Communities of Kinship: Antebellum Families and the Settlement of the Cotton Frontier.

Communities of Kinship: Antebellum Families and the Settlement of the Cotton Frontier. By Carolyn Earle Billingsley. (Athens, Ga., and London: University of Georgia Press, c. 2004. Pp. xiv, 215. Paper, $19.95, ISBN 0-8203-2510-4; cloth, $49.95, ISBN 0-8203-2509-0.)

On first glance I found myself awfully suspicious of this new volume from the University of Georgia Press. On page one of the introductory chapter, Carolyn Earle Billingsley boldly declares that kinship should be regarded as a "category of analysis complementary to and potentially as powerful as race, class, and gender" (p. 1). While virtually any birth southerner can vouch for the significance of kinship as a fundamental determinant shaping both our community and our own personal identities, whether such a certainty rendered kinship the equal of racial and gender identity seemed suspect. The author argues further that scholars should arrive at definitions to shape our understanding of what kinship meant to antebellum southerners, even proposing some definitions as a starting point. As I continued to read my initial suspicions began to morph into interest. As a third element, Billingsley calls "for genealogical methodology to be recognized as a valid tool for historical investigation" (p. 2). For those of us who deal regularly with genealogists, absorption of this final point could provoke descent into utter scholastic despair.

Despite my initial misgivings about her call for genealogical empowerment, this book is far from an apology for genealogists. Indeed it makes a strong case for the relevance of kinship as a category of analysis for understanding southern identity. Employing the growth and dissemination of a specific southern family as a vehicle for her research, Billingsley argues that by adopting genealogical methodology "scholars can facilitate their historical goals because the exploration of kinship ties often provides the desired explication of the past" (p. 3). She is careful to make clear her terminology, offering definitions that advance her argument that emphasis on kinship presents the "potential for redefining some aspects of historical inquiry into antebellum southern society." And she further urges the "use of genealogical methodology to accomplish this goal" (p. 22).

Her chapters include analysis of the implications of kinship on religion, economic power, and political development. Among the most convincing aspects of Billingsley's study is the chapter highlighting the relevance of kinship on migration and settlement patterns. The concluding chapter, appropriately titled "The Prospects for Kinship Studies," suggests that kinship studies offer a "theoretical framework capable of circumventing many of the difficulties involved in pinning down what antebellum southerners thought, intended, or felt when we have little explicit evidence of their interior motivations" (p. 147). In short, Billingsley calls for the interpretive framework of kinship theory to be elevated to a category of analysis offering researchers a vehicle to "make educated guesses about motivations and feelings based on the actions of antebellum southerners whose lives were permeated and framed by kinship" (p. 147).

Although few will argue with Billingsley's emphasis on the significance of kinship in a society where marrying a cousin was an honored tradition among some of the ruling elite, whether genealogical methodology offers the solution to the scholarly challenges she suggests is another matter. Researchers are certain to note that her primary source material is limited, and even her secondary sources suggest the limitations of research. While many of the regularly cited studies on southern history are evident, it seems remarkable that a book centered on community and family history would overlook the scores of volumes currently emerging that directly address the issues raised in Billingsley's individual chapters.

But few of us enjoy the time to read every relevant work; it is often the better review that analyzes what is in the book rather than emphasizing what is left out. What this book does is suggest reconsideration of methodology just as it offers a little-realized vehicle for the analysis of behavior and motivation among antebellum southerners. In that regard, Billingsley's study demands the attention of serious scholars of the antebellum South. Everyone may not agree with her perspective, but it seems certain we will be hearing more about this as analysis of southern society becomes increasingly complex.

SAMUEL C. HYDE JR.

Southeastern Louisiana University