Bondspeople resistance to slavery in the antebellum South was subtle, more often than not. For both men and women it was not common for resistance to take the form of outright violence but instead, as Stephanie Camp’s Closer to Freedom illustrates, was shaped by smaller, every day defiance. These defiance’s included truancy, the use of their body for pleasure rather than labor, and secret late night parties, among others. Women, in particular, can best be understood by these subtler forms of everyday resistance because they were less likely to be involved in overt forms of rebellion such as running away or physical violence. Camp aims to shed light on these women who survived their enslavement through the use of everyday resistance.

The use of space is a key theme throughout Closer to Freedom. As Camp states, “[s]pace mattered: places, boundaries and movement were central to how slavery was organized and how it was resisted.”[1] Space was important for slaveowners and bondspeople alike and was a frequent source of conflict as they each had differing ideas of how space should be used.[2] Women had more difficulty defying slaveholders’ geography of containment because their work provided them fewer opportunities to leave the plantation. When women did choose to leave it was typically a brief absenteeism—reacting against planters’ interference in their family lives or the temper of their masters. It was more common, however, for women to sneak out during the night for secret parties and be back by sunrise. In this way they could dress up, enjoy their bodies, let loose and temporarily leave their troubles behind without running away and risking more severe punishment. The outlawed slave parties were another way that “enslaved women and men struggled against planters’ inclination to confine them, in order to create the space and time to celebrate and enjoy their bodies as important personal and political entities in the plantation South.”[3] The lucky ones who were never caught could take pride in the fact that they were successfully able to break free, despite the brevity, from the geography of containment.

An article by Thavolia Glymph, “Rose’s War and the Gendered Politics of a Slave Insurgency in the Civil War”, pairs nicely with Closer to Freedom because it highlights the ways that women participated—and even lead—slave rebellions. While Camp argues that instances of violence were limited (especially where women were involved) Glymph uses the story of Rose, a slave in the South Carolina lowcountry, to demonstrate that a woman’s involvement in a violent rebellion was quite unexceptional. She draws this conclusion through the testimonies of slaveholders who “had no trouble believing Rose was an insurgent, a partisan, and an outlaw.”[4] Slaveholding women spoke of Rose “almost casually” as one of the principal insurgents with no hints of surprise that Rose was a ring leader in the Pineville rebellion. Her character was more telling than her gender.

The monograph and the article both speak to the lives of enslaved women of the plantation South and fill the gaps that each leave to the imagination. On the one hand, Camp is successful in showing alternate forms of resistance to slavery but she downplays (or even neglects) the role that women may have played in insurrections. Though violence is not her interest, one is left with the impression that violent rebellions were rare and predominately male driven. On the other hand, Glymph’s sources point towards an acceptance of women as potential insurgents with little context of their position in the grander South—not simply South Carolina. Was their involvement unexceptional in South Carolina but perhaps exceptional elsewhere? It is not clear.

Nevertheless, Camp and Glymph’s arguments are useful in helping students understand that women grappled with resisting their servitude in diverse ways, both subtly and overtly.