McGillivray argues that the independent Cuban state and the development of the Cuban middle class resulted from and contributed to transformations in the sugar economy. This book is a part of scholarship that looks at populism more diversely, taking a more positive view of it. McGillivray uses regional case studies to see how revolutionary caudillos claim national power in regional networks. She watches human relationships to see patterns within larger intuitions. She uses the term ‘compact’ rather than ‘contract’ because there were no stated agreements on how to keep the peace in day-to-day life.

McGillivray offers a broader time frame and scope by contrasting two Cuban communities from colonialism to the 1950s. She steps away from looking at US versus Cuban sugar mill dynamics and looks at a larger ignored social group which are cane farmers (colonos). Mexican history inspired her to approach through regional case studies and see caudillos claim to national power in regional networks.

She argues more research needs to be done in the Cold War period before the dominant version of 1959 can be accepted. Another argument is that Cuba moved through three systems of negotiation between state, capitalists, and popular classes. McGillivray traces lower and middle sectors of society that overlooked their differences to join together and define themselves as a class.

Burned cane was used to create jobs. It was a sign of internal labour negotiations during times of peace and a dominant form of political civil warfare during the revolutions and rebellions of the 19th century. The larger aim of McGillivray is to offer a synopsis of the development of social classes that linked sugar to the formation and transformation of the Cuban state.

The stories of workers, colonos, and mill owners traced in the book prove that we can only understand how systems of rule are created and adjusted by paying attention to the actions of popular groups that the system seeks to incorporate.

McGillivray's goal was to tell the story of Cuban history in a way that newcomers to the field could grasp. I don't think she did that well. She covers a large swath of history and it is hard to trace all the outside influences going on that affect the actions of historical figures in this book. I did enjoy the different chapters here A LOT. I don't have enough expertise in the field to say whether her arguments really really are good but they convinced me.