Breen and Innes’ Myne Owne Ground is a book that seeks to address the a period in US history in which, according to the authors, an extraordinary level of freedom was achieved by formally bonded black Americans. As such, the book aims to bear witness to belief period of historical possibility, while locating this period, and its decline, firmly within the overall narrative of slavery. The authors claim that in order to do this, it is necessary to consider the lives of their subjects according to the the understanding of freedom denoted by the period in question. Given this, any review of the book should focus on how it is able to provide a convincing description of what the authors term genuinely “multi-racial society,” together with the manner in which this description is related to the over-arching history of slavery in America.

In their introduction, the authors describe their project as one which seeks to refute a universal narrative of immiseration by careful attention to the particular details of the lives of their subjects, together with these were affected by Bacon’s rebellion of 1676 and the following slave codes of 1705. They write that “only by maintaining sensitivity to the expectations and goals of the people who in fact lived in seventeenth century Virginia […] will we be able to fully to understand this impending transformation” (Breen & Innes, 1980, 5). Given this, therefore, the authors claim that the book is not simply a history of the fates of particular individuals, but is also a history of how relatively free citizens were, over the course of their life times transformed into objects of “pity” and “scorn (Breen & Innes, 5).

The book proper begins with a study of the life of Anthony Johnson, a man whom the authors describe as possessed of “immense” energy and ingenuity (Breen & Innes, 7). Originally a bonded man, Johnson is introduced as an exemplary figure in terms of his capacity to raise himself above his humble beginnings and to die having accrued a significant amount of property; enabling him to bear a reputation as a “black patriarch” (Bree & Innes, 7) and someone who, regardless of the evident difference between themselves and their white neighbours, proved through their very existence that opportunities for social advancement existed for the non white individuals in the period under discussion.

In seeking the explain the lives of the free blacks of Northampton, the authors then move to discuss the various ways in which they feel that pre-suppositions about the nature of life in the areas under consideration. These include assumptions regarding disproportionate punishments for black Americans, together with assumptions regarding in inherent hostility between black and white servants; things that both authors deny were a prevalent feature of life prior to Bacon’s rebellion. Indeed, the authors claim that several different modes of social transaction may be observed throughout the period in question including sustainable market transaction and the capacity to maintain strong ties with the legal structures and magistrates of Northampton (Breen & Innes, 35).

After having considered the lives of plantation owners on the East Coast and what they term the “complex social networks” through which they lived their lives, Breen and Innes conclude their study with a consideration of the relationship between property and freedom. They argue that the accruing of property by figures such as Johnson meant that they literally did not think of themselves as living within a racist society, and that, despite the decline of this freedom, it is a mistake to consider their opinions as an “aberration” in a narrative of inevitable racial exploitation (Breen & Innes, 112). Rather, they claim that to understand such people as such an aberration inevitably leads to a situation in which the real equality of their freedom is underplayed.

It is this desire to refute a universalizing tendency with regard to black immiseration which leads to the book’s most significant moments. The arguments which the authors use in order to show the manifest freedom of blacks in Northampton are clear and are supported by an understanding of what constituted a free-citizen within the period which they discuss. It is this fidelity to a periodized conception of freedom which informs their reading of the lives of the people whom they consider, together with their social contexts. While this mode of thinking is certainly useful, it is also possible to argue that it fails to account for the ways in which similar structures may themselves now account for real economic unfreedom. A significant amount of critical writing in the 20th century has focused on how the formal inclusion of African American citizens within the US economy has done little to secure basic freedoms. Given the fact that the authors rely on this presentation of property ownership as a model for an emancipated citizen, it is possible to claim that they fail to take account of the manner in which the freedom of those whom they study is correlate to continuing economic deprivation.

In conclusion, therefore, “Myne Owne Ground” gives a clear and convincing account of the lives of free blacks in Virginia in the period in question, and uses this to refute prejudices concerning the racial composition of the period. Despite this, however, it can be argeud that by taking property ownership as their model of freedom, the authors fail to recognize the place of such exceptional individuals within a continuing narrative of subjugation.