Challenging the generally accepted belief that the introduction of racial slavery to America was an unplanned consequence of a scarce labor market; Anthony Parent; Jr.; contends that during a brief period spanning the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries a small but powerful planter class; acting to further its emerging economic interests; intentionally brought racial slavery to Virginia. Parent bases his argument on three historical developments: the expropriation of Powhatan lands; the switch from indentured to slave labor; and the burgeoning tobacco trade. He argues that these were the result of calculated moves on the part of an emerging great planter class seeking to consolidate power through large landholdings and the labor to make them productive. To preserve their economic and social gains; this planter class inscribed racial slavery into law. The ensuing racial and class tensions led elite planters to mythologize their position as gentlemen of pastoral virtue immune to competition and corruption. To further this benevolent image; they implemented a plan to Christianize slaves and thereby render them submissive. According to Parent; by the 1720s the Virginia gentry projected a distinctive cultural ethos that buffered them from their uncertain hold on authority; threatened both by rising imperial control and by black resistance; which exploded in the Chesapeake Rebellion of 1730.
#825697 in Books The University of North Carolina Press 1999-09-20Ingredients: Example IngredientsOriginal language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.21 x .72 x 6.14l; 1.18 #File Name: 0807847860352 pages
Review
17 of 17 people found the following review helpful. The Other Founders of the United StatesBy Ashtar Command"The Other Founders" by history professor Saul Cornell is a book about the Anti-Federalists; the "radical" wing of the American Revolution. The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the US constitution; believing that it would grant too much power to the federal authorities. While not necessarily opposed to some sort of federation; the Anti-Federalists wanted most power to be vested in the states; or even further down; at county level. After the US constitution had been ratified; Anti-Federalists usually joined the emerging Democratic-Republican movement of Thomas Jefferson; becoming a kind of "loyal opposition" within the federal structures they had previously opposed.Saul Cornell believes that Anti-Federalist ideas and attitudes remained an important part of the political landscape even after the US constitution had been ratified. Although Anti-Federalists were; in one sense; on the loosing side; they didn't simply collapse or go away. After all; they were right: the United States *did* become more centralized and (perhaps) less democratic after the constitution had been adopted. As several other reviewers have pointed out; much opposition to the modern federal government sounds Anti-Federalist. (Strangely; many of these dissidents claim to uphold the constitution and the Federalist Papers.)"The Other Founders" point out that Anti-Federalism wasn't a homogenous movement. Rather; it was a coalition of several different currents; hold together mostly by their shared opposition to the centralization proposed by the Federalists. Cornell distinguishes between elite; middling and plebeian Anti-Federalists.The "middling" (middle class) group consisted of state politicians in New York and elsewhere who had rised to prominence after the revolution; due to the democratization of public life. They resented the traditional elite groups; but were equally suspicious of "the lower sort" and their "mobocracy". Charting a moderate middle course; the middling Anti-Federalists believed that the states should have most of the power. They were equally opposed to both localism and federal centralism. I got the impression that the middling group wanted to turn their respective states into a kind of nation-states; but go no further than that. They were also generally pro-commerce; "pro-capitalist"; while opposing Hamilton; who was seen as the friend of speculators and corrupt politicians.An interesting fact pointed to by Cornell is that both the elite Anti-Federalists and the plebeian faction were strongly localist. They were opposed to centralized federal power; and felt uneasy towards power on the state level as well. The elite group; apparently some kind of traditionalist Southern landowners; believed that the old elite could uphold its values (and control) only in a small-sized; rural setting. Only at the local level was it possible for the Southern gentlemen to influence the common people; in face-to-face contact and according to strict codes of honor and deference. The elite Anti-Federalists were also suspiscious of the emerging public sphere of newspapers; with their anonymous political articles and mass readership. This new public sphere; which was state-wide; nation-wide and "democratic"; threatened the privileged positions of the landed gentry. The elitists were used to policy-making by personal contact between prominent people; or by the exchange of letters for strictly private consumption among a select few. The new era of popular appeals through mass media were not for them.The most radical Anti-Federalists; the plebeians; were also localist. In their case; because direct democracy could function only at the local level. To the plebeians; the town meeting; local juries and (of course) the local militia were instruments of such direct democracy. They also had an "anti-capitalist" view of the economy; opposing debt repayments and claiming that the ecomomy should be based on moral principles. National banking; big-time commerce and speculation were seen as equally immoral.Another highly interesting fact pointed out by Professor Cornell is that both elite and plebeian Anti-Federalists were anti-pluralists. Their conception of democracy differed markedly from the liberal one (which was more espoused by the middling camp). To elitists and plebeians alike; the community should be homogenous; and individuals could be censored by it. When plebeians in Carlisle rioted against a Federalist celebration; they invoked the idea of such a homogenous community. The Federalists should; in their opinion; have deferred to the local Anti-Federalist majority; and cancelled their meetings. Plebeians also supported test acts and loyalty oaths; which excluded non-Protestants (and even some Protestants) from full citizenship and public office. (In Pennsylvania; these laws targeted Quakers and Mennonites but also former Tories.)The book points out that the Anti-Federalist coalition split when the plebeians resorted to violence. The Carlisle riots and their violent aftermath; although a local success for the plebeians; alienated the middling and elite groups within the coalition; making them more prone to compromise with the Federalists. When Anti-Federalists of all sorts joined the Democratic-Republican societies (and hence found themselves in alliance with Jeffersonites); the same thing occurred in the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion. The plebeians supported the rebellion; even calling on the rebels to secede from the United States; while the middling group; now in alliance with Jefferson and Madison; got cold feet. The elite group; ironically; could avert a whiskey rebellion in Kentucky by sabotaging the federal persecutions of tax-evaders. In that Southern state; some of the gentry were distillers; and they naturally packed the court system to insure that nobody (not even plebeian tax-evaders) were persecuted."The Other Founders" isn't a book for the general public. It presupposes a high degree of foreknowledge about the American Revolution on the part of the reader. Many key terms such as "Old Whig" ;"republicanism" or "originalism" are never defined. Also; the style is tedious; boring and frequently repetitive. A large part of the book analyzes the strategy of the different factions in the public sphere (the press). In other words; the book is a typical scholarly tome!Did I mind? Well; a more lively styled could have helped. Also; I would have appreciated more emphasis on the class conflicts and less on the newspapers. Still; I found the book interesting and informative; especially the first section on pre-ratification Anti-Federalism and the section dealing with the Whiskey Rebellion.Recommended for serious students of the American Revolution and political science in general.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Vital InformationBy Alan PyeattThis is; simply put; an excellent book that helps fill the void of an appallingly neglected part of American history. Cornell's book is well researched; well written; and well documented. I have recommended it to many of my friends; and referred to it in an article I wrote for OpEd News. I also quoted excerpts several times on a weekly web radio show I used to do.Unfortunately; most high school (and even college) history courses give students the impression that there was little opposition to ratifying the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately; we have Ralph Ketcham's collection of primary sources; "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates." But Cornell's book provides a systematic analysis of the political philosophy behind those documents; and provides a context for interpreting them based on contemporary newspaper articles; diary entries; letters; etc.No one who truly wants to understand the weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution and the ratification debate will regret reading this book.1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Just as flawed as every other history book I have ever read; but...By Adam SeleneI bought the Kindle edition of this book hoping to read what the anti-federalists wrote. This was not the book I was looking for. It turns out that there was such a strenuous debate over the Constitution that a collection of everything written by the anti-federalists runs to seven volumes and costs just under $500.00 here on . They are compiled by a man named Herbert J. Storing. If you can afford them; it would help save you a great deal of time and effort to buy them.The quantity and length of writing by people who were against adopting the Constitution came as a shock for me because I had not been taught anything about the anti-federalists in high school. What I was taught about the Constitution was that it was the key to my freedom and that of every other American. Then we went over the sundry amendments; especially the first ten; the so-called "Bill of Rights;" and that was about all I remember being taught. Which says some very bad things about having our schools run by our government. The government run education system only teaches your children what the government wants them to know. I am in my sixties and I just now heard anything at all about the "anti-federalists."I bring this up because it just recently dawned on me that the Constitution and its authors gave Congress an impossible task. Said task can be found in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 which; reads as follows: "To coin Money; regulate the Value thereof; and of foreign Coin; and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."There are several glaring problems with this clause. The very first of which is that Congress does not order any coins made to speak of. Congress does not even actually print all the money in circulation. Nearly all the dollars in circulation are mere bookkeeping entries on computes owned and operated by our Dear Bankers. Were we to print enough hundred dollar bills to cover all the digital do-do stored in the computers owned and operated by our Dear Bankers; we would rapidly run up huge prices for flax; cotton; specialized and expensive inks to print money; along with skyrocketing salaries for highly skilled engravers needed to make the plates. We might even drive the price of tractors up. Doubt my claims? Take a look at how much space you would need to pile up a trillion dollars in one hundred dollar bills. There are graphics out there on the web to be found.My estimation of this situation is that we do not raise enough flax or cotton to meet that potential demand. Worse; flax and cotton are both heavy feeders and they consume the nutrients in the soil so rapidly that ton upon ton of fertilizer is required to rear them. This is bad enough; but the next part of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 reads: "...regulate the value thereof...". Unless we allow Congress to control the price of everything; and I do mean _everything_; "regulating the value thereof" is an utterly impossible task for our Dear Leaders in the House and Senate.If you are laughing at me; you do not understand anything about money. Money is only worth what it will buy. You cannot eat money and with our money; you cannot even use it to clean up after going to the bathroom because it is worse than the very cheapest of all toilet papers you have ever had the misfortune of attempting to use; and it will clog your toilet if you do try. You might be able to use at as insulation by stuffing it into your clothes or you could start a fire with it; but other than that; it is just so much paper with an elaborately printed pattern of ink on it. Even gold and silver; the two "precious" metals are only good for what you can get in exchange for them. How on Earth does anyone expect a gang of ne'er-do-well politicians to control that? They cannot and never will.Having discovered this flaw and having finally learned about these so-called "ant-federalists;" I thought I would give the Constitution a thorough going over just to see what else might be wrong with it. I did not find such criticisms in this book; Saul Cornell did; however; lead me to an embarrassment of riches online. Nearly everything you want to know about this period in history is available on the web and this book told me who and what to look for and if you are as serious about learning the Constitution and the ideas it was founded on as I am; you could do worse than starting with this sharply skewed book. Do be aware that Mister Cornell is fond of his own opinions and makes no distinctions or gives any warning when he passes them on to you as simple fact. He may or may not be right. I shall necessarily leave that up for you to judge; just be advised that this book is flawed; just as every book on history is; and read it with an active mind. My advise is to buy the Kindle version and read it on your Kindle in front of your computer so that you can run searches on the web. An alternative approach is to download the free Kindle app for you operating system from and read it in one browser tab while searching for the things the book mentions in another browser tab. In any case; it will provide you with hour after hour of fascinating food for thought and research.
