Charles Calomiris and Jonathan Pritchett have an interesting little paper looking at the price of slaves on the eve of the Civil War, showing that prices tumbled in 1861 as it became clear to Southerners that Abe Lincoln wasn't kidding about his willingness to go to war to save the union:
Abraham Lincoln’s election produced Southern secession, Civil War, and abolition. Using a new database of slave sales from New Orleans, we examine the connections between political news and the prices of slaves for 1856-1861. We find that slave prices declined by roughly a third from their 1860 peak, reflecting increased southern pessimism regarding the possibility of war and the war’s possible outcome. The South’s decision to secede reflected the beliefs that the North would not invade to oppose secession, and that emancipation of slaves without compensation was unlikely, both of which were subsequently dashed by Lincoln’s actions.
It's not exactly a shocking discovery, but it is a neat finding and a neat example of how economists can help inform historical work. This kind of quantitative measure of Southern expectations about Lincoln and the war is a useful supplement to qualitative measures taken from politicians' speeches and letters, newspaper editorials, etc.
TODAY IN SLATE
More Than Scottish Pride
Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself.
What Charles Barkley Gets Wrong About Corporal Punishment and Black Culture
Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You
If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter
The Best Way to Organize Your Fridge
The GOP’s Focus on Fake Problems
Why candidates like Scott Walker are building campaigns on drug tests for the poor and voter ID laws.
Giving Up on Goodell
How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.