What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil War America
Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia (Civil War America) (Civil War America
Offering a provocative new look at the politics of secession in antebellum Virginia, William Link places African Americans at the center of events and argues that their acts of defiance and rebellion had powerful political repercussions throughout the turbulent period leading up to the Civil War. An upper South state with nearly half a million slaves-more than any other state in the nation--and some 50,000 free blacks, Virginia witnessed a uniquely volatile convergence of slave resistance and electoral politics in the 1850s. While masters struggled with slaves, disunionists sought to join a regionwide effort to secede and moderates sought to protect slavery but remain in the Union. Arguing for a definition of political action that extends beyond the electoral sphere, Link shows that the coming of the Civil War was directly connected to Virginia's system of slavery, as the tension between defiant slaves and anxious slaveholders energized Virginia politics and spurred on the impending sectional crisis. -copy for pb An upper South state with nearly half a million slaves-more than any other state in the nation-and some 50,000 free blacks, Virginia witnessed a uniquely volatile convergence of slave resistance and electoral politics in the 1850s. While masters struggled with slaves, disunionists sought to join a regionwide effort to secede and moderates sought to protect slavery but remain in the Union. Arguing for a definition of political action that extends beyond the electoral sphere, William Link shows that the coming of the Civil War was directly connected to Virginia's system of slavery, as the tension between defiant slaves and anxious slaveholders energized Virginia politics and spurred on the impending sectional crisis.
- GenresHistory
408 pages, Paperback
First published March 31, 2003
38 people want to read
About the author
William A. Link
34 booksWilliam A. Link earned his B.A. in history from Davidson College in 1976 and his doctorate in history from the University of Virginia in 1981.
For twenty-three years, he was a professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, teaching courses in North Carolina history, the history of the American South, and twentieth-century American history. In 2004, he became the Richard J. Milbauer chair in history at the University of Florida.
For twenty-three years, he was a professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, teaching courses in North Carolina history, the history of the American South, and twentieth-century American history. In 2004, he became the Richard J. Milbauer chair in history at the University of Florida.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 13, 2018
I started reading the book, "Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia” because I’ve thought that Virginia succeeded due to the issue of state’s right as compared to slavery. Don’t get me wrong, slavery was at the heart of the matter, but from everything I had read, they were willing to stay in the Union despite the feat that Lincoln might not be friendly to slavery. They only left the Union when they realized that their freedom to secede (a state’s right) was being denied to them by Lincoln. With that understanding, I started reading the book figuring it would either validate my interpretation of the events or refute them.
This book is about one state, but a state which could have gone either way---thus, I feel that understanding that state is very important to understanding the Civil War. Virginia, more than any other state struggled with the issue of secession, so a case study is worth the read.
The book was extremely interesting. It talked a lot about the history of the state of Virginia, although it only glossed over the debates in the early 1830s about efforts to prohibit slavery in the state. But I didn’t know that in 1851 that Virginia passed some of the most radically liberal laws in the country affirming universal (for white males at least) suffrage. They opened the door to more Virginian’s voting than others had and they changed a state rule that was similar to the 3/5th compromise to be based upon voting population rather than a derivative of the white and slave populations.
The book provided interesting perspectives on the declining authority of slaver owner and slave independence in the 1850s. These stemmed largely from expanded commerce due to the railroad/telegraph in the 1850 and the increased usage of letting slaves work for a wage (most of which went to the slave owner.) But how these practices diminished the reliance on slave owners---you had to let slaves have some independence to work for wages. At the same time the number of crimes committed by blacks increased significantly. The author talks about the different types of crimes and how those crime affected the souther psyche. He also talked a significant bit about how we don’t know if the crime rates actually increased or if it was merely a matter of the crime rates among blacks being reported. As slaves, the crime rates were often hidden or obscured (you didn’t want a slave known to be a thief when you sold him/her), but as a laborer their crimes might be reported because the person responsible wasn’t monetarily invested in the slave.
The book talks about the notion of the freed slave. We often have the misinterpretation that slaves when they escaped fled north. More often they relocated to neighboring communities or hid out in the local country side. It discussed a fair amount of detail about the various laws that went into effect that affected escaped slaves or free black persons. How sometimes the local community supported freed persons, while in others it persecuted them. About various laws or efforts to pass laws that affected slaves/freed blacks---in a state that for all intents and purposes was borderline in how it treated slaves.
There was a very interesting section on dog ownership and slavery that anybody interested in dogs should read, but one of the most interesting revelations to me was the section dealing with former slaves who returned to slavery. While a very small minority, there were apparently freed slaves who requested to be returned into the state of slavery. I can only imagine that these people were similar to those who today find comfort in jails/prisons. A lifestyles where they were more comfortable with having others make the decisions than they were themselves. It makes sense, but it was startling and unexpected.
The book talks about John Brown and how he achieved martyr status in both the north and the South… that the south feared him and was almost unsure of how to handle his being captured.
In the end, the author concludes:
"Virginians separated from the Union, in the final analysis, in their own way. … In Virginia, as in South Carolina, secession’s political dynamic arose from the institution of slavery, which occupied center stage in the commonwealth’s Political system. Around it was fashioned a system of justice, a local form of government, a legislature, and even a national constitutional system that were all geared toward the protection of the special rights of slaveholders and position of slavery. During the 1840s, those specials rights, and position began to erode. Yet, in contrast to South Carolina, in Virginia the dynamic emanating from slavery did no lead inexorably toward Disunion. Indeed, the same factors eroding slavery --- economic diversification and geographical diversity---also provided a degree of political competitiveness and Unionism that persisted through the winter of 1860-61. During nearly all of the Richmond secession convention, Unionist maintained control, despite the presence of a loud extremist minority and active and increasingly extralegal statewide secessionist movement. South Carolina’s attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s determination to suppress the rebellion however pushed moderates to the brink of disaster. Moderates had envisioned a Union of political harmony and constitutional balance; to many of them, Lincoln’s actions violated these principles.”
This book is about one state, but a state which could have gone either way---thus, I feel that understanding that state is very important to understanding the Civil War. Virginia, more than any other state struggled with the issue of secession, so a case study is worth the read.
The book was extremely interesting. It talked a lot about the history of the state of Virginia, although it only glossed over the debates in the early 1830s about efforts to prohibit slavery in the state. But I didn’t know that in 1851 that Virginia passed some of the most radically liberal laws in the country affirming universal (for white males at least) suffrage. They opened the door to more Virginian’s voting than others had and they changed a state rule that was similar to the 3/5th compromise to be based upon voting population rather than a derivative of the white and slave populations.
The book provided interesting perspectives on the declining authority of slaver owner and slave independence in the 1850s. These stemmed largely from expanded commerce due to the railroad/telegraph in the 1850 and the increased usage of letting slaves work for a wage (most of which went to the slave owner.) But how these practices diminished the reliance on slave owners---you had to let slaves have some independence to work for wages. At the same time the number of crimes committed by blacks increased significantly. The author talks about the different types of crimes and how those crime affected the souther psyche. He also talked a significant bit about how we don’t know if the crime rates actually increased or if it was merely a matter of the crime rates among blacks being reported. As slaves, the crime rates were often hidden or obscured (you didn’t want a slave known to be a thief when you sold him/her), but as a laborer their crimes might be reported because the person responsible wasn’t monetarily invested in the slave.
The book talks about the notion of the freed slave. We often have the misinterpretation that slaves when they escaped fled north. More often they relocated to neighboring communities or hid out in the local country side. It discussed a fair amount of detail about the various laws that went into effect that affected escaped slaves or free black persons. How sometimes the local community supported freed persons, while in others it persecuted them. About various laws or efforts to pass laws that affected slaves/freed blacks---in a state that for all intents and purposes was borderline in how it treated slaves.
There was a very interesting section on dog ownership and slavery that anybody interested in dogs should read, but one of the most interesting revelations to me was the section dealing with former slaves who returned to slavery. While a very small minority, there were apparently freed slaves who requested to be returned into the state of slavery. I can only imagine that these people were similar to those who today find comfort in jails/prisons. A lifestyles where they were more comfortable with having others make the decisions than they were themselves. It makes sense, but it was startling and unexpected.
The book talks about John Brown and how he achieved martyr status in both the north and the South… that the south feared him and was almost unsure of how to handle his being captured.
In the end, the author concludes:
"Virginians separated from the Union, in the final analysis, in their own way. … In Virginia, as in South Carolina, secession’s political dynamic arose from the institution of slavery, which occupied center stage in the commonwealth’s Political system. Around it was fashioned a system of justice, a local form of government, a legislature, and even a national constitutional system that were all geared toward the protection of the special rights of slaveholders and position of slavery. During the 1840s, those specials rights, and position began to erode. Yet, in contrast to South Carolina, in Virginia the dynamic emanating from slavery did no lead inexorably toward Disunion. Indeed, the same factors eroding slavery --- economic diversification and geographical diversity---also provided a degree of political competitiveness and Unionism that persisted through the winter of 1860-61. During nearly all of the Richmond secession convention, Unionist maintained control, despite the presence of a loud extremist minority and active and increasingly extralegal statewide secessionist movement. South Carolina’s attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s determination to suppress the rebellion however pushed moderates to the brink of disaster. Moderates had envisioned a Union of political harmony and constitutional balance; to many of them, Lincoln’s actions violated these principles.”
Displaying 1 of 1 review