Reviewed by:

• Setting Slavery’s Limits: Physical Confrontations in Antebellum Virginia, 1801–1860 by Christopher H. Bouton
• Sergio Lussana

In his new book, Christopher H. Bouton examines physical confrontations between slaveholders and enslaved people in antebellum Virginia. Scrutinizing a wealth of slave narratives, plantation records, and trial transcripts, the book documents the violent resistance of enslaved people to their dehumanizing circumstances. The slaves in Bouton’s study did not violently rebel to claim their freedom; instead, they struck out in defiance or exasperation, to protect their honor, to reclaim their masculinity, and to defend their femininity. These acts did little to ultimately change the conditions of slavery for enslaved people; however, such physical confrontation “provided enslaved people with hope against a system of oppression designed to destroy their humanity” (p. 156).

Bouton examines the circumstances that provoked slaves to resist physically. He argues that the enslaved were often motivated by a failure of slaveholders to live up to their paternalistic obligations. When slaveholders employed excessive punishment, provided inadequate food, or denied slaves the right to visit family members, slaves responded violently. Bouton draws attention to the gendered dynamics of such resistance. For enslaved men, violent resistance was a vital way they could assert their masculinity. Violence was a hallmark of manhood in the antebellum South, crossing racial and class lines. Bouton argues that enslaved men who fought their oppressors “won respect and admiration” from fellow slaves (p. 41). Enslaved men fought to protect their families from punishment and to avenge the sexual abuse and whippings of family members.

Enslaved women could not always rely on their husbands for protection. Bouton documents examples of women violently resisting their sexual exploitation by slaveholding men. He also documents examples of how enslaved female domestic workers suffered at the hands of cruel mistresses. These domestics struck out, in protest of brutal punishment and excessive workloads, against the mistress and the ideology of the southern household. However, white slaveholders rationalized this violence by interpreting it as evidence of the racial inferiority and brutish nature of enslaved people.

Bouton ends with a discussion of three case studies, arguing that when physical confrontations threatened white supremacy, white Virginians did not [End Page 120] hesitate to take matters into their own hands and operate outside the law to protect the slaveholding hierarchy. For example, whites formed a lynch mob and murdered a Black man whose death sentence had been commuted to transportation by the governor.

Some of the most interesting stories in this study come from Bouton’s sensitive and careful examination of Virginia criminal slave trial transcripts. This methodological approach is useful because it gives agency to enslaved people—particularly women—and highlights their efforts to resist. For example, we learn of enslaved women such as Peggy, who, in response to repeated efforts by her master to rape her, broke into his house with the assistance of other slaves, beat him to death, and set the house on fire. Some arguments of this study feel familiar in places—for example, the idea that some enslaved men equated violent resistance with an assertion of masculinity. I wondered whether more attention could have been paid toward regional variations within Virginia, particularly in the divisions between eastern and western Virginia—mentioned in the final chapter—and to what extent the nature of physical confrontations changed over time in Virginia from 1801 to 1860. Setting Slavery’s Limits: Physical Confrontations in Antebellum Virginia, 1801–1860 is an extremely well-written and well-researched book. The discussions are clear, the work is logically presented, and the case studies are intriguing.

审核人：

• 设定奴隶制界限：克里斯托弗·H·布顿（Christopher H. Bouton），1801–1860年在弗吉尼亚州战前的身体对抗
• 塞尔吉奥·卢萨纳（Sergio Lussana）

克里斯托弗·H·布顿（Christopher H. Bouton）在他的新书中考察了弗吉尼亚战前奴隶主与奴隶制人民之间的身体对抗。该书详细审查了许多奴隶的叙述，种植园记录和审判记录，记录了被奴役者对他们的非人道环境的暴力抵抗。布顿研究中的奴隶们并没有猛烈地反抗宣称自己的自由。相反，他们无视或激怒地罢工，以保护自己的名誉，夺回男性气质并捍卫自己的女性气质。这些行为并没有最终改变奴隶制对奴隶制人民的条件。但是，这种肉体对抗“使奴役的人们充满希望反对旨在破坏人类的压迫制度”（第156页）。

布顿研究了促使奴隶身体抵抗的情况。他认为，被奴役者往往是由于奴隶主未能履行其家长式义务而受到驱使的。当奴隶主施以过多的惩罚，提供的食物不足或剥夺了奴隶探望家人的权利时，奴隶就做出了强烈的反应。Bouton提请注意这种抵抗的性别动态。对于被奴役的男人来说，暴力抵抗是他们保留男性气概的重要方式。暴力是南部战前男子气概的标志，跨越种族和阶级界限。布顿认为，与压迫者作斗争的被奴役的人“得到了同胞奴隶的尊重和钦佩”（第41页）。被奴役的男人为保护自己的家人免受惩罚并为家庭成员的性虐待和鞭打报仇进行了斗争。

被奴役的妇女不能总是依靠丈夫来提供保护。布顿（Bouton）记录了妇女暴力抵抗被奴役男人的性剥削的例子。他还记录了被奴役的女佣在残酷的情妇手下遭受苦难的例子。为了抗议残酷的惩罚和过多的工作量，这些家庭成员发动了针对南方家庭的情妇和意识形态的抗议。但是，白人奴隶主将这种暴力行为合理化，将其解释为被奴役者的种族自卑和野蛮性质的证据。

布顿两端用三个案例的讨论，争辩说，当肢体冲突威胁白人至上，白色的弗吉尼亚州没有[尾页120]毫不犹豫地采取事态入自己的双手和经营以外的适用法律来保护蓄奴层次。例如，白人形成了一个私刑暴民，并谋杀了一名黑人，其死刑已被州长改判为运输。

本研究中一些最有趣的故事来自Bouton对弗吉尼亚州犯罪奴隶审判笔录的敏感而认真的检查。这种方法论方法很有用，因为它赋予被奴役的人（尤其是妇女）以代理权，并强调了他们抵抗的努力。例如，我们了解到像佩吉这样的被奴役的妇女，在主人的一再努力下，她强奸了她，在其他奴隶的帮助下闯入了他的房子，将他殴打致死，并烧毁了房子。这项研究的某些论点在某些地方感觉很熟悉，例如，一些奴役的人将暴力抵抗等同于男子气概的说法。我想知道是否应该更多地关注弗吉尼亚州的地区差异，设定奴隶制的界限：弗吉尼亚州战前的身体对抗，1801年至1860年，是一本写得很好，研究得很好的书。讨论很清楚，工作是合乎逻辑的，案例研究也很有趣。