In 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. ( )