Customer Reviews

Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison, and the Decline of Virginia

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This analysis of Virginia History from 1800 to the Civil War and beyond is well researched, well-written, and fascinating. Dunn lets major figures such as Jefferson and Madison speak for themselves in chronicling the turning inward and clinging to slavery and class by a Virginia elite who oversaw a failure to adapt over a sixty year period. She does this without wasting words (it's a short book if you subtract the notes) and with a great deal of nuance and objectivity. There are historians with bigger names who write about wars and disasters- but Dunn does a brilliant job of telling this sad story of hard choices deferred and wasted. Good stuff!

How does the leading state of the Revolution (the Mother of Presidents) become a sad backwater 50 years later? Though the author points to many factors, what it all comes down to is slavery. Dunn, in fact, does a wonderful job tying all the various threads together.

Some of those threads include a culture that celebrated soil and leisure (did you know the original motto of Virginia was "God bestowed upon us this leisure"?), contempt for education and the intellect (serving mainly to justify slavery as "consistent with the purest justice"), and an active disregard for improvements and capitalism (land and slaves was all you needed). What Dunn does is show how all of these supported slavery and the aristocratic planter class that slavery itself supported.

Some of this has already been treated elsewhere, but Dunn does a particularly good job making the explicit connections to the Old Dominion (where I grew up). She does this primarily by focusing on Madison and Jefferson and the role they played. Neither comes across very well, but the Sage of Monticello comes out particularly poorly - at his backward, stubborn, retrograde, and hypocritical worst.

I also liked the attention she paid the two state constitutional conventions (where these issues were actually discussed at length), how the original state constitution (which Jefferson and Madison helped craft) effectively gave the planters all the power, and how tariffs and abolition were used as red herrings to draw attention away from the issue of slavery. Jumping forward a 100 years, she also shows how things really hadn't changed that much in the 20th Century, with a particular emphasis on Virginia's embarrassing role in the Civil Rights movement.

Dunn's writing style is also excellent. There is a ton of research behind this book, which is reflected especially in her quotes. I don't think I've ever read a book that had more telling quotes or used quotes better than this one.

Perhaps the only thing I didn't like was the attention paid to constitutional and legal matters. They're important, I'm sure many readers will enjoy them, but for me they were very boring. Overall, though, an incredible book.

This solid volume sets out to answer a question that has puzzled many of us who have lived in Virginia: what caused the Commonwealth to decline in influence from the commanding position it held during the colonial and early national periods? Susan Dunn offers a variety of explanations for this phenomenon as she focuses primarily upon the period prior to the Civil War. Among the most important factors, in her judgment, was the "cult of the soil" mentality--that is, the Virginia prior to the Civil War was the epitome of culture, gracious living, political independence, and harmony (even including relations with slaves). The Tidewater control of Virginia, which began in colonial days, and included both economic and political dimensions, was highly resistant to giving way to more modern influences, such as broader sufferage, development of manufacturing, and expanded public education.

Individual chapters are used to spell out in detail Dunn's arguments on topics such as the impact of slavery; resistance to developing top-quality public education; the failure to develop road, canal and railroad networks; a reluctance to venture too far away from an agriculturally-based economy; a fixation on states' rights ideology; limiting the sufferage to a fraction of the white male population; and reliance upon tariffs for economic protection. Running through the entire pre-Civil War period of course is the institution of slavery and the continuing dread that the northern-industrial-free labor federal government might well decide to terminate slavery once and for all. Hence, abolitionists become primary enemies, and fighting them drained off important resources that could have been utilized to modernize Virginia. Jefferson, Madison and other Virginia national pollitical figures come in for some effective criticism by Dunn. Her analysis has an epilogue which focuses on the period from the New Deal to the present in Virginia, where such topics as the "massive resistance" movement and the leadership in opposition to Civil Rights Acts is dominated by Virginia Senators.

Well, what is one to say about this indictment, if that is what it is? Has Dunn overstated or oversimplified the issues? She certainly has done an impressive amount of research--the book contains 63 pages of very pertinent notes and references which serve as support blocks for her argument. Has she ignored other pertinent considerations? These are extremely difficult questions, and I think each reader has to judge the strength of her contentions based upon their own background, historical knowledge, and temperament. I certainly found it a worthy book to read, and it stimulated some new synapses for me. But then again, I am only a former Virginian.

When the United States of America was still more of an idea being fought for than an actual idea, the Colony of Virginia was at the forefront of the intellectual, and physical, battle for independence. Physically, the Old Dominion contributed one of it's most distinguished citizens, who went on to lead the Continental Army to victory and become the Father of his Country. Intellectually, it was the birthplace of many of the men at the forefront of the revolutionary movement -- not just Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but also Patrick Henry, George Mason, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, and Lighthorse Harry Lee.

When Independence was achieved and the colonists set forth on the task of building a new nation, it was, again, Virginians that helped lead the way in drafting a new Constitution and, for 32 of the first 36 years of the new Republic's existence, it was led by men from Virginia.

But, then, something seemed to go terribly wrong. After the Founders' generation had passed on, and even long before that, the Commonwealth of Virginia fell further and further behind it's northern sister states in every measurable respect. Even the estates of it's greatest citizens, Jefferson's Monticello and Washington's Mount Vernon fell into a sad state of disrepair.

In Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison & the Decline of Virginia, Susan Dunn seeks to find the reasons why the Commonwealth went from being first among equals in the late 18th Century, to a sad backwater as the Civil War dawned.

Stripped to it's bare essence, Dunn's thesis is that the Virginia's slave-holding aristocracy, entranced by the agrarian, small-government ideals of Thomas Jefferson, and especially by his belief that only a nation based in farming and the land could live up to the republican values of the Revolution, used their power and influence to stop any efforts to improve the state's economy or system of government. While states in the North, such as New York and Pennsylvania, embarked upon ambitious internal improvement programs, encouraged manufacturing and educated their citizens, Virginia's aristocracy restricted the franchise to while landowners, dominated the political system, and thwarted any effort to bring the benefits of the Industrial Revolution that threatened to overturn the state's agrarian society.

Dunn also lays bare the extent to which the protection of slavery came to dominate nearly every aspect of Virginia's political and economic life in the first half of the 19th Century. While Virginians such as Jefferson, Madison, and Mason had admitted openly the evils of slavery and expressed a desire to see the institution eliminated (although none of their emancipation proposals were realistic), by the 1820s leaders in Virginia and elsewhere in the South were defending slavery as a moral good. As Dunn demonstrates, this obsession with slavery damaged Virginia in two respects; first by artificially encouraging the maintenance of a plantation-based economy that would not otherwise have been viable and, second, by denigrating the value of manual labor among the white population as a whole.

In some respect, Dunn does go overboard with her thesis, though. For example, she levels an astounding degree of criticism at Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for their roles in drafting the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 as a protest against the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. These resolutions, Dunn contends, gave intellectual ammunition to a later generation of Virginians and Southerners who cited the arguments that Jefferson and Madison had made in support of both John C. Calhoun's Nullification Doctrine, and even secession itself. What Dunn fails to take into account, though, is that the 1799 Resolutions were a perfectly reasonable response to a blatantly illegal act, and that neither Jefferson nor Madison can be held responsible for what a later generation of politicians do with their arguments.

Dunn paints a compelling picture of a Virginia locked into a social and political system dedicated to protecting the idyllic lifestyle of landed gentry farming the land -- or, rather, having their land farmed by slave labor -- and dedicating themselves to a life of intellectual pursuits and political involvement. Reality, of course, was far different. Most white residents of ante bellum Virginia were not wealthy planters, and even the wealthy planters lived a far less tranquil life than the ideal vision painted (debt was a frequent problem for plantation owners, and Jefferson was only one such "gentleman farmer" who died tens of thousands of dollars in debt). Because of that unrealistic vision, Virginia never became the manufacturing and industrial powerhouse that it had the potential to be, and, if it had, the history of the later half of the 19th Century might have been very different.

Whether you agree with her thesis or not, though, Dunn's book is well worth reading for anyone interested in how the birthplace of so many of the most important men in our history lost it's way in such a short period of time.

This is an excellent and thought-provoking book that points to the direct connection between the issues of States Rights and Slavery in the years before the Civil War. It successfully attempts to explode romantic notions about the culture and politics of Virginia during the early 1800's.

The book is also illuminating to anyone interested in Jefferson. For me, living in Jefferson's hometown, there's a bit of local history in it, too.

Ms. Dunn may infuriate some Virginians, because she paints a not so flattering portrait of Virginia's leadership, at a time when the heroes of the Revolution were passing the torch to the next generation. But to me the cultural and political points of view that were dominant at that time, and which are explored in this book, still have a visible effect here.

I found it to be a great book to read after finishing His Excellency: George Washington, by Joseph Ellis. That book raises some similar issues in regard to the cultural and economic evolution of Virginia, which hampered the state's economic development -- specifically as that evolution depended upon the commitment to a slave-based economy.

52 books into my search regarding what happened to the promise of 1787 and the collaboration initiated by Madison and Hamilton and finally - answers!

Yes, I know this is a book regarding the decline of Virginia. And yet, it is actually the most insightful and enlightening book about what happened to the intentions of our Founding Fathers regarding the Union as a whole as well. One simply cannot fully understand one without the other, as Virginia and its influence on the formation of our nation are inseparable. What were the conditions on the ground in Virginia that caused Madison (and Monroe) to follow Jefferson into State's rights sovereignty, slave-bound agrarianism, and surrender to a much narrowed constructionist interpretation of the constitution?

Dunn most capably deciphered the clues and provided answers I was looking for. I speculate that her success where so many others have failed is due to her dual expertise in both history and leadership:

"Virginia's leaders in the second generation of constitutional government were indeed a dismal failure. Their failure was one of will, insight, vision and moral conscience - all of the elements that constitute genuine leadership".

And, this "second generation" had the tacit if not enthusiastic engagement and support of Virginia's first generation which included Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, Mason and others, excepting Washington and Marshall.

This failure of leadership made the Civil War all but inevitable by breaking the sacred bonds that secured the Union and for the sake of the social traditions and peculiar institutions of a waning era unique to Virginia and the South, set in motion events that continue to haunt us today.

Susan Dunn has written the most forthright, telling and courageous historical interpretation of the how and why not just the who and when and by doing so, she has elucidated that which here-to-fore had been obscured and confusing and hidden from my understanding.

Book arrived in timely manner and in good condition. It is an interesting book and now I understand better why so many emigrated out of the Nothern Neck of VA in the late 1700's, my family included.

This is a great book for those who want a look at the fate of the Old Dominion from the Revolution up to the Civil War. What happened to the oldest and greatest of the original colonies, the leader in so much of the early history of the country? What happened to the talents of Jefferson and Madison that they could not avert the decline of Virginia? This is a fascinating story, very well told.

This is a fine book for those interested in why the South, particularly Virginia, remained stedfast in its agarian heritage. Susan Dunn explains how the backward nature of Virginia led to many of the problems of the state upon the eve of the Civil War. Steeped in Jefferson's and Madison's theory of states-rights important items such as education, banking, tariffs, industrialization, and internal improvements were allowed to wither away. In the minds of the planter class life was to center around the land, which was worked by slaves, with the ruling members of society leading the carefree life. Anyone interested in history during this time period will thoroughly enjoy this work.

In the late 18th century, Virginia was the most populous and most powerful of the 13 colonies. So dominant was the Old Dominion in the affairs of the young United States that it contributed four of the first five presidents of the new republic. But a half century after the nation's founding, Virginia had not only lost its preeminence but fallen dramatically behind the northern states in population growth and wealth creation. In her book, "Dominion of Memories," Williams College professor Susan Dunn asks why.

Dunn's thesis is that the Tidewater slave-holding aristocracy, hewing to the agrarian, small-government ideals of Thomas Jefferson, held back the state's progress. While northern states embarked upon internal improvements, encouraged manufacturing and educated its citizens, Virginia's aristocracy restricted the franchise, dominated the political system, and thwarted the entrepreneurial vitality that threatened to overturn the state's agrarian society.

There is much to recommend Dunn's book, especially for Virginians who, like me, have only the foggiest notion of the state's history between the American Revolution and the Civil War. While the slave-holding aristocracy undoubtedly did hamper Virginia's evolution to an industrial economy, it strikes me, based upon information that Dunn herself provides, that there was more to the story.

What most intrigued me was Dunn's chapter, "Roads, Canals and Railroads: Moving in Place," which chronicled Virginia's "transportation policy" of the early 19th century. Although Virginia lacked the economic vitality of the northern states, it was not entirely devoid of entrepreneurial energy. The Old Dominion took part in the canal-building mania that gripped the nation around the turn of the century. Business interests launched canals along the James River and the Potomac River with the goal of breaching the barrier of the Blue Ridge the Alleghenies to link up with the fast-developing Ohio River Valley.

Neither enterprise succeeded in its goals. (Dunn doesn't explain why, although I suspect it was a matter of geography - the distances involved and the challenges entailed with crossing mountain chains required far too much capital.) But the canals did form a potent constituency that lobbied effectively against the competitive threat of the railroad. Writes Dunn:

"The investors in the James and Potomac canals, along with Tidewater planters, were among the first in the 1820s to oppose the development of railroads in Virginia, especially lines leading into the interior of the state that might have competed with the canals. Even into the 1850s, their influence held sway in the General Assembly, where legislators killed proposals for the expansion of railroads in some parts of Virginia...

"The canal interests ultimately hampered the economic growth of the entire state. A vital line, only 15 miles long, from the Midlothian coal district to Richmond was delayed again and again."

(Ah, the power of special interests - plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.)

But the economic case for building railroads was so compelling that the canals could not halt construction forever. In 1816, the General Assembly created a state-controlled "Board of Public Works" to mobilize capital and invest in internal improvements. The board would invest in private companies if entrepreneurs supplied three-fifths of the capital; the board would supply the rest. (The first public-private partnerships!)

Dunn argues that the Board was a half-hearted effort, lacking sufficient capital to carry out its task. But it could be equally argued that the institution was flawed from its inception by allowing political considerations to supplant economic ones.

The problem, noted Dunn, is that the Board of Public Works had no overarching vision for conceiving, planning or coordinating projects, much less to build a unified transportation system. Instead of cooperating, cities competed with one another to gain commercial advantage. Furthermore, the Board spread its resources so thinly - among 11 navigation companies, seven railroads and 38 turnpikes - that it accomplished little. Writes Dunn: "The projects were unprofitable, the quality of work poor."

It's not clear to me how this represents a failure of the Jeffersonian vision of limited government. Rather, it looks like a classic case of a failed government program, in which Virginia's scarce investment capital was misallocated by a government board driven by political considerations rather than economic ones.

By the 1850s, Virginia had built 2,000 miles of railroads. Nineteen different companies operated rail lines. But the lines were often unconnected and had incompatible gauges; Richmond was served by six different rail lines, but there was no central depot for the transfer of cargo or passengers. While Virginia was busy launching under-funded enterprises in response to special-interest lobbying, it failed in a crucial legitimate role that government could have played: creating a blueprint that would have allowed private companies to integrate into a unified system.

By the 1850s, Virginia could boast almost 5,000 manufacturing establishments, writes Dunn. That may have been an impressive number by the standards of the slave-holding states, but it lagged industry and commerce in the North. Dunn argues that "if the state government had energetically supported a network of internal improvements, Virginia might have developed large, vital cities that could have attracted skilled labor, capital and consumers." Virginia possessed coal and iron deposits - it potentially could have been a leader in the industrial revolution.

Dunn has captured elements of the full picture, but I sense that her analysis is incomplete. While Virginia's entrepreneurial vitality lagged that of the north, it exceeded that of other slave-holding states. Where did that industrializing impulse come from? Who were Virginia's ante-bellum entrepreneurs and where did they get their capital? What role did the tariff (the subject of a different chapter) play in transferring wealth to Northern states and inhibiting capital formation in Virginia? To what extent did the Board of Public Works misallocate the limited supply of capital that was available?

"Dominion of Memories" may not have all the answers, but Virginia public policy junkies will find Dunn's account of the great economic development issues of Virginia's early 19th century to be fascinating nonetheless.

(From the Bacon's Rebellion blog at http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com).