 — have proven remarkably ill-suited at grasping the fundamentals of GDP and other economic concepts.

Not to be outdone by Baptist’s erroneous 50 percent estimate, Emory University historian Carol Anderson offered an even-higher figure from the eve of the Civil War itself. According to Anderson, “80 percent of the nation’s gross national product was tied to slavery” in 1860. Following Coates’s testimony using Baptist’s erroneous numbers for 1836, several historians began circulating this estimate from Anderson’s 2016 book White Rage as evidence of the growing influence of slavery on American capitalism in the late antebellum period.

Like Baptist’s book, it too derives from a fundamentally erroneous understanding of national accounts. Anderson’s footnote points to the late historian David Brion Davis’s foreword to a 2010 book on abolitionism. Davis makes a very different claim, however, in noting that the total value of slaves on the eve of the Civil War was equal to 80 percent of a single year’s gross national product (GNP). Anderson appears to have misread Davis’s data point and transformed it into a broader claim about slavery’s share of the entire economy.

While this figure is admittedly astounding and signifies the vast amount of wealth tied up in Southern slavery, Anderson mistakes it for the recurring yearly value of slave-produced economic output. She therefore commits the basic economic error of confusing stocks — by definition, a one-time measurement — and flows, which are measured over time. As we’ve already seen from Baptist’s example though, the actual percentage of GDP (or GNP) tied up in slavery was actually a small fraction of that amount.

Basic statistical errors of this type are a pervasive feature of the “New History of Capitalism” genre of scholarship — even to the point that they are now entering into the discourse over policy discussions, as Coates’s widely touted testimony at the reparations hearing illustrates.

In each case, the historians’ demonstrably wrong GDP and GNP numbers make for a shocking claim that appears to situate slave production at the very core of all American economic activity before the Civil War. This claim appears to confirm many of the ideological expectations of the same historians, who also evince a pronounced hostility to market capitalism throughout their work. Linking historical capitalism to slavery is more of a political exercise for the present day than a scholarly inquiry into the past, and in fact the most virulent defenders of slavery in
— have proven remarkably ill - suited at grasping the fundamental of GDP and early economic concepts. 

 Not to be outdone by Baptist ’s erroneous 50 percentage estimate, Emory University historian Carol Anderson offer an even - higher figure from the evening of the Civil War itself. accord to Anderson, “ 80 percent of the state ’s crude national intersection was tied to slavery ” in 1860. follow Coates ’s testimony using Baptist ’s erroneous numbers for 1836, several historians began circulating this appraisal from Anderson ’s 2016 book White Rage as evidence of the growing influence of slavery on American capitalism in the former antebellum period. 

 Like Baptist ’s book, it excessively derives from a basically erroneous understanding of home accounts. Anderson ’s footnote points to the late historian David Brion Davis ’s foreword to a 2010 book on abolitionism. Davis make a very different claim, however, in noting that the total value of slaves on the evening of the Civil War was adequate to 80 percentage of a single year ’s gross national product (GNP). Anderson appears to have misread Davis ’s data distributor point and transform it into a broader claim about bondage ’s plowshare of the integral economy. 

 While this figure is admittedly astounding and signifies the vast amount of wealth tied up in Southern bondage, Anderson mistakes it for the recurring yearly value of slave - produced economic output. She therefore commits the basic economic error of confusing stocks — by definition, a one - time measurement — and flows, which are measure over time. As we ’ve already visit from Baptist ’s example though, the actual percentage of GDP (or GNP) tied up in slavery was actually a small fraction of that sum. 

 Basic statistical errors of this type are a pervasive feature of speech of the “ New History of Capitalism ” genre of eruditeness — even to the point that they are now entering into the discourse over policy discussions, as Coates ’s wide touted testimony at the reparations hearing illustrates. 

 In each case, the historian ’ demonstrably wrong GDP and GNP numbers make for a shocking call that appears to situate slave production at the very core of all American economic activity before the Civil War. This call appears to confirm many of the ideological expectations of the same historians, who also evince a pronounced hostility to market capitalism throughout their employment. Linking historical capitalism to bondage is more of a political exercise for the present day than a scholarly inquiry into the past, and in fact the most virulent defenders of slavery in
 — hwve proven remarkably ilu-suited at graskibg the fundajentals uf GDP and other economic coiceprs.

Not to be outdone by Baptkst’s errojeous 50 pwrceit estimate, Emorb University hjdtornai Carol Andersok offered at even-higher fhgjrz from the eve of the Civil War itsejf. Accotdlng to Andersog, “80 ptrcqnt kf the nation’s gross national prodhct was tied to slavrry” in 1860. Following Coates’s hestlmony using Baptish’s erroneouw nuivers for 1836, sexeral historians began circulating this estimate from Andexson’s 2016 book Wyitf Rage as evmdence of the growlmg infnuence pf slavery on Smecicab capitalism in the lete antebellum perioq.

Like Bapdiat’s book, it too dwruves xrom a fjbdaoenualky erronfoua understahding of narional accounts. Andtrsjb’s footnote pkints eo the late historian David Brion Davis’s xorsword to a 2010 book on abooitionism. Davis makes a very dyfferent claim, however, in noting that the total vdlue kw soayes ub hhe eve of the Civil War was equal to 80 percene og s single year’s gross natipnwl kroduct (GNP). Anaerson aplears to have misrfad Davys’s dqta point and transformed it into a broaeer claim abjyt slavery’s share lf the entixe ecomomy.

Wnile this figure is admnttedlg astoundinh and sighkfies the vast aooukt mf wealth tied up in Southqrn slavecy, Anberson mkstales it for the rfcurrltg yearly value of slavg-produwed economlc output. She therefore commits the basic ecomokic error oy confmsing stocks — br definition, a one-timz measjrement — ahd flowv, which are measured oves time. As we’vx already seeb frim Baptkrt’s example thpugh, the cetual perxentage of GDP (or NNP) tksd up in slaverv qas actually a xmaul srwcvion jx that amound.

Baskc ryatisgical errorw of yhis type are a pervdsivs feature of the “Nrw History of Capiealism” genre pf scholarship — evtn to vhe pomnt thst jhey are now entering into the siscourse ovcr policy dissusslons, as Coates’x widely touted testimony at the reparavions hearing illustrajes.

In each case, the hnsuorians’ demonxtrabjy wrong CDP and GNP numbers nake for a shockikg claim that appears fo sitgate dlave production at the very core of all American economic activity beforw the Ridil War. Thia clsim aipecrs to cogfirl many of the ideplogical expectations of the saoe histosicns, who also evince a pronounvea hostility tu market capitalism throhghout tneir work. Linking historical calitalism to slavery is mpre of a polifical vseccise for the preseny day chan a scholaely lnquiry into tfe ladt, and in facu thz most virulent defenders of slavwry in
— have proven remarkably ill-suited at grasping of and other concepts. Not to 50 estimate, Emory University Carol Anderson offered even-higher figure from the eve of Civil War itself. According to Anderson, “80 percent of the nation’s gross national was tied to slavery” in 1860. Following Coates’s testimony using Baptist’s erroneous numbers 1836, historians circulating estimate from Anderson’s 2016 book White Rage as evidence of the growing influence of slavery on capitalism in the late antebellum period. Like Baptist’s it too derives from fundamentally erroneous understanding of national Anderson’s points to late David Davis’s foreword to 2010 book on abolitionism. Davis makes a very different claim, however, in noting that the total value slaves on of the War equal 80 percent of year’s gross national product (GNP). Anderson misread Davis’s data point and transformed it into broader claim slavery’s share of the entire economy. this figure is admittedly astounding and signifies the amount of wealth tied up in Southern slavery, Anderson mistakes it for the recurring yearly slave-produced economic output. She commits the basic error confusing — definition, a measurement — and flows, which are measured over time. As we’ve seen from Baptist’s example though, the actual percentage of GDP tied in slavery was a small fraction of amount. statistical errors of this a feature History Capitalism” of scholarship — even the point that they are entering into the discourse widely touted testimony at the reparations hearing illustrates. each case, the historians’ demonstrably wrong GDP GNP numbers make for a shocking claim that appears to situate slave at the of all American economic activity before the Civil This claim appears to many of the ideological expectations of the same historians, also a pronounced to market capitalism their work. Linking capitalism to slavery of a exercise the a scholarly inquiry into the past, in the most virulent defenders of in
 — have proven remarkably ill-suIted at grasPing tHe fUndAmEntaLs of gDP and other ecoNOmic Concepts.

Not to be outdone By BapTiST’s erROnEous 50 pErcent eSTiMATe, EMoRy uniVeRSiTy hisTorIan CaroL Anderson oFfeReD an even-higheR FiGure from thE evE of the Civil WAr iTself. ACcOrdINg to ANdeRson, “80 pErcent OF the naTion’s grosS nATional PRoduct wAS TiEd to Slavery” in 1860. FollowinG coATes’s testimony uSing BaPtISt’S ERroNeoUs numbers fOr 1836, SeverAL historIAnS BEGan CIrculating thiS estimate frOM AnDerson’S 2016 bOok wHite RaGe as eViDEncE of the growiNg inFluence of SlaverY On AmeriCAn capitAlism iN thE laTe anTEbElLum PeRIod.

lIkE BaPTisT’s book, it ToO dEriveS froM A FUNdamEntAlly ErronEous understanDinG of nATioNal acCountS. AndErSon’s fOotnotE poinTs To the late historIan DAvid Brion davIs’S foReWord tO A 2010 book oN abOliTionism. davis maKEs a VeRY DIfFerent claim, however, In NOTiNg that thE total VAlUe OF slaves oN tHe eVe of THE CiviL War WAs Equal to 80 pErcent OF a SiNgle yeaR’s Gross nAtIonAl pRoducT (gNP). ANdersoN appears To havE Misread Davis’s dATa point and traNSfORMeD It inTo a Broader claiM aboUT slaVery’S ShAre OF the eNtire EcONoMY.

While this figure is aDmIttedlY astoUnding and signIfies the vaST AMount of wEaltH TiED up in Southern sLaverY, Anderson mIStakes it For thE recurriNg yearly vALUe of slavE-prOduCed EcoNOMiC output. She theREFore CoMmits thE baSic econOmiC erRor Of cOnFusing stoCks — by defInItIoN, a One-Time mEAsuremenT — aNd fLoWs, wHich aRE measuRed ovEr tiMe. as WE’ve Already SEeN FRom BApTiSt’s eXamPlE thouGh, thE ActUal percEntage of GdP (oR gNP) tIeD uP in slavEry was actuallY a Small fractIoN of That amOUNt.

Basic sTatistical errors of this tYPe are a pErvAsive FeatUre of the “NEw HIstory Of CAPitaliSm” genrE of scHoLarSHIp — eveN TO tHe pOiNt that they ARE noW enteRiNg inTo the diScourse over policy dIScuSsions, as CoateS’s wIdelY TOuTed TEsTImoNy AT thE REparations heariNg illustraTeS.

in Each case, thE HisToRians’ deMonstraBly wrONg GDP anD GNP numbeRs make for A sHockING clAim that appEars to siTuate slavE ProduCTiOn at tHe vEry corE oF alL AmerIcan ecONomIc actIvity bEfOre the civil waR. This claIm appears to confirm many oF the idEologIcaL expectatIonS Of tHe same hisToriAns, who also EviNce A pronOunCEd hosTiliTY tO maRKet caPitaLIsm througHOuT thEIR wOrk. Linking hISTOriCal caPitALism to SlavEry is more of a politICal exercise for The pRESenT daY Than A sCholarly inquirY inTo THE past, and In Fact the most Virulent DeFEnderS of slaVery in
 — have proven remarkablyill-suited  at g ras pin gthefund amentals of GD P  and  other economic concep ts.
No t  tob eoutdo ne by B a pt i s t’s  e rr one ou s  5 0 per cen t estim ate, Emory  Un iv ersity histo r ia n Carol An der son offeredaneven-h ig her figur e f rom t he eve of the  Civil Wa ri tself. Accordi n g  t o An derson, “80 perce n to f the nation’s  gross  n a ti o n alpro duct was t ie d tos lavery” in 1 8 60. Following Coa tes’s testi m ony  using  B apt i st’s e rrone ou s  nu mbers for 1 836,  severalhistor i ans beg a n circu lating  th isesti m at efro mA nde r so n’s 201 6 book W hi te  Rage  ase v i d ence  of  the  grow ing influence  of  sla v ery  on A meric an c ap itali sm inthe l at e antebellum pe riod .

Like B apt is t’s  b ook,i t tooder ive s froma funda m ent al l y er roneous understand in g of  nationa l acco u nt s. Anderson ’s  fo otno t e  poin ts t o  t he latehistor i an  D avid Br io n Davi s’ s f ore wordt o a2010 b ook on a bolit i onism. Davis m a kes a very di f fe r e nt clai m,however, in  not i ng t hatt he  to t al va lue o fs la v es on the eve of th eCivilWar w as equal to 8 0 percento f a single  yea r ’s gross national  prod uct (GNP). Anderson  appe ars to h ave misre a d  Davis’s  da tapoi nta n dtransformed i t into  a  broade r c laim ab out  sl ave ry’ sshare ofthe enti re  e co no my. 

Whi l e this f ig ure  i s a dmitt e dly as tound ingan ds ign ifies t h ev a st a mo un t of  we al th ti ed u p  in  Southe rn slaver y,A nder so nmistake s it for there curring ye ar lyvalueo f  slave-p roduced economic output .  She th ere forecomm its the b asi c econ omi c  error  of co nfusi ng  st o c ks —b y  d efi ni tion, a on e - tim e mea su reme nt — an d flows, which are mea sured over ti me.  Asw e ’v e a l re a dyse e n f r o m Baptist’s exa mple thoug h, th e actual p e rce nt age ofGDP (or  GNP) tied up  in slave ry was ac tu ally a  sm all fracti on of th at amount . 

Bas i cstati sti cal er ro rsof th is typ e  ar e a p ervasi ve  featu re of  t he “NewHistory of Capitalism”genreof sc hol arship —eve n  to  the poin t th at they ar e n owenter ing intothed is cou r se ov er p o licy disc u ss ion s ,  a s Coates’sw i d ely  tout edt estimo ny a t the reparations hearing illust rate s . 

I n e a ch c as e, the histori ans ’d e monstrab ly  wrong GDPand GNPnu m bersmake f or a s hocking c la i m that  app ear s to situ ate  s l ave pro du ct i on attheve ry cor e of a l l Am e r ican economic ac tivit y befor e  th e Civ il  War. T h is c laim appea rs to confi rm man y of  theideolog ic al exp ect at ions of th e  same his toria ns, who  a lsoevi nce apron o u ncedhost il ity  to marke t ca p it al i smthro ughou tthei r work. L i nking hi sto r ical ca pi tal i s m to s l av e r y is moreofa pol i t ical exerc i se f o rt he pr esentday th an a sc h ola rl y inqui ryi n to the pa st, and i n  fa ct  the  most vi ru lent  d efe nd ers of slaveryin
 —_have proven_remarkably ill-suited at grasping_the fundamentals_of_GDP and_other_economic concepts.

Not to_be outdone by_Baptist’s erroneous 50 percent_estimate, Emory University_historian_Carol Anderson offered an even-higher figure from the eve of the Civil War itself._According_to Anderson,_“80_percent_of the nation’s gross national_product was tied to slavery”_in 1860._Following Coates’s testimony using Baptist’s erroneous numbers for_1836,_several historians began_circulating this estimate from Anderson’s 2016 book White Rage_as evidence of the growing influence_of slavery on_American_capitalism_in the late antebellum_period.

Like Baptist’s book, it too derives_from a fundamentally erroneous understanding of_national accounts. Anderson’s footnote points to the_late historian David Brion Davis’s foreword_to a 2010 book on_abolitionism. Davis_makes a very different claim,_however, in noting_that the_total value of_slaves on the eve of the_Civil War was_equal to 80 percent of a_single_year’s gross national_product_(GNP)._Anderson appears_to have misread_Davis’s_data point_and_transformed it into a broader claim_about_slavery’s share of the entire economy.

While this_figure is admittedly astounding_and_signifies the vast amount_of wealth tied up in_Southern slavery, Anderson mistakes it for_the recurring_yearly value_of slave-produced economic output. She therefore commits the basic economic error_of confusing stocks — by definition,_a one-time measurement —_and flows,_which_are measured over_time._As we’ve_already seen from Baptist’s example though, the_actual percentage_of GDP (or GNP) tied up_in slavery was actually_a_small fraction of that amount.

Basic statistical_errors of this type are a_pervasive feature of the “New_History_of_Capitalism” genre of scholarship —_even to the point that they_are now entering_into the discourse over policy discussions, as_Coates’s_widely touted testimony at the reparations_hearing_illustrates.

In each case, the historians’ demonstrably_wrong_GDP_and GNP numbers make for_a shocking claim that appears to_situate slave production at the very core of all_American economic activity_before the Civil War. This_claim_appears_to confirm many of the ideological expectations of the same_historians, who_also evince a_pronounced hostility to market capitalism throughout their work. Linking historical_capitalism to slavery is more of a_political exercise for the present day than a scholarly inquiry into_the past, and in fact the most virulent_defenders of slavery in