Aaron Hall shows even more clearly the entanglement of state and market development within the American South. Quintana’s book stands out here not only for being one of the first to focus on the category of the state in relation to slavery, but for demonstrating convincingly that slave mobility provoked, in reaction, the construction of a territoriality ordered by racial enforcement. Quintana’s conception of the state is rooted in broadly post-structuralist perspectives. He does not engage with the interdisciplinary field of American Political Development (APD), which has been the primary forum for studies of the state in nineteenth-century America. This has its advantages and disadvantages. By eschewing the debates that have animated APD, Quintana brings a genuinely fresh perspective, one that allows him to relate slavery to state formation in a new way. South Carolina emerges not as the bastion of states’ rights libertarianism, but as representative of the broader historical trajectory of modern governance. Yet Quintana’s account would have benefitted from awareness of important APD works, particularly Richard Bensel’s Yankee Leviathan (1990) and Robin Einhorn’s American Taxation, American Slavery (2006), that compare governing capacities across the free and slave states and generally find the latter the less capable of the two. When Quintana writes that slave “patrols were limited by the slave pass system, which while perceived as a check on slave mobility is better understood as an extension of slave owners’ property claims,” he seems to be providing evidence for this view (p. 112). Masters could extend their domain beyond their own land holdings into “state space,” but it does not appear that it ever worked the other way around, except to the extent that planters themselves petitioned for local infrastructural development and then felt dutybound to commit their slaves’ labor to construction. Quintana’s study therefore shows that “unfreedom and modern governance” were indeed compatible, but it does not address the question of just how compatible relative to other cases. Yet Making a Slave State does highlight very clearly a particular set of governing techniques, especially relating to the violent policing of boundaries and public spaces, that we have every reason to suspect survived the slave regime and diffused themselves more broadly.

中文翻译：

---

说客与美国关税政策的制定，1816-1861

Aaron Hall 更清楚地展示了美国南部国家和市场发展的纠葛。金塔纳 (Quintana) 的书在这里脱颖而出，不仅因为它是最早关注与奴隶制相关的国家类别的书之一，而且令人信服地证明，奴隶流动性引发了作为反应的种族强制秩序的领土建设。金塔纳的国家概念植根于广泛的后结构主义观点。他不参与美国政治发展 (APD) 的跨学科领域，该领域一直是 19 世纪美国国家研究的主要论坛。这有其优点和缺点。通过避开使 APD 活跃起来的辩论，金塔纳带来了一个真正新鲜的视角，使他能够以一种新的方式将奴隶制与国家形成联系起来。南卡罗来纳州不是各州权利自由主义的堡垒，而是现代治理更广泛的历史轨迹的代表。然而，昆塔纳的叙述会受益于对重要 APD 作品的认识，尤其是理查德·本塞尔的《扬基利维坦》（1990 年）和罗宾·艾因霍恩的《美国税收，美国奴隶制》（2006 年），它们比较了自由州和奴隶州的治理能力，通常发现后者越少能胜任两人。当金塔纳写道，奴隶“巡逻受到奴隶通行证系统的限制，虽然这被认为是对奴隶流动性的检查，但更好地理解为奴隶主财产要求的延伸”，他似乎为这种观点提供了证据（第 15 页）。 112)。主人可以将他们的领域从他们自己的土地所有权扩展到“国家空间”，但它似乎从来没有反过来起作用，除非种植者自己请求当地的基础设施发展，然后觉得有责任让他们的奴隶'劳动到建筑。因此，金塔纳的研究表明，“不自由和现代治理”确实是兼容的，但它没有解决相对于其他情况的兼容程度的问题。然而，建立奴隶制国家确实非常清楚地突出了一套特定的治理技术，特别是与边界和公共空间的暴力监管有关，我们有充分的理由怀疑它们在奴隶制度下幸存下来并更广泛地传播。”但它似乎从来没有反过来起作用，除非种植者自己请愿当地的基础设施发展，然后觉得有责任让他们的奴隶劳动进行建设。因此，金塔纳的研究表明，“不自由和现代治理”确实是兼容的，但它没有解决相对于其他情况的兼容程度的问题。然而，建立奴隶制国家确实非常清楚地突出了一套特定的治理技术，特别是与边界和公共空间的暴力监管有关，我们有充分的理由怀疑它们在奴隶制度下幸存下来并更广泛地传播。”但它似乎从来没有反过来起作用，除非种植者自己请愿当地的基础设施发展，然后觉得有责任让他们的奴隶劳动进行建设。因此，金塔纳的研究表明，“不自由和现代治理”确实是兼容的，但它没有解决相对于其他情况的兼容程度的问题。然而，建立奴隶制国家确实非常清楚地突出了一套特定的管理技术，尤其是与边界和公共空间的暴力监管有关，我们有充分的理由怀疑它们在奴隶制度下幸存下来并更广泛地传播。除非种植者自己请求当地的基础设施发展，然后觉得有义务让他们的奴隶劳动进行建设。因此，金塔纳的研究表明，“不自由和现代治理”确实是兼容的，但它没有解决相对于其他情况的兼容程度的问题。然而，建立奴隶制国家确实非常清楚地突出了一套特定的治理技术，特别是与边界和公共空间的暴力监管有关，我们有充分的理由怀疑它们在奴隶制度下幸存下来并更广泛地传播。除非种植者自己请求当地的基础设施发展，然后觉得有义务让他们的奴隶劳动进行建设。因此，金塔纳的研究表明，“不自由和现代治理”确实是兼容的，但它没有解决相对于其他情况的兼容程度的问题。然而，建立奴隶制国家确实非常清楚地突出了一套特定的治理技术，特别是与边界和公共空间的暴力监管有关，我们有充分的理由怀疑它们在奴隶制度下幸存下来并更广泛地传播。