This study of discontent in the Hudson River valley is intended as a firm corrective to existing scholarship. Thomas J. Humphrey charges earlier historians with limited vision—chron-ologically, geographically, or both—and with insufficient attention to the dialectic between the Revolution and ongoing unrest. He argues that casting a wider evidential net over both space and time (the entire valley from mid-century through the Revolution) will show, first, how insurgents moved from claims of ownership based upon title, practical possession (squatting), or improvement to a more sophisticated combination of the three, “insisting that their labor and occupancy of the land entitled them to own it,” and, second, how disputes in the postrevolutionary period “infused long-standing disputes with Revolutionary rhetoric to forge new definitions of citizenship, property ownership, and civic equality” (p. 10). There is much of interest here. Humphrey provides clear definitions of landlord, freeholder, and leaseholder, and he is especially interesting on why the gap between the first two was so large despite their sharing control over property. His portrayal of the worried improvisation that underlay the appearance of landlord domination, a scrambling that the Revolution only complicated, is strong. He is subtle on the players from Massachusetts and on other aspects of the extramural side of the valley's history. He works hard on why landlords in the southern reaches of the valley generally opted for Loyalism, while their northern counterparts went mostly Patriot. If readers feel unsure about how the same motivation (“Landlords in the southern valley sided with the king in part to preserve their land and power. Landlords in the northern valley joined the Revolution for the same reason,” p. 92) could produce such different results, Humphrey's account assures them that Robert Livingston and his contemporaries were often no less puzzled. When Humphrey concentrates upon the less prominent, less privileged segments of the valley's population, he humanizes discontent by finding individuals—the Wappinger Indian claimant Ninham, the insurgent Josiah Loo-mis. Where the evidence allows he is sensitive to background, revealing a population that is striking in its ethnic diversity. If he is thin on the most historically silent of all groups in the mix, that part of the tenant population that stubbornly did not revolt, did not petition, did not experiment with these and other ways of changing the status quo while often providing landlords with the muscle to maintain their hegemony, it is because those who do not get jailed do not leave much of a record.