What do you think?
Rate this book
The Politics of War: Race, Class, and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia
War often unites a society behind a common cause, but the notion of diverse populations all rallying together to fight on the same side disguises the complex social forces that come into play in the midst of perceived unity. Michael A. McDonnell uses the Revolution in Virginia to examine the political and social struggles of a revolutionary society at war with itself as much as with Great Britain.
McDonnell documents the numerous contests within Virginia over mobilizing for war--struggles between ordinary Virginians and patriot leaders, between the lower and middle classes, and between blacks and whites. From these conflicts emerged a republican polity rife with racial and class tensions.
Looking at the Revolution in Virginia from the bottom up, The Politics of War demonstrates how contests over waging war in turn shaped society and the emerging new political settlement. With its insights into the mobilization of popular support, the exposure of social rifts, and the inversion of power relations, McDonnell's analysis is relevant to any society at war.
McDonnell documents the numerous contests within Virginia over mobilizing for war--struggles between ordinary Virginians and patriot leaders, between the lower and middle classes, and between blacks and whites. From these conflicts emerged a republican polity rife with racial and class tensions.
Looking at the Revolution in Virginia from the bottom up, The Politics of War demonstrates how contests over waging war in turn shaped society and the emerging new political settlement. With its insights into the mobilization of popular support, the exposure of social rifts, and the inversion of power relations, McDonnell's analysis is relevant to any society at war.
- GenresAmerican HistoryHistory
568 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2007
2 people are currently reading
42 people want to read
About the author
Michael A. McDonnell
13 books3 followersMichael McDonnell is an associate professor of history at the University of Sydney. He is the author of The Politics of War: Race, Class, and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia, winner of the 2008 New South Wales Premier's History Award, and coeditor of Remembering the Revolution: Memory, History, and Nation Making from Independence to the Civil War. He lives in Sydney, Australia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 28, 2014
McDonnell, Michael A. The Politics of War: Race, Class, and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007. 527 pp.
Even during the years of war that led to nationhood, America never stood united according to Michael A. McDonnell’s The Politics of War: Race, Class, and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia (2007). Utilizing a neo-progressive approach and clearly building off of Woody Holton’s work examining Virginia’s complicated pre-war society, McDonnell demonstrates that as the colonies went to war against Great Britain, people within those colonies often went to war with each other. Divided by class and race, few points of unity existed among Virginia’s wartime citizenry.
Like most neo-progressives, McDonnell’s work excels at illuminating the divisions between members of different economic classes. The war fragmented elite power and gave more say to middling Virginian’s who often supported the war intellectually, but saw no reason to support the war through long enlistments and extended service away from their homes. The reticence of middling whites and the outright refusal of elite whites to serve in the Continental Army or contribute monetarily to the fight for independence meant that lower class white and black Virginians shouldered the greatest burdens of the war years. Fearful of damage to their human and material property while also caring little for the plight of the continent, middle class militiamen demanded postings closet to home, adequate financial support, and limited training requirements. Most refused to serve in the Continental Army, choosing instead to seek out lower class “vagabonds” to serve in their stead. By resigning commissions, deserting their posts, refusing to serve, and sometimes violently rebelling against Virginia’s supposed power brokers, ordinary Virginians forced elites to prosecute the war on their terms. For their part, some lower class Virginian’s improved their social statuses by demanding high bounties for their service. Others, unwilling to serve at any price had few qualms with deserting. With almost no ability to coerce their neighbors into serving on terms beneficial to the wider cause, Virginia’s elite governing class slowly accepted that they would have to prosecute the war on terms dictated by the middling sorts.
While McDonnell’s analysis of class divisions proves quite useful in demonstrating that the American War of Independence was anything but a united movement for freedom against British tyranny, his analysis of race is notably lacking. Unable to bring the quantitative methods utilized by neo-progressives to bear on the enslaved population, McDonnell inserts blacks into his narrative at random points and explains their impact on the crisis as resulting from their mere presence. During the war’s opening years, enslaved blacks absconded from plantations and fled to British lines. This, combined with a constant fear of slave rebellion ensured that many slaveholding Virginians attempted to remain close to their homes. By the late 1770s, as the war turned even the most conservative-minded legislators into desperate strategists some attempted to redistribute slaves to men willing to enlist in the Continental Army while others suggested arming slaves in return for freedom. This further divided the colony’s governing institutions from its slaveholding populace. Additionally, the presence of slavery in the colony ensured a constant separation between slaveholding whites and non-slaveholders who felt that the need to protect restless human property was no reason to claim exemption from service and sacrifice. In the end, McDonnell says much about how the existence of slavery in Virginia contributed to class conflicts, but he affords enslaved Virginians little agency. Race and slaves become merely set pieces in the larger conflict between and among colonial whites.
Overall, despite its lacking analysis of race, McDonnell’s tirelessly researched volume helps overcome the obnoxious triumphalism that still dominates much of American Revolutionary historiography. On the negative side, McDonnell could use to cut just a bit of his research to make the volume less redundant. The first two hundred pages introduce the key themes, solidify the truth of his major arguments, and provide compelling examples that keep readers interested in Virginia’s troubles during the nascent nation’s most turbulent time. The rest of the book seems to be just plodding repetition that culminates in a concluding chapter that predictably, but problematically falls into the trap of applying conclusions about a single locality to the nation as a whole. About three hundred pages too long, McDonnell’s work should nevertheless be on the bookshelves of Revolutionary historians interested in telling a more complete story of a world in turmoil headed toward an uncertain future.
Even during the years of war that led to nationhood, America never stood united according to Michael A. McDonnell’s The Politics of War: Race, Class, and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia (2007). Utilizing a neo-progressive approach and clearly building off of Woody Holton’s work examining Virginia’s complicated pre-war society, McDonnell demonstrates that as the colonies went to war against Great Britain, people within those colonies often went to war with each other. Divided by class and race, few points of unity existed among Virginia’s wartime citizenry.
Like most neo-progressives, McDonnell’s work excels at illuminating the divisions between members of different economic classes. The war fragmented elite power and gave more say to middling Virginian’s who often supported the war intellectually, but saw no reason to support the war through long enlistments and extended service away from their homes. The reticence of middling whites and the outright refusal of elite whites to serve in the Continental Army or contribute monetarily to the fight for independence meant that lower class white and black Virginians shouldered the greatest burdens of the war years. Fearful of damage to their human and material property while also caring little for the plight of the continent, middle class militiamen demanded postings closet to home, adequate financial support, and limited training requirements. Most refused to serve in the Continental Army, choosing instead to seek out lower class “vagabonds” to serve in their stead. By resigning commissions, deserting their posts, refusing to serve, and sometimes violently rebelling against Virginia’s supposed power brokers, ordinary Virginians forced elites to prosecute the war on their terms. For their part, some lower class Virginian’s improved their social statuses by demanding high bounties for their service. Others, unwilling to serve at any price had few qualms with deserting. With almost no ability to coerce their neighbors into serving on terms beneficial to the wider cause, Virginia’s elite governing class slowly accepted that they would have to prosecute the war on terms dictated by the middling sorts.
While McDonnell’s analysis of class divisions proves quite useful in demonstrating that the American War of Independence was anything but a united movement for freedom against British tyranny, his analysis of race is notably lacking. Unable to bring the quantitative methods utilized by neo-progressives to bear on the enslaved population, McDonnell inserts blacks into his narrative at random points and explains their impact on the crisis as resulting from their mere presence. During the war’s opening years, enslaved blacks absconded from plantations and fled to British lines. This, combined with a constant fear of slave rebellion ensured that many slaveholding Virginians attempted to remain close to their homes. By the late 1770s, as the war turned even the most conservative-minded legislators into desperate strategists some attempted to redistribute slaves to men willing to enlist in the Continental Army while others suggested arming slaves in return for freedom. This further divided the colony’s governing institutions from its slaveholding populace. Additionally, the presence of slavery in the colony ensured a constant separation between slaveholding whites and non-slaveholders who felt that the need to protect restless human property was no reason to claim exemption from service and sacrifice. In the end, McDonnell says much about how the existence of slavery in Virginia contributed to class conflicts, but he affords enslaved Virginians little agency. Race and slaves become merely set pieces in the larger conflict between and among colonial whites.
Overall, despite its lacking analysis of race, McDonnell’s tirelessly researched volume helps overcome the obnoxious triumphalism that still dominates much of American Revolutionary historiography. On the negative side, McDonnell could use to cut just a bit of his research to make the volume less redundant. The first two hundred pages introduce the key themes, solidify the truth of his major arguments, and provide compelling examples that keep readers interested in Virginia’s troubles during the nascent nation’s most turbulent time. The rest of the book seems to be just plodding repetition that culminates in a concluding chapter that predictably, but problematically falls into the trap of applying conclusions about a single locality to the nation as a whole. About three hundred pages too long, McDonnell’s work should nevertheless be on the bookshelves of Revolutionary historians interested in telling a more complete story of a world in turmoil headed toward an uncertain future.
September 6, 2016
By far one of the very best Revolutionary Era works I've encountered. In sum, McDonnell explains the nationalist impetus for a Federal Constitution in the late 1780s as an outgrowth of the traditional Virginian elite's inability to maintain authority and control over their middling and lower class neighbors after having to bargain ceaselessly with them (usually in vain) to secure even the most moderate levels of willing manpower and popular support during the war years. McDonnell traces the labyrinthine mobilization policies and legislation throughout the Revolutionary War in Virginia, illustrating vividly how each and every attempt made by the General Assembly to secure more men for the war effort was resisted or blatantly ignored by the vast majority of hyper-republicanized "common" Virginians. After the war, middling militiamen cited any vestige of wartime service (however minimal and ineffectual) as sufficient payment to the Revolutionary project. Many summarily refused to pay any further taxes to help pay off the country's new debts in the wake of victory. McDonnell traces how the strategies and tactics of petitioning and popular resistance to the Virginian state executive and legislature (often by forcing local authorities to disobey or even ignore mandates from the state government) developed initially to confront mobilization and conscription, but redeployed later in the interest of debtor relief, redefined the social hierarchy of the Old Dominion in radically democratic ways. This is, in McDonnell's estimation, the truly 'radical' dimension of the American Revolution.
As a side note, the book also deeply complicates the notion that anti-black racism or the institution of slavery itself provided a kind of social glue to upper Southern society via Herrenvolk Democracy during the mid- to late-eighteenth century. White Virginians (often due precisely because of factors related to slavery) come off as nothing less than utterly and completely divided by class throughout the conflict, with very little melding them together beyond occasional self-serving proclamations of interest in "the Cause" (almost never backed up by action). Wonderful book!
As a side note, the book also deeply complicates the notion that anti-black racism or the institution of slavery itself provided a kind of social glue to upper Southern society via Herrenvolk Democracy during the mid- to late-eighteenth century. White Virginians (often due precisely because of factors related to slavery) come off as nothing less than utterly and completely divided by class throughout the conflict, with very little melding them together beyond occasional self-serving proclamations of interest in "the Cause" (almost never backed up by action). Wonderful book!
March 16, 2021
Required reading for a graduate seminar, Historians debate the American Revolution.
October 15, 2022
The author's writing style and the hundreds of lengthy footnotes make this is a difficult read, but I slogged my way through all 500+ pages, wishing as I did that it had been better edited.
The author presents a great deal of historical data that is difficult to find. For that reason the book is helpful. But his insistence on trying to see all the historical evidence through the lens of class conflict (exclusively) greatly diminishes the value of what might otherwise have been a much more important book. It is as if he begins with an ideology, making this book his attempt to interpret the historical record to support that ideology, i.e. a data dump into a preformed ideological mold. It seems to me that the effort ends in a reductionist failure. His thesis is ultimately muddy and unpersuasive. The material collected and presented in the book shows plainly that the conflicts and tensions of the era were not typically class-based. There were rich and poor Virginians who became Patriots. There were rich and poor Virginians who were Loyalists. Drafts were resented and opposed by both the rich and the poor. Both rich and poor opposed and resented taxes. Both rich and poor complained about political and military leadership and decision-making. The notion that the revolutionary era in Virginia was an expression of class struggle just doesn't seem in the end to hold historical water.
Having said that, those with a deep interest in this history will want to read this book. There is a great deal of fascinating information in the book that his hard to find. But the reader/researcher must also be on guard and stay mindful of the author's purpose. There is surprisingly little said, for example, about the crucial militia mobilization of January and February 1781--perhaps because it doesn't support the author's claims. The author has gathered all the evidence that he believes supports his class conflict theory, which makes it valuable to an historian looking for that information even if less helpful for readers seeking a balanced and accurate assessment of the history.
The author presents a great deal of historical data that is difficult to find. For that reason the book is helpful. But his insistence on trying to see all the historical evidence through the lens of class conflict (exclusively) greatly diminishes the value of what might otherwise have been a much more important book. It is as if he begins with an ideology, making this book his attempt to interpret the historical record to support that ideology, i.e. a data dump into a preformed ideological mold. It seems to me that the effort ends in a reductionist failure. His thesis is ultimately muddy and unpersuasive. The material collected and presented in the book shows plainly that the conflicts and tensions of the era were not typically class-based. There were rich and poor Virginians who became Patriots. There were rich and poor Virginians who were Loyalists. Drafts were resented and opposed by both the rich and the poor. Both rich and poor opposed and resented taxes. Both rich and poor complained about political and military leadership and decision-making. The notion that the revolutionary era in Virginia was an expression of class struggle just doesn't seem in the end to hold historical water.
Having said that, those with a deep interest in this history will want to read this book. There is a great deal of fascinating information in the book that his hard to find. But the reader/researcher must also be on guard and stay mindful of the author's purpose. There is surprisingly little said, for example, about the crucial militia mobilization of January and February 1781--perhaps because it doesn't support the author's claims. The author has gathered all the evidence that he believes supports his class conflict theory, which makes it valuable to an historian looking for that information even if less helpful for readers seeking a balanced and accurate assessment of the history.
July 13, 2015
Three stars because it has important things to say but because it was also one of the most boring books I've ever read.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews