the future economic prosperity of smallholders and gentry seeking to secure land beyond the proclamation line. Without the ability to secure clear title to the land; both smallholders and the gentry faced the possibility of losing their investments and descending into debt. Holton’s choice to distinguish these investors from spectators challenges the assumptions of historians Theda Perdue; Michael D. Green; Freeman Hansford Hart; Norman K. Risjord; and others. The threat of slave resistance created a “permanent undercurrent of fear in the minds of most whites in the Chesapeake.” When the Earl of Dunmore threatened to turn slaves against masters and removed the slave owners’ access to gunpowder; he posed a danger to the delicate social hierarchy of colonial Virginia. Holton argues; “In a colony where 40 percent of the population was enslaved; there must be no cracks in the foundation of white solidarity.” Though much of Holton’s argument relies on the perspective of the Virginia gentry; a group he loosely defines; he successfully demonstrates how the actions of Indians and slaves initiated the gentry’s revolutionary actions. Despite focusing on the relationships between the gentry and groups subordinate to them; Holton does not write a bottom-up history. His source base; primarily written or published by the gentry themselves; limits the voices of smallholders and entirely silences the voices of African slaves and Native Americans. Instead; Holton presents the influence of Indians and slaves through the perspective of the gentry; who based their politics on the perceived threats of both groups.Debt plays a pivotal role in Holton’s analysis of revolutionary Virginia. Holton writes; “Debt destroyed not only lives and families but the personal independence that free Virginians cherished.” Virginia planters were entirely beholden to the British marketplace both to import the goods they required for maintaining their social standing and to sell their tobacco. Even the profits they made from their tobacco were a result of the prohibition against growing tobacco in England. Though many in Virginia cautioned against overconsumption; Holton argues that the gentry could not simply cease purchasing goods from England. He writes; “A smallholder that stopped patronizing the Scottish stores or a gentleman that suddenly stopped placing orders with merchants in England and Scotland was; in effect; telling them that he had become a bad credit risk.” Amid such fears; Holton argues that non-exportation and non-importation; while useful to the Revolution; also helped the Virginia planters to drive up demand for tobacco and ease the impetus to purchase finished goods; for; while farmers’ “British creditors might disagree with their politics;” it “was better than having their creditworthiness questioned.” Holton writes; “Although the American Revolution in Virginia was in part the tax revolt we all learn about in grade school; it was also a class conflict pitting Virginia tobacco growers against the British merchants that; with the help of the Royal Navy; monopolized their trade.” While previous historians focused on the Intolerable Acts and New England’s motivations for revolution; Holton demonstrated that Virginia had its own unique reasons to challenge British authority; most of which resulted from threats to the economic hierarchy.Responding to earlier historiography; Holton writes; “Studying the social context of the American Revolution reveals that historians of its origins have erred in taking a model developed for northern colonies and applying it without modification to those below the Mason-Dixon line.” Holton’s greatest success comes from this focused approach and how he subtly shifts the historiography to demonstrate that George Washington; Thomas Jefferson; and the Lee family joined the Revolution to maintain the status quo in Virginia rather than acting out of entirely noble ambitions. Though the gentry feared the loss of power associated with a democracy; they eventually agreed to a republican government to prevent anarchy and mollify “the farmer’s wrath if they continued to thwart the popular demand for an independent republic.” Holton’s discussion with the historiography plays out in the format of the book. His organization works to clearly articulate his main argument and his use of footnotes; rather than endnotes; enables the reader to conveniently check and cross-reference his sources and his commentary on them. Holton’s footnoted discussion of the historiography features some of his strongest analysis of both his sources and his role in the discussion. In the text; he often takes for granted the gentry’s assumptions of lower classes; but; in the footnotes; he offers further evidence that would have bolstered his argument. Despite these critiques; Forced Founders contributes a valuable perspective to the role of the Chesapeake in the American Revolution.4 of 4 people found the following review helpful. "Forced to be free?"By Thomas L. PowersHolton makes the case that the "Founding Fathers" in Virginia were forced toward independence from Great Britain; a position most did not want to take; less by ideological or political concerns than by fear of forces from below. The push for reforms within the British Empire led to progressive weakening of the colonial government headed by Lord Dunmore. Absent effective government power; the concerns of Indians; slaves; debtors; and smallholders began to assert themselves so as to cause serious consternation among the colony's ruling elite. The intrigues of the governor; particularly his threats to recruit and arm slaves to fight against their masters; added to the growing conviction that only by the establishment of an independent government could the power of the elites be secured and Virginia's traditional social order maintained. Most of those who still hesitated were persuaded to come around when anti-independence candidates were soundly defeated in elections to the Virginia Convention. Those who wished to hold their position in Virginia; where small landholders had the franchise and the majority of voters; found it necessary to yield to the will of that majority.This only begins to tell the story. There are many more points made and traditional verities questioned. One useful observation; for example; is that the colonies were often very different from one another; so much so that it is doubtful that any one cause could said to drive them all; and that Virginia; in particular; was different from New England.Holton's book is a useful reminder that history sometimes needs to be written from the bottom up; and that elite reaction to those they try to lead is often at least as important as reaction to an external threat. Everyone concerned with serious study of the roots of the American Revolution should read it.7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Brilliant HistoryBy Nicholas R. FryHolton's account of the conflict between Virginia whites; slave owners and Royal Governor Dunmore is fascinating. The conflict; Holton believes is part of the reason that there is small mention in the Declaration of Independence of exciting domestic insurrections. Runaway slaves often tried to seek refuge form their owners by enlisting or joining with the British side. The protection offered to them enraged the slave owning class; and is why Holton argues that by blacks seeking their freedom they unknowingly added motivation for the decision to declare independence. Holton also presents evidence that many enslaved people actively sought to use any moment of crisis as an opportunity to rebel against their owners and the conflict with England was not immune to that fact. Dunmore's strategy was quite brilliant; even if he underestimated the big picture. He captured the powder from the magazine holding it hostage; and eventually attracted fierce black fighters to join his side in exchange for their freedom. While reading this account I kept thinking how the British should have applied Dunmore's strategy to the whole of the colonies.Holton as describes how and why smallholders and poor whites contributed to the gentry's decision to declare independence. Servants and poor whites were even more openly unruly at this time then their enslaved counterparts. The boycotts caused shortages and riots among whites. Foreign governments would not trade with semi-sovereign British subjects; so the only solution for the ruling class was to declare independence. The gentry needed a buffer between their seat of power and the slaves/Indians; their solution was to calm the anxiety of middling and poor whites. There were many reasons that the white lower classes mistrusted the gentry. The gentry were trying to amalgamate independent-democratic volunteer battalions in to a large poorly-funded yet easily-controllable force that would cut down on rebellious activities. What was worse was the wealthy could achieve an exemption from service if they met certain requirements. Another major cause of mistrust was the disparity in pay between officers and soldiers that was nearly 11 to 1. Just as the fear of Slaves and Indians motivated the gentry so too did their fear that outside circumstances would cause poor white soldiers to revolt or change sides. There was according to the evidence that Holton presents a strong paranoia about finding a quick end to the war. The gentry also used this fear of public disorder to convince conservatives to join the independence movement; in order to regain control.Reading the opinions of the conservatives/loyalist and the general discussion about what to replace the British system with was very intriguing. Most of these men feared a republican form of government; and losing the system of hierarchy. It is obvious that any one in their position would be inclined to protect their status; but for me; it is still Ironic hear these men talk of "tumults and riots" when referring to popular sovereignty. Besides their complete lack of faith in the common man; it would be unfair to say that there is not some truth to the notion that the people as whole will not always make the best decisions. However; what we learn in contemporary American history is that the founders sought to prohibit "mob rule"; not that many of them simply wanted to protect an aristocracy; or worse that they had no faith in their "lowly" fellow countrymen. These fears as stated in the epilogue; were unfounded; the gentry class continued to dominate local and national politics after the war; and as Holton states; they were the Revolution's "clearest victor".I very much enjoyed reading Holton's account of revolutionary Virginia. It was truly enlightening to read about the problems that plagued the gentry; who are almost always presented as invulnerable. He explains the class/racial dimensions in a way that doesn't favor any side and gives accurate testimony to the facts that have been omitted from modern history. We often don't even think of what ordinary Americans roles were during this time; and the addition of that knowledge is very important. I would reject the notion that Holton's argument is emphasizing the minor details too greatly because he acknowledges that the Revolution was about things like taxes and representation; there are already books about that and he is not denying their role. His book adds nuance and depth to a complicated history.