Reviewed by Mechal Sobel | Book Review | The William and Mary Quarterly, 62.2

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the WMQ online. About 387 words from this article are provided below; about 861 words remain.

If you are a individual subscriber to the William and Mary Quarterly, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a subscriber to the William and Mary Quarterly, you can:: • subscribe here.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the William and Mary Quarterly (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the William and Mary Quarterly.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

Reviewed by Mechal Sobel | Book Review | The William and Mary Quarterly, 62.2 | The History Cooperative

Reviews of Books

Mechal Sobel, University of Haifa

Foul Means: The Formation of a Slave Society in Virginia, 1660–1740. By Anthony S. Parent Jr. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture. 312 pages. $49.95 (cloth), $19.95 (paper).
Those concerned with early American history should take the key points in this study of "the formation of a slave society in Virginia" from 1660 to 1740 very seriously. Anthony S. Parent begins by challenging Winthrop D. Jordan's influential argument that the enslavement of Africans in early Virginia and the creation of the institution of slavery in America was an "unthinking decision."¹ Parent argues that "during a brief period in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, a small but powerful planter class, acting in their short-term interest, gave America its racial dilemma" (2). Though this judgment cuts off the Virginia elite's decisions from the wider history of Africans' enslavement in North America and around the Atlantic, which they were a part of, nevertheless it properly emphasizes the thinking of the early enslavers. It was not an accident that slavery was embraced in Virginia. It did not slip in and grow without awareness on the part of those who were intent on becoming wealthier and more powerful. In fact, their decision to become enslavers of Africans was, as they hoped it would be, a crucial step in their gaining extensive land and power. The idea that the planters were not conscious of the implications of their actions has been undermined by much scholarship in the last thirty years, cited by Parent, but Parent goes beyond this work by recognizing that when powerful planters made land ownership difficult for ex-servants, they were making Virginia unattractive to white laborers and contributing in this crucial way to Virginia's dependence on enslaved Africans.	1
These planters also extended their land holdings by obtaining head rights for slave purchases and establishing themselves as the leading slave traders, and soon became a permanent ruling class. They were positioned to change basic laws and to alter the nature of the system. Parent holds that "their decision to enslave blacks involved a choice to establish a coercive state" (105). A detailed chapter establishes the legal history that substantiates this assertion.	. . .

There are about 861 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.