The Political Legacy of American Slavery
The Journal of Politics, 2016 · paper · Political science
Shows that white Southerners living in counties with higher slave shares in 1860 are today more likely to identify as Republican, oppose affirmative action, and express racial resentment. The authors attribute this to persistence of political attitudes passed down across generations.
Checked: PDF from msen.scholars.harvard.edu, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
8 findings
Substance Footnote 5: "The sample thus includes Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, ..." lists Arizona, which does not fit the stated sample ("the former Confederate states plus Missouri and Kentucky") and is absent from the Figure 1 map.
- p. 5 Footnote 5
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida
- p. 5 Left column, first paragraph
former Confederate states plus Missouri and Kentucky
- p. 5 Left column, top
the former Confederate states plus Missouri and Kentucky
- p. 3 Figure 1 map
Figure 1. Estimated proportion slave in 1860 by county
Judge's note: Footnote 5 on p.5 lists 15 states including Arizona and West Virginia. The Figure 1 map on p.3 has Texas as its westernmost state and no Arizona; West Virginia is on the map and appears again in footnote 28, so that entry looks intentional. Arizona appears nowhere else in the text. The map in the files supports the finding without relying on outside knowledge of Confederate membership.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance "a 20 percentage point increase in the slave proportion ... is associated with a 2.3 percentage point decrease in the share of whites who currently identify as Democrats (and so roughly a 4.6 percentage point shift ...)" does not match Table 1 column 2 (−.127), which gives about 2.5 points for a 20-point change.
- p. 7 Left column, paragraph beginning 'As columns 2–4 show'
is associated with a 2.3 percentage point decrease
- p. 8 Table 1, column 2, Proportion slave
−.127**
- p. 7 Paragraph beginning 'As columns 2–4 show'
a 20 percentage point increase in the slave proportion (roughly a one standard deviation change) is associated with a 2.3 percentage point decrease
- p. 7 Same paragraph
a 0.08 point increase in the average racial resentment score
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read the text on p.7 and Table 1 on p.8 (the coefficient is −.127 on the image; the '2.127' in the text layer is an extraction artefact). The 3-point (affirmative action) and 7-point (thermometer) figures in the same sentence do match a 0.20 change. The 2.3 would fit a change of about 0.18, which may be the exact standard deviation, but the text states a 20 percentage point increase. The authors should say which increment was used; the 4.6 is derived from the 2.3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Text: "a 10 percentage point increase in slave proportion is associated with a 1.89 increase in lynchings per 100,000 residents", but Table 5 column 1 prints the coefficient "17.656**", which gives 1.77.
- p. 16 Section 'Lynchings and other forms of suppression', left column
ated with a 1.89 increase in lynchings per 100,000 residents
- p. 17 Table 5, column 1, Proportion slave, 1860
17.656**
- p. 16 Lynchings and other forms of suppression, para 2
associated with a 1.89 increase in lynchings per 100,000 residents
- p. 16 Lynchings section, p. 636
a 10 percentage point increase in slave proportion is associ-ated with a 1.89 increase in lynchings per 100,000 residents
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed page 16 text and Table 5 on page 17. The text cites column 1 of Table 5 with the same outcome (lynchings per 100,000 1920 residents). 0.10 × 17.656 = 1.77; 1.89 would need a coefficient near 18.9. The table note mentions an alternative denominator (average population) with 'similar results', which may be the source, but the text does not say so. Only the authors can say which number is right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Text: "with 0.06 more tractors per 100,000 acres (90th percentile), the same change in proportion slave leads to only a 0.2 percentage point decrease in the percent Democrat (95% confidence interval: [−1.1, 0.06])"; Table 5 column 2 coefficients (−.183 and 2.298) give about 0.45 at 0.06.
- p. 17 Left column, first paragraph under Table 5
0.06 more tractors per 100,000 acres (90th percentile), the same change in proportion slave leads to only a 0.2 per-
- p. 17 Table 5, column 2
2.298**
- p. 17 Text below Table 5, left column
0.06 more tractors per 100,000 acres (90th percentile), the same change in proportion slave leads to only a 0.2 percentage point decrease
- p. 17 Mechanization paragraph
0.06 more tractors per 100,000 acres (90th percentile), the
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed page 17 text and Table 5. The companion figure checks out: −.183 × 10 points = 1.8, as printed. At a tractor change of 0.06 the same calculation gives −0.45 points, not −0.2. Even 0.065, the largest value that rounds to 0.06, gives −0.34. A value near 0.07 would reproduce 0.2. The printed interval [−1.1, 0.06] has midpoint −0.52, which is also not −0.2. The three printed numbers do not agree; only the authors can say which is misprinted.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Text says "including the additional intermediate covariates in footnote 15", but the covariates are listed in footnote 14; footnote 15 only says "Results from this first stage can be found in appendix table A.12."
- p. 10 Left column, first paragraph
diate covariates in footnote 15.
- p. 10 Footnote 15
15. Results from this first stage can be found in appendix table A.12.
- p. 10 Left column, first paragraph
including the additional intermediate covariates in footnote 15.
- p. 10 Sequential g-estimator paragraph
including the additional intermediate covariates in footnote 15
Judge's note: Viewed page 10. Footnote 14 lists log population 2000, unemployment 2000, high school share 1990 and log median income 2000. Footnote 15 lists no covariates. The pointer is off by one.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Footnote 14 cites "(Acharya, forthcoming)"; the reference list has no single-author entry, only Acharya, Blackwell, and Sen (Forthcoming), cited elsewhere as "Acharya et al., forthcoming".
- p. 10 Footnote 14
(Acharya, forthcoming)
- p. 10 footnote 14
does not change the findings (Acharya, forthcoming).
Judge's note: Viewed page 10 footnote 14. Searched the reference list text: the only Acharya entries are Acharya, Blackwell, and Sen 2015 and Forthcoming. The same page's body text uses 'Acharya et al., forthcoming'. The 'et al.' was dropped.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 5 row label reads "State-year fixed effects" for county-level cross-sectional models, while the text describes column 1 as "conditional on state-level fixed effects and our 1860 covariates".
- p. 17 Table 5, row label
State-year fixed effects
- p. 16 Left column, paragraph on column 1 of table 5
conditional on state-level fixed
- p. 16 Lynchings section, para 2
conditional on state-level fixed effects and our 1860 covariates
Judge's note: p017 image: Table 5 row is "State-year fixed effects" with all four columns checked; all four are county-level WLS (weights: county area / within-county sample size). p016 image: text says state-level fixed effects. The text layer shows the other county-level tables labelled "State fixed effects", with "State-year fixed effects" used for the individual-level models (Table 1 model 5 per its note, and Table 6). The label is inconsistent with the text and with the other county-level tables.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 3: the standard errors printed under 'Proportion black, 2000' are identical to those under 'Proportion slave, direct effect' in all three WLS columns: (.043)/(.043), (.037)/(.037), (.140)/(.140).
- p. 9 Table 3, columns 1, 3, 5, SE rows under Proportion slave and Proportion black
(.043)
- p. 9 Table 3, column 5
(.140)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Seen on the p.9 page image, columns 1, 3 and 5. Two different regressors having the same standard error to three decimals in all three columns is unlikely and suggests a duplicated row, but the correct values cannot be recovered from the article. The authors should confirm the standard errors for proportion black.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
32 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Text says Southern members held veto power "during the development of the welfare state in the 1920s and 1930s (Katznelson, Geiger, and Kryder 1993)", but the cited work's own title in the reference list is "The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950."
- p. 2 Right column, 'Explaining regional differences'
the 1920s and 1930s (Katznelson, Geiger, and Kryder 1993)
- p. 20 References
The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read the p.2 crop and the reference entry on p.20. The period in the text (1920s and 1930s) does not match the period in the cited title (1933–1950); only the 1930s overlap. The authors may be describing the period loosely, so this is a query, not a definite error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Introduction says "there exists a strong correlation between the racial attitudes of parents and their children in the US South", while Figure 6 plots correlations of roughly 0.15–0.27 on an axis running from −0.5 to 1.0.
- p. 2 Introduction, left column
we show that there exists a strong correlation between the racial attitudes of parents and their children in the US South
- p. 18 Figure 6
Correlation with Parent's Black-White Therm. Scores
- p. 2 Introduction
there exists a strong correlation between the racial attitudes of parents and
- p. 18 Figure 6
demonstrates how stable this relationship is over time
Judge's note: Viewed Figure 6 on p.18: the four points sit at about 0.2, 0.15, 0.18 and 0.26, and the 1973 interval reaches close to zero. The results text on p.18 only says the relationship is "stable". "Strong" is undefined, so this is a wording point.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text dates the Southern veto to "the development of the welfare state in the 1920s and 1930s (Katznelson, Geiger, and Kryder 1993)" while the cited work's title covers "The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950".
- p. 20 References, Katznelson, Geiger, and Kryder 1993
Lliberalism: The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950.
- p. 2 Explaining regional differences, right column
the 1920s and 1930s (Katznelson, Geiger, and Kryder 1993)
- p. 20 References
The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: p002 image, right column, reads as quoted; p020 image shows the reference title with the 1933–1950 period. The period attributed to the citation does not match the period in the cited title; whether '1930s and 1940s' was intended is for the authors. The 'Lliberalism' misspelling also raised in this cluster is judged under C042.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text: "In addition, in the remaining columns, we control for factors that may have been predictive of proportion slave in 1860", but in Table 1 the '1860 covariates' row is ticked only for columns 2–4, not column 5.
- p. 6 Right column, second paragraph
In addition, in the remaining columns, we control for factors that may have been predic-
- p. 8 Table 1, row '1860 covariates'
1860 covariates
Judge's note: Table 1 on p.8: column 5 is ticked for state fixed effects, state-year fixed effects and clustered SEs, but not for 1860 covariates. The paragraph on p.6 opens by referring to "the three CCES outcomes", so "remaining columns" can be read as columns 2–4. The same phrase is used for state fixed effects, which column 5 does have, so the wording is ambiguous.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text says the series covers the "presidential vote between 1844 and 1968", but Figure 4 shows six antebellum points at four-year spacing ending at 1860, which puts the first at about 1840.
- p. 14 Timing of the political divergence, left column, last paragraph
presidential vote between 1844 and 1968
- p. 6 Figure 4
Presidential Elections
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Figure 4 on page 15 (the listed crop C026-b is from page 6 and does not show the figure). Axis ticks 1850 and 1900 are about 165 px apart, about 3.3 px per year. The first point is about 32 px left of 1850, so about 1840. The fifth point is the strongly negative one, matching the text's 1856 outlier only if the series starts in 1840. Read from a low-resolution image, so it is a query. The 1968 end is shown as the Wallace marker, so that part is not a defect.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "a 0.08 point increase in the average racial resentment score" for a 20 percentage point increase does not match Table 1 column 4 (.463), which gives 0.093, i.e. about 0.09.
- p. 7 Left column, paragraph beginning 'As columns 2–4 show'
a 0.08 point increase in
- p. 8 Table 1, column 4, Proportion slave
.463**
- p. 7 text
a 0.08 point increase in the average racial resentment score
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Same sentence and probably the same cause as C011 (an increment of about 0.18 gives 0.083), but it is a separate printed number. The gap is small (0.08 against 0.09). Text on p.7 and Table 1 on p.8 checked on the images.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Conclusion says "our findings are robust to instrumenting for cotton suitability"; cotton suitability is the instrument and proportion slave is the instrumented variable.
- p. 18 Conclusion, top of right column
robust to instrumenting for
- p. 18 Conclusion, right column, top
robust to instrumenting for cotton suitability
- p. 7 Section heading
Instrumenting for slavery with cotton suitability
Judge's note: p018 image, top of right column, reads as quoted. The paper's own section heading (text layer, p. 7) is "Instrumenting for slavery with cotton suitability". The conclusion's wording reverses the roles; the evident fix is 'instrumenting with cotton suitability' or 'instrumenting for slavery with cotton suitability'. I did not open the p007 image; the heading was taken from the cluster quote and text layer.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 4 N falls from "1,140" to "994" (and from "1,017" to "894") when proportion slave is added, although all columns are marked as including 1860 covariates and the baseline specification has N = 1,152.
- p. 12 Table 4, N row
1,140
- p. 12 Table 4, N row
994
- p. 8 Table 1, N, columns 2–3
1,152
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed page 12 (Table 4) and page 9 (Table 3, where the baseline specification with proportion slave has N = 1,152 and 1,027). Searched the text around Table 4, its note and footnote 19: nothing explains the loss of 146 and 123 counties. Only the authors can say whether the samples or the covariate checkmarks differ.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text says the direct effects "are similar to those in table 1 and are still highly significant", but in Table 3 two of the three sequential g-estimates (−.130* in column 2, .472* in column 6) carry only the p < .05 star.
- p. 10 Paragraph beginning 'Estimates from this analysis'
The direct effects of slave proportion are similar to those in table 1 and are still highly significant.
- p. 9 Table 3, columns 2 and 6
−.130*
- p. 10 Racial threat text
are still highly significant
- p. 9 Table 3 columns 2 and 6
2.130*
Judge's note: Viewed pages 9 and 10. Table 3 columns 2, 4 and 6 print −.130* (.057), −.130** (.042) and .472* (.184). Only column 4 reaches the table's p < .01 marker. 'Highly significant' is loose wording against the printed stars; a wording point only.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Migration window is given as "a five-year snapshot from 1935–1940" and "the 1935–40 period", but also as residence "in 1935 and in 1939" and (Figure 3 caption) "migration took place between 1935 and 1939".
- p. 10 Right column, 'Geographic sorting'
in a five-year snapshot from 1935–1940
- p. 10 Right column, 'Geographic sorting'
1935 and in 1939
- p. 11 Figure 3 caption
place between 1935 and 1939
- p. 10 Geographic sorting, right column
resided in 1935 and in 1939
Judge's note: Viewed pages 10 and 11. Both end years are used for the same 1940 Census data, and 1935 to 1939 is four years, not five. No statement in the text reconciles them. Either form could be a loose description, so this is a minor consistency point.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "Throughout, the difference in voting behavior between formerly large slaveholding counties and other counties is large and statistically significant" overstates Figure 4, where several intervals include zero, and sits beside "there is little difference between slave and nonslave areas before the Civil War".
- p. 14 Right column, second paragraph
Throughout, the difference in
- p. 15 Figure 4
Effect of Slavery on % Democrat
- p. 14 Timing of the political divergence, right column
Throughout, the difference in voting behavior between formerly large slaveholding counties and other counties is large and statistically significant.
- p. 14 Same section, earlier in right column
there is little difference between slave and nonslave areas before the Civil War
Judge's note: Viewed page 14 text and Figure 4 on page 15. Most antebellum intervals, the first post-war point, one point around 1948 and the last point before the Voting Rights Act line cross zero. The same paragraph says there is little antebellum difference. 'Throughout' may be meant for a narrower span, but the sentence does not say so.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Point estimate and interval do not sit together: "leads to only a 0.2 percentage point decrease in the percent Democrat (95% confidence interval: [−1.1, 0.06])"; the midpoint of the printed interval is about −0.52, not −0.2.
- p. 17 Left column, first paragraph under Table 5
confidence interval: [−1.1, 0.06]
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read on the p017 image: the minus sign and 0.06 are as quoted. The first interval in the same paragraph, [−2.7, −1.0] around −1.8, is roughly symmetric (midpoint −1.85). The second has midpoint −0.52 against a stated estimate of −0.2. Table 5 column 2 coefficients at 0.06 tractors give about −0.45 per 10 points, which is closer to the interval midpoint than to the printed 0.2. Nothing in the text says an asymmetric (e.g. bootstrap) interval was used for this model; bootstrapped standard errors are mentioned only for sequential g-estimation. Query to authors: which of the estimate or the upper bound (0.06 vs 0.6) is misprinted, or how the interval was built.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 5 note defines a variable that is not in the table: "Tractors in 1930 is the number of tractors per 100,000 acres of land in 1930."
- p. 17 Table 5 note
Tractors in 1930 is the number of tractors per 100,000 acres of land in 1930.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: p017 image: Table 5 rows are Proportion slave 1860, Tractors change 1930–40, and their interaction; there is no Tractors in 1930 row. The p016 text describes only the interaction with the change in tractors. Whether the 1930 level was an unreported control or the sentence is left over from another specification is for the authors to say.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Figure 6 y-axis reads "Correlation with Parent's Black-White Therm. Scores" while the caption defines the measure as "the difference between the respondent's thermometer scores for white and black people" (white minus black).
- p. 18 Figure 6, y-axis label
Correlation with Parent's Black-White Therm. Scores
- p. 18 Figure 6 caption
the difference between the respondent's thermometer scores for white and black people
Judge's note: p018 image: axis label and caption read as quoted. The body also uses 'black-white thermometer scores' generically (p005: 'individual-level black-white thermometer scores') alongside the heading 'White-black thermometer difference', so the axis label may carry no direction. A correlation between parent and child scores is unchanged by the sign convention, so this is a consistency point only.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "oppressing newly freedmen and their mobility" is ungrammatical (should be 'newly freed men' or 'new freedmen').
- p. 3 Right column, first paragraph
oppressing newly
Judge's note: Seen on the p.3 crop and the full page; it is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 5 reads "North Caroline" for North Carolina.
- p. 5 Footnote 5
North Caroline
- p. 8 Table 1 row label
Proproportion slave, 1860
- p. 5
North Caroline, South Carolina, Tennessee
Judge's note: Seen on the p.5 page image. The 'Proproportion' typo that one reviewer attached here is handled under C013.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "the average level of agreement with the racially resentment statement on a five-point scale" should read 'racial resentment statement(s)'.
- p. 5 Right column, 'Racial resentment' paragraph
racially resentment statement
Judge's note: Seen on the p.5 page image, right column.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 6: "the partisanship of whites voters only" should read 'white voters'.
- p. 5 Footnote 6
partisanship of whites voters only
Judge's note: Seen on the p.5 page image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Conclusion: "higher rates of radical violence, and decreased wealth concentrated in black farms" should read 'racial violence'; also p. 625 "the racially resentment statement" should read 'racial resentment'.
- p. 18 Conclusion, right column, second paragraph
higher rates of radical violence
- p. 5 Racial resentment paragraph
the racially resentment statement
Judge's note: p018 image, right column: 'radical violence' is printed. The body refers throughout to racial violence and lynchings (e.g. p016 'one extreme form of racial violence: lynchings'). p005 image: 'average level of agreement with the racially resentment statement on a five-point scale' is printed. Both are word-level slips.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "results on NES thermometer scores" uses 'NES' where the paper defines and otherwise uses 'ANES'.
- p. 6 Right column, first lines
results on NES thermometer scores
- p. 6 Slavery's effects section
NES thermometer scores
Judge's note: Seen on p.6, right column; 'ANES' appears five lines later and is the abbreviation defined on p.5. NES is a recognisable short form, so this is an inconsistency only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1 row label reads "Proproportion slave, 1860" (should be 'Proportion slave, 1860').
- p. 8 Table 1, first row label
Proproportion slave, 1860
Judge's note: Seen on the p.8 page image; Tables 2 and 3 use 'Proportion slave'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 3 note prints "(Seq, g-est)" with a comma, while the Model row of the same table prints "Seq. g-est."
- p. 9 Table 3 note
(Seq, g-est)
Judge's note: Viewed page 9. The note under Table 3 has a comma after 'Seq'; the table body uses a period. Cosmetic punctuation slip.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling: "dis-/enfrachisement (Du Bois 1935; Kousser 1974)" should be "disenfranchisement".
- p. 13 Left column
enfrachisement (Du Bois 1935; Kousser 1974)
Judge's note: Viewed page 13, left column. The word breaks as 'dis-' / 'enfrachisement'; the 'n' is missing inside the second part, so the line break does not explain it.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspellings in body text: "dimishing racial threat is driving" (p. 637) for 'diminishing', and "dis-enfrachisement" (p. 633, across a line break) for 'disenfranchisement'.
- p. 17 Left column, second paragraph
dimishing racial threat
- p. 13 p. 633
dis-enfrachisement
- p. 19 References: Ansolabehere 2010
harvarfd,edu
- p. 20 References: Katznelson et al.
Limiting Lliberalism
Judge's note: Both seen on the page images (p017 left column; p013 left column, 'dis-' / 'enfrachisement'). The other items bundled into this cluster (harvarfd,edu; Lliberalism; Consquences; Pittsburg) are also on the page and are judged under C039, C042, C044 and C040.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 24: "systematically disenfranchised between in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" has a stray "between".
- p. 14 Footnote 24
disenfranchised between in the late
- p. 14 Footnote 24
systematically disenfranchised between in the late
- p. 14
systematically disenfranchised between in the late nineteenth
Judge's note: Viewed page 14, footnote 24. 'between in' is printed as quoted; one word is left over.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Duplicated word: "data from the the 1925 Agricultural Census (Haines 2010)".
- p. 16 Left column
data from the the 1925 Agricultural Census
- p. 16 lynchings paragraph
from the the 1925 Agricultural Census
- p. 16
table A.17 draws on data from the the 1925 Agricultural C
Judge's note: Viewed page 16, left column. Both 'the' are on the same line, so it is not a line-break artefact.
Second check: code check
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Malformed URL in the Ansolabehere 2010 reference: "http://projects.iq.harvarfd,edu/cces/."
- p. 19 References, Ansolabehere 2010
.iq.harvarfd,edu/cces/.
- p. 19 References, Ansolabehere 2010
.iq.harvarfd,edu/cces/
- p. 19 Reference Ansolabehere 2010
harvarfd,edu
Judge's note: p019 image: the reference prints 'http://projects' / '.iq.harvarfd,edu/cces/.', with a stray 'f' and a comma where a dot is needed. A comma cannot appear in a domain name, so the defect is evident on its face.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Acknowledgments print "University of Pitts-burg" (i.e. 'Pittsburg') without the final 'h'.
- p. 19 Acknowledgments
University of Pitts-
- p. 19 Acknowledgments
University of Pitts-burg
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the institution's name is spelled University of Pittsburgh. p019 image: 'University of Pitts-' / 'burg, Washington University–St. Louis' is printed; the line break falls before 'burg', so the missing 'h' is not a hyphenation artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference title misspelled: "Limiting Lliberalism: The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950."
- p. 20 References, Katznelson, Geiger, and Kryder 1993
Lliberalism
- p. 20 References, Katznelson
Limiting Lliberalism
Judge's note: p020 image: 'Limiting' / 'Lliberalism' is printed across a line break in the Katznelson, Geiger, and Kryder 1993 entry. A doubled 'L' is an evident misspelling of 'Liberalism'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference list prints "Kousser, Morgan J. 1974." for the author of The Shaping of Southern Politics.
- p. 20 References, Kousser 1974
Kousser, Morgan J. 1974.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author's name is J. Morgan Kousser, so the entry would be 'Kousser, J. Morgan'. p020 image confirms the entry is printed 'Kousser, Morgan J. 1974.' The files contain nothing that verifies the author's name.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Rosenbaum 1984 reference title misspelled: "The Consquences of Adjustment for a Concomitant Variable That Has Been Affected by the Treatment."
- p. 21 References, Rosenbaum 1984
The Consquences of Adjustment
- p. 21
“The Consquences of Adjustment for a Con-
Judge's note: p021 image: 'Consquences' is printed; evident misspelling of 'Consequences'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference list prints the author's given name as "Vansteelandt, Sijn. 2009."
- p. 21 References, Vansteelandt 2009
Vansteelandt, Sijn. 2009.
- p. 21 References, Vansteelandt 2009
Vansteelandt, Sijn
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author's given name is Stijn. p021 image confirms 'Vansteelandt, Sijn. 2009.' is printed; the files contain nothing that verifies the name.
Second check: none (judge only)