| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 112.1

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 208 words from this article are provided below; about 626 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 112.1 | The History Cooperative

Tom Downey. Planting a Capitalist South: Masters, Merchants, and Manufacturers in the Southern Interior, 1790–1860. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 2006. Pp. xiii, 262. $49.95.
In South Carolina over the half century that preceded the Civil War, two classes of capitalists—one invested in land and slaves, the other in commerce and manufacturing—continually contested each other for the favors of state government. By 1860 the holders of liquid capital were clearly on the rise. The result, argues Tom Downey, was nothing less than the transformation of South Carolina's political economy.	1
In making this argument, Downey pulls off a remarkable and valuable historiographical sleight of hand. To oversimplify, historians generally characterize the relationship between industry and agriculture in the slave South in one of two ways: as consensus between two likeminded groups of capitalists, or alternatively as conflict between urban, market-oriented, capitalist businessmen and rural, self-sufficient, precapitalist farmers and planters. Downey finds consensus and conflict, consensus among capitalists but conflict between forms of capital. No merchant or manufacturer ever challenged the proslavery ideology of the planter class, he argues, but the holders of liquid capital competed with the holders of fixed capital for economic and political advantage.	. . .

There are about 626 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.