Institutional Slavery is a thoughtful study of the versatility and far-reaching impact of slavery throughout colonial and antebellum Virginia. Most of our understanding about slavery centers on the conditions and experiences of enslaved persons laboring in agriculture under the direction of individual slave holders of varying degrees of wealth. Drawing upon a broad array of primary sources from church and educational archives, Oast's work explores the lives of enslaved persons owned collectively by a diverse range of organizations, including Anglican and Presbyterian churches, the state of Virginia, coal and gold mines, tobacco factories, iron works, and educational institutions like the College of William & Mary, Hampden-Sydney College and the University of Virginia. As such, she joins those who have extended our understanding of pro-slavery Christianity and industrial slavery, and contributes to the ongoing discussions about slavery's past role on the nation's college and university campuses. Her book will be of significant interest to specialists in the history of slavery, churches, higher education, and the state of Virginia.

A major theme of the book is that institutionally owned slaves were subjected to ‘“the worst kind of slavery’” (88). Oast asserts this on her finding that slaves owned by institutions were unusually vulnerable because the persons who determined their living and working conditions lacked a personal, financial interest in their well-being. For example, slaves owned by organizations could be hired out at early ages to anyone who could use their services or was willing to take on their care. This meant that slave families were routinely separated, making already fragile family ties that much more tenuous. Additionally, organizations routinely hired out slaves to different individuals each year or every few years, meaning the enslaved had to frequently adapt to new work conditions and expectations. Individuals hired out away from family members also contended with new, temporary masters whose sole interest was to maximize the return on their rental arrangement. In short, slaves hired out in this manner were exposed to the greater risk of facing heavier demands, meager conditions, and indifferent attitudes toward their health. Even slaves who labored and resided at the organizations that owned them could be exposed to higher levels of poor treatment. Slaves owned by educational institutions, especially William & Mary and the University of Virginia, were often subjected to violence or unreasonable demands by the offspring of the state's elite who matriculated there. In Oast's view, slaves on college and university campuses served too many masters (administrators, faculty, and students) which complicated their already difficult lives.

Oast uses the uncertainties faced by institutionally owned slaves to question the validity of the slaveholders’ claimed commitment to paternalism. Theoretically, paternalism rested on the reciprocal obligations and shared existence between individual slaveholders and the enslaved. As the circumstances surrounding institutional slave ownership eliminated the individual, self-interest, and personal relationships that were supposed to be the foundation of paternalism, Oast argues that this form of slave ownership “undermined the paternalistic ideals developed by southern slave holders” (238). That institutional slave owners like the Briery Presbyterian Church recognized and reported on this contradiction makes Oast's argument both clear and powerful.

A third, and perhaps the most important, theme Oast emphasizes is the significant way that institutional slave ownership extended the benefits of slavery to non-slaveholders. Renting institutionally owned slaves enabled non-slaveholders to expand their labor force at a reasonable price and share in the experience of being a master. Profits derived from the labor or sale of institutionally owned slaves paid the salaries of ministers, funded tuition-free schools, supported college scholarships, and helped numerous institutions survive financial and political crises. In these ways, institutional slavery provided non-slaveholders with economic, educational, and religious opportunities that they could not have enjoyed otherwise. For Oast this helps explain why slavery retained broad support throughout the state despite only 26 percent of Virginia households owning slaves in 1860.

Overall, Oast's book is solidly researched, clearly argued, and generally well written, though spotty editing has left more than a few grammatical and word usage errors throughout the book. However, these unfortunate errors do not detract from the substantive contribution that Oast has made to a little studied area of church and slavery history. Her findings ought to prompt more studies of organization-based slavery and will certainly provide reason for more soul-searching among the region's religious and educational institutions.