Suzanne Lebsock utilizes local records and histories of Petersburg, Virginia to ascertain the status and culture of women in an antebellum southern town. Her research reveals that contrary to previous assertions, women in the nineteenth-century experienced positive changes in status when dealing with property and familial structure. She takes specific points of Mary Beard’s path-breaking book Women as Force in History to task showing that the free women of Petersburg gained considerable autonomy through separate estates. Beard asserted that British and American women gained substantial freedom through the adoption of equity as opposed to common law jurisprudence (54). Lebsock acknowledges this developing pattern, but argues that separate estates were highly variable and Beard overstated its liberating and commonplace occurrence. Free Women of Petersburg is a micro-history of a southern town and Lebsock’s analysis elucidates the often-precarious economic and cultural status of women.

 The evaluation of nineteenth-century women indicates no clear pattern of decline or progression, but rather a straight line of development (xv). Lebsock’s sources are wide-ranging; she utilizes court records, wills, census data, diaries, deeds, newspaper editorials, and business transactions to track the activities women. Her research and analysis bares interesting information regarding women’s sphere in marriage, business, and female ethos.

 Historians have long asserted that during the nineteenth-century women enjoyed marriages that were more companionate in nature, but Lebsock argues that while this may be true to a certain extent, companionate marriages only resulted in more equality when both parties actively pursued such a goal. Often strife occurred if men were not amenable to a woman’s more active role in a marriage. Petersburg women did place importance on money when looking for a suitor, but for different reasons than men. The law had a profound effect on women; they acquired a better standard of living and greater social prestige whereas men gained income, prestige, and control over his wife’s assets (22). Married women experienced great difficulties controlling their economic options because under the law they had no property rights and few legal rights. In Petersburg, free women who became widows or divorced tended not to remarry. By remaining unmarried they were able to acquire, manage, and pass on monies, real estate, and personal belongings. This was true for black and white women of Petersburg.

 Another interesting aspect that Lebsock explores deals with the formation of separate estates. Women were given separate estates usually when parents sought to protect their daughter’s economic viability (usually when a husband was not trusted to provide adequately for her) or when a husband was worried about losing his assets to creditors. The end result, probably unbeknownst to men, was that women achieved a measure of economic autonomy through separate estates.

 Petersburg’s population included whites, free blacks and slaves. By 1860 the town was home to 18,000 people, blacks comprised half the population and a third were free. Free women of color served as the head of the household in more than half on the town’s free black family units (89). Lebsock’s research reveals that of Petersburg’s free blacks that owned property about half were women. Black women tended more often that their white counterparts to avoid legal marriage. The combination of owning property and maintaining sole control over it gave free black women more autonomy than white women enjoyed. Lebsock argues that unfortunately this independence failed to translate into tangible gains because “freedom was a fragile and changeable condition in Virginia” (90). Manumission of black women declined after 1806 due to the fact that under Virginia law children inherited the mother’s status under slavery; freeing a black woman was freeing more than one person.  Black women who were free faced dreary work prospects. Under the institution of slavery black women did not acquire a wide-range of skills that were profitable in a free market system. These women suffered a considerable handicap in the workforce; they were relegated to the domestic work of laundry and sewing. Despite the setbacks, black women worked hard, saved when possible and by 1860 45.9 percent owned real estate (103). Lebsock asserts that their gains although paltry did offer “genuine choices.”

 Another facet of Free Women of Petersburg addresses the formation and analysis of a woman’s culture. Lebsock discusses single women and their growing adeptness in business transactions, as executors of their deceased husbands’ estates, and as entrepreneurs. Women, more often than men, freed slaves and made their feelings known in wills—discussing the reasons behind gifts bequeathed to specific people. Women also initiated charitable causes in Petersburg and ensured that if possible their daughters received economic protection. Overall the women’s value system afforded significant assistance to those who needed it most.

 Suzanne Lebsock’s study of Petersburg women is superbly written and contains succinct analysis. Her ability to weave personal stories into quantitative and analytical methodology creates a pleasurable, insightful, and thought-provoking book. Her epilogue, “On Feminism, Slavery, and the Experience of Defeat” broaches the controversial topics that envelop the study of women in the South. Lebsock asserts that although a feminist movement was lacking in the South during this time period women nonetheless experienced economic and political gains. These gains are measured in her expanding power within the family unit, but affected her politically and economically. While historians often label the Civil War a watershed for southern women in terms of accelerated social change, Lebsock argues that this thesis is “based in part on a misconception of antebellum society” (239). According to Lebsock women’s gains during this era are viewed as nominal and Petersburg’s record illustrates that women’s achievements were not necessarily minor. This work, replete with legal jargon and statistical information, could have easily tired the reader, but to the author’s credit she effectively utilized the data to leave an indelible mark in the historiography of women’s studies.
 

Texas Christian University

Liz Nichols