Media Criticism

1619 Project Fact-Checker Says The New York Times Ignored Her Objections

A history professor disputed some of Nikole Hannah-Jones's claims about slavery and the American Revolution.

|

Leslie Harris is a Northwestern University historian who helped fact-check the 1619 Project, The New York Times's recent package of articles that recast chattel slavery as a foundational aspect of America. The project has been praised for drawing attention to underscrutinized racial inequities throughout American history. But has also attracted criticism from historians who say that some of the project's claims are false. Harris is one of those critics—but when she raised her objections with Nikole Hannah-Jones, the Times reporter who spearheaded the 1619 Project, she received no response.

"On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against," writes Harris in Politico.

When a fact-checker asked Harris to verify some of the project's statements, Harris "vigorously disputed" the claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a major reason the American colonies rebelled against British rule:

Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies. Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, a British military strategy designed to unsettle the Southern Colonies by inviting enslaved people to flee to British lines, propelled hundreds of enslaved people off plantations and turned some Southerners to the patriot side. It also led most of the 13 Colonies to arm and employ free and enslaved black people, with the promise of freedom to those who served in their armies. While neither side fully kept its promises, thousands of enslaved people were freed as a result of these policies….

Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones' introductory essay. In addition, the paper's characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

Hannah-Jones has tended to be extremely dismissive of the project's critics, who include The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf and the American Institute for Economic Research's Phil Magness. Perhaps she will have a more difficult time discounting criticism from a historian whose expertise her project drew on.

In any case, these ongoing issues with the project's accuracy are a good argument against school districts' swift mandates that it be taught in seventh-grade history classrooms.

NEXT: San Francisco Has Added a Lot of Jobs but Not Enough Housing. City Voters Approved a Ballot Initiative That Cuts Back on the Jobs.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>Nikole Hannah-Jones, the Times reporter who spearheaded the 1619 Project

    to what fucking end?

    1. Black . Spear .

      Wow this is anti woke.

      1. Uncancel Spearchucker Jones!

      2. Sorry, nothing black about spears. The spear (yea olde pointy stick) is a ubiquitous weapon throughout ancient and or primitive cultures.

        There isn’t a culture anywhere on the face of the earth that doesn’t have spears in it’s history.

        1. There isn’t a culture anywhere on the face of the earth that doesn’t have spears in it’s history.

          Phbbbt! Get aload of Mr. “Objective Historical Racial Accuracy” over here! Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us that both inter- and intra-racial/cultural slavery cuts both ways back and forth across cultures back into antiquity. LOL! Like no-shit Caucasians would’ve been enslaved anywhere, let alone the Middle East, Southern Asia, and Africa from antiquity to the modern age.

          1. No kidding. He’s got a lot to learn about rousing the rabble.

          2. To be honest, it’s strange to me that a project that’s all about how slavery is an ingrained part of the American colonial project has not one word to say about the indentured servitude that most of the poorest immigrants entered into to come there. I am forced to conclude that this is because hardly any of them were black.

            1. Hell, the Ottoman empire raided eastern Europe continually for slaves, but like you said, that’s not of concern to liberals. Everybody’s got a slave in their ancestry, the slave in my lineage is my father and I don’t want to hear a goddamn word about some injustice 300 years ago. Capiche?

        2. There’s nothing white about slavery either.

          1. Tell that to the Slavs

        3. So presumably spears were first invented and used in Africa, by, you know, black people. They should have had a head start in weapons technology. What happened?

          1. Vek can explain it to you.

          2. Civilization/technology is not linear. Read: “Time Will Run Back”. It focuses on politics/economics but it could apply to all ideas. The US Empire is a good example. Economically it is in decline, e.g., owes more than all other countries combined and falls further in debt each year. It must borrow just to pay the interest. The year/month? the lenders stop throwing away their money, the economy crashes.

        4. Attackers brandishing fresh fruit were also common throughout ancient civilizations.

        5. There isn’t a culture anywhere on the face of the earth that doesn’t have spears in it’s history.

          There isn’t a culture anywhere on the face of the earth that doesn’t have conquest or slavery in its history.

          What distinguishes America from almost all other nations is it fought hard to end these practices, not just domestically, but also abroad.

    2. Perpetuating the victim class. When there’s not enough overt examples of racism, you have to start making people fear implicit or implied racism. When that example is not sufficient, you simply point out the existence of inequality and then claim “systemic” racism.

      Why? Because people who feel they’re victims want more government to protect them. People who don’t feel victimized don’t see as much need for government in their daily lives.

      1. That sums it up.

      2. Excellent. A keeper.

      3. Yup. Guilt and grievance is at the center of an ideology. Living in the past is central to being progressive.

        They do so want everyone to get along tho, right? That’s the goal?

        Haha.

    3. To demonstrate what a terrible place America is. And by extension, what horrible people Americans are. White ones, anyway.

  2. In any case, these ongoing issues with the project’s accuracy are a good argument against school districts’ swift mandates that it be taught in seventh-grade history classrooms.

    Now would be an excellent time for Religious Conservatives to demand we introduce creationism in classes.

    1. …which would attract the satanists, who somehow always win. Like a twisted “Lady who swallowed the fly” story.

      I’m sure it has nothing at all to do with the blood sacrifices.

      1. swallowed a horse?

        1. I guess she’ll die.

        2. Enough about Catherine the Great.

          1. Died “in the saddle,” she did.

      2. Go eat worms.

    2. Good point. ‘Children…these aren’t the droids you’re looking for….’

      If what we teach our kids is conditioned on the absence of ‘ongoing issues with…accuracy’ and ‘accuracy’ is based on faith, even when faith is at odds with science and objective reality, faith (alone) dismisses doubt, debate or reason. Ergo…time to teach our children into believing they have an imaginary spirit friend of infinite wisdom, power and benevolence ready to remove the burden of intellectual curiosity. ‘Follow me, children, here’s who you should hate.’

  3. The New York Times does not print truth.
    Even the date at the top of the page is suspect.

    1. Even the date at the top of the page is suspect.

      Retracted every 24 hrs.

      1. Actually, they do not retract it.
        Like many of their stories, they just change it without explanation – – – –

  4. Perhaps she will have a more difficult time discounting criticism from a historian whose expertise her project drew on.

    Don’t be naive, Robbo.

    1. So you’ll defend Kirkland and sqrsly… but not educated black women. You do have limits I suppose.

      1. Why the f*ck do you have to drag race and gender into everything? Why are you so prejudiced that you think that the conjunction of “educated” and particular combinations of race and gender is in any way remarkable?

  5. I see she has no problem appropriating Clown culture.

    1. She’s a closet Juggalo.

      1. “a closet Juggalo”

        How does that work? Seems to defy the very notion of Juggalo.

        1. N-dimensional Juggalo.

    2. Orange Woman Bad.

      1. /obligatory comment about Russian puppet/
        /obligatory comment about starting WWIII with N. Korea and Iran simultaneously/
        /obligatory comment about packing cattle cars with white people/

        It will be funny when future historians talk about our absurd fascination with political clowns and collectively playing along with their schtick.

        1. Trump will go down as a wild but otherwise prosaic politician, largely stuffed by congressional resistance The response against him will not be judged so well, crammed top to bottom, end to end with use of government to get a political enemy.

          It may require a few decades for passions to die away and get a more objective reckoning by history.

    3. Yeah, that was my thought: Should have completed the outfit with a rubber ball nose.

      Seriously, has nobody told her to ditch the orange hair?

      1. The hair definitely invokes the look but the obnoxious pattern suit sealed it for me. I’m a little curious how handlers and makeup artists let that happen. I have a tragic sense of fashion and even I know that it’s a pattern/fabric you have to be careful with. Mrs. Casual would smack me for letting her end up on TV looking like that.

  6. Look, we can waste time debating minor details, or we can focus on the big picture.

    Here’s what really matters. We need to talk about slavery as often as possible, make Americans (especially white Americans) feel guilty about it, and then convince them the only way to atone is to support the progressive / libertarian agenda.

    My favorite Reason.com writer Shikha Dalmia has perfected this technique. See, for instance, the piece I link in my username. Or this one in which she asserts that, since slavery is our ORIGINAL SIN, we must therefore implement Charles Koch’s immigration agenda.

    #OpenBorders
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. One of your better ones OBL; a golf clap to you sir.

      1. Agreed. I feel more guilty already. This is the path to equality and healing.

        Haha

    2. WOW, to conflate the Libertarian agenda with the progressive agenda is the height of ignorance since on every item we disagree.
      Even on immigration the Libertarian party is conflicted. Yes we believe in open borders for the free movement and travel of all citizens. However only the left fringe of Libertarians want totally open borders, the majority prefer much more LEGAL immigration, but not illegal immigration.

      1. That’s not quite right. The pure libertarian policy is 100% percent free movement of goods and people. The serious version recognizes that, until there are no government funded benefits, it makes no sense to allow unfettered immigration.

        1. “You can tax Americans all you like, but don’t you dare tax Emperor Xi!”

          I note that none of the Globalists around here have even *attempted* to justify a 0 tax rate on Emperor Xi’s slave produced geegaws while Americans pay federal income and capital gains taxes.

          Note that our tariffs are way too *low* to satisfy that Arch Commie rat bastard, Adam Smith, who favored tariffs to offset local taxes on production:
          Wealth of Nations, pg. 356
          https://ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

          “It will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign industry for the encouragement of domestic industry, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the borne market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it.”

          1. Bu that would take all the fun out of taxing the locals!

  7. Funny how Confederate apologists say slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, in spite of every single Confederate politician making a speech proclaiming slavery as the one and only reason for seceding.

    Then these clowns say the primary overriding reason for the War of Independence was to preserve slavery, yet I don’t recall a single speech in all my reading that proclaimed that.

    Clowns to the left, clowns to the right.

    1. Funny how Confederate apologists say slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, in spite of every single Confederate politician making a speech proclaiming slavery as the one and only reason for seceding.

      Clowns to the left, clowns to the right.

      You should take off your face paint before you call the kettle black.

      1. You should get a brain before commenting. Oh wait, no content? Oh dear.

        1. Oh wait, no content?

          My original post had 60% actual content, but you either weren’t going to read it or were going to read it and pretend it didn’t exist so it didn’t spoil your act, so it just seemed more efficient to lump you in with the other clowns.

          1. This?

            You should take off your face paint before you call the kettle black.

            What 60% is actual content?

            1. Do you know how timestamps work?

              1. Do you know how percentages work?

    2. And some people say the war was entirely about slavery, even though the emancipation proclamation wasn’t written until 18 months after the start.

      1. The war was triggered by all sorts of things, but was all about slavery. If there had been no slavery, the war never would have happened.

        1. And yet two slave states remained with the Union and one slave state , West Virginia, was admitted during the war. If Wisconsin or Illinois seceded Old Abe would have gone after them. He didn’t give a shit about slavery, he fought to preserve the Union.

          1. I never said Abe gave a shit about slavery.

          2. Illinois was a hotbed of Confederate spies and intrigues. Boothe was part of that scene, and, IIRC, he originally participated in a plot similar to the Gun Powder whatever that mask guy is remembered for.
            Yes, I’ve been drinking.

            1. Guy Fawkes.

          3. Would note Kentucky was occupied by Federal troops to keep it in the Union. West Virginia was a slave state when it was admitted, but with a clear understanding that it would abolish it.

      2. The question about slavery and states rights was baked into the BOR, 70 yrs. before the war. There are plenty of pro-states-rights musings from speeches from abolitionists and slavery agnostics and plenty of pro-nation atguments from outright slave owners. You have to be incompetent or willfully stupid to miss them.

    3. I have not heard of the apologist who says slavery has nothing to do with succession. I think you make him up.
      History says that as well as slavery, economics had a lot to do with it , but then as today the economic illiteracy of the majority made slavery a better political pitch.
      Hopefully you recall that just before the onset of the civil war the north passed tariffs on both the south’s imports AND exports but not on the north’s imports and exports. The first attack was on fort sumter which served as the north’s customs station to collect the new tariffs.
      Clearly it was both slavery and the economic attacks on the south the north had just done that precipitated the war.
      Slavery was the big underlying issue, but the tariffs and the economic attack they represented were the spark that kicked off the civil war.
      Not an apologist, just trying to get the history correct

      1. Well, to be fair, slavery was also an economic matter in the preindustrial and agrarian South. It is simply impossible to have that level of production without either A. machinery, or B. slavery- which is why every civilization until the 18th century had slavery, and some still do, namely China.

        1. “Well, to be fair, slavery was also an economic matter in the preindustrial and agrarian South. It is simply impossible to have that level of production without either A. machinery, or B. slavery…”
          This is the claim, that plantations required slavery, but I’ve yet to see any serious examinations of the economics to show that it’s true.
          Guessing here, but if the ‘capital value’ (and the consequent social standing) of ‘owning’ slaves, versus the costs of hiring help were honestly compared, nothing I’ve seen suggests that slavery was an economic advantage, rather than a social statement.

          1. This is the claim, that plantations required slavery, but I’ve yet to see any serious examinations of the economics to show that it’s true.
            Guessing here, but if the ‘capital value’ (and the consequent social standing) of ‘owning’ slaves, versus the costs of hiring help were honestly compared, nothing I’ve seen suggests that slavery was an economic advantage, rather than a social statement.

            There have been several tangential examinations that refute contra stance; that without the war, slavery wouldn’t have ended.

            One significantly complicating factor to your stance is that in large parts of the nation (particularly the ‘Upper South’) blacks were employed-employed as servants before, during, and after the war. Integrated to the point that many who fled North returned because Northern society didn’t even want them as employees.

            1. Once slavery was limited to blacks, many hoped that if slavery could be gotten rid of, so could the blacks.

              1. Uh… not sure what that has to do with economics but, yeah, ‘many’ on both sides (North and South) and with and without animus. Lincoln himself advocated varying efforts to deport/colonize/re-colonize any one of a number of locations from Africa to C. and S. America.

        2. Huh? How does slavery increase productivity? It simply shifts its benefits from some people to others.

          1. Because people who work literally under the whip can be made to work longer and harder than free employees.

            1. Because people who work literally under the whip can be made to work longer and harder than free employees.

              for short periods and at great risk to the whippers.

              1. They made it work for 250 years. Pretty good run.

        3. Slavery was not economically beneficial to the South or the nation; to the contrary.

          Slavery is best thought of as a crony capitalist project, like our crony capitalist healthcare system or the trillions wasted on pointless “green energy” efforts and regulations.

      2. The frustrating thing about civil war debates is that it’s kinda like TDS. Slavery bad, Orange Man bad and nothing else matters. You’d be hard pressed to find a single American in the 21st century willing to defend 18th century slavery. But it’s always more complicated than it seems and the civil war is a textbook example. As others have noted, secession was about slavery. The war was about secession. Lincoln told us so explicitly on multiple occasions. He unilaterally decided that the confederacy did not have a right of secession and was willing to fight a war that ultimately led to the death of half a million combatants while committing innumerable war crimes against civilians of all races.
        In terms of human carnage our civil war is comparable to the wars and governments of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and all of the other 20th century tyrants. You don’t have to be an apologist to wonder if there might have been another way. I don’t know why this idea is even controversial.

        1. Sure there was another way: let the South secede. Slavery would have ended there quickly on its own, like it did everywhere else, because it is economically irrational.

          1. NOYB2. ever the genius, now says all those thousands of slave owners LOST MONEY on the millions of slaves they paid billions of (current) dollars to purchase, feed and house!!!

      3. To Lincoln it was about preserving the union. To the Confederate states, it was about preserving slavery. Read the resolutions of secession passed by the seceding states’ legislatures.

        https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

        The Confederates, by trying to preserve chattel slavery, were far more anti-libertarian than Lincoln and the North. On libertarian grounds, the Confederates deserved to lose. If we defend the Confederates, then we too will deserve to lose.

        1. On libertarian grounds, the Confederates deserved to lose. If we defend the Confederates, then we too will deserve to lose.

          There are far more slaves in the world today than there were in the American South at the time of the civil war. According to you, is the only possible position for a libertarian that we need to start wars with all those countries? That’s absurd.

          While libertarians strongly disapprove of involuntary slavery, that’s a moral judgment, not a political imperative. Nothing in libertarian ideology requires going to war with other states over their mistreatment of their citizens. In fact, most libertarians would find this quite inadvisable.

          1. While libertarians strongly disapprove of involuntary slavery, that’s a moral judgment, not a political imperative

            SHAME ON YOU AGAIN — NOYB2.
            OPPOSING SLAVERY IS MOST CERTAINLY A “POLITICAL IMPERATIVE” FOR LIBERTARIANS.

            WHY IS IT “POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE” TO YOU, AND YOUR ILK?

            According to you, is the only possible position for a libertarian that we need to start wars with all those countries? That’s absurd.

            *YOU* ARE ABSURD. And ignorant.
            IT WAS THE CONFEDERACY THAT STARTED THE WAR!
            **THEY FIRED ON FORT SUMPTER!!
            ***THE UNION HAD IGNORED THEM, TOTALLY, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

            REAL libertarians argue that our Constitution was morally reprehensible, with all the compromises to satisfy the demands of slaveholders and states. WE DID NOT NEED THOSE ASSHOLES … as proven by the Articles of Confederation … and confirmed by the Confederacy and the Union BOTH functioning under self- government … until the dumbass south started the war of self-destruction.

            You’ll learn all this in high school.

          2. It’s more complicated than that too, because libertarian ideology actually requires slavery – specifically the ability to sell yourself into slavery, though explicitly not the ability to pass that on to anyone else, such as your children.

            If a person has a moral right to do anything that doesn’t harm someone else (which is the basic libertarian thesis) then intentionally entering into a long term contract requiring you to perform any legal act without pay (other than as paid for entering into the contract) must be allowed.

            This, of course, is essentially what indentured servitude is, but for most of history a slave and an indentured servant were substantially the same, including being sold to a different master or being beaten if you didn’t perform. In the Roman Republic (and Imperial Rome too), for example, a slave couldn’t be killed outright – an owner had to present his case to a tribunal that the slave had done something meriting killing, with the functional effect that crimes simply were punished a bit harder if you were a slave, but you still had considerable (for the era) legal rights.

            Just because the antebellum American experience with chattel slavery was especially morally bad doesn’t mean we should disregard other forms in different places. Even in the US in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many slaves were able to buy their freedom, which necessarily meant they were able to own and save money on their own. With the decline of indentured servitude those freedoms began to be stripped, as the general view that slaves were merely a form of indentured servant where the indenture obligation carried through generations that existed for centuries began to decline, and slaves were viewed as less human rather than permanently indentured humans.

    4. Please show proper respect to the bard;
      ” . . . clowns to left of me, jokers to the right . . . “

      1. ^^THIS

    5. The South may have seceded for slavery, but that doesn’t explain why there was the Civil War.

      The North *was not* waging war to liberate slaves.

      1. Exactly; the ’emancipation proclamation’ freed no slaves in the Union states.

        1. Lincoln freed slaves where he arguably had no jurisdiction but did not free slaves where he arguably did. The great emancipator. Yeah right.

      2. Depends on who you mean by “The North”. The government and elites of the Union might have been largely indifferent to slavery, but popular opposition to slavery by Northern people was a major factor in public support for the war. Many Northerners were sincerely morally offended by slavery and were motivated to fight by the prospect of ending it and preventing its spread.

      3. There was a war because the south was willing to open fire on a union fort so they could secede to keep slavery.

        1. Oh please.

          The North refused to leave a South Carolina fort for *months* after the South seceded. The South “opened fire” on Fort Sumter in an attack that caused all of 0 Northern casualties.

          It was a way for those holding the fort to save face on their evacuation.

          1. Oh, please, the bombardment continued, non-stop, for 3 hours,
            There were deaths during the evacuation of the fort..

            The Union totally ignored the Confederacy … which had
            self-governed for all those “*months*” you mention.

            Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor? 🙂

            1. CORRECTING TYPO

              Oh, please, the bombardment continued, non-stop, for 33 hours,

              BUT THEY DIDN’T WANT A WAR! (laughing)

      4. ANOTHER ONE????? 🙂
        The war was LAUNCHED by the confederacy!!!!
        The Union was defending …. i>itself. They had IGNORED the confederacy, which had self-governed for months … until their crazy attack on Fort Sumter.

    6. “Funny how Confederate apologists say slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, in spite of every single Confederate politician making a speech proclaiming slavery as the one and only reason for seceding.”

      Well, you just explained why they say that, yourself: They seceeded over slavery. The Union waged war to establish that the union was a roach motel. To quote Lincoln: “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.”

      1. Which is why Abe was one of our great leaders. His goal was to preserve the Union. All else was secondary.

        1. Why was preserving the union worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings? Why was racial purity worth the deaths of millions in Europe 80 years ago? The union is a political concept. Classical liberals value individual liberty. All else, including the union, is secondary.

          1. America means something to many of us. I know that concept is alien to some here.

          2. “Why was preserving the union worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings?”

            1) The US version of Imperialism: Manifest Destiny.
            2) Mercantilism. The South was the agricultural colony of the North, supplying cheap agricultural goods in exchange for manufactured goods from tariff protected Northern manufacturers.

            The South in the Civil War was in the same economic position as the US colonies in the Revolutionary War, an agricultural colony of an Imperialist power, from whose trade policies they were seeking escape.

            1. “Why was preserving the union worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings?”

              Ending slavery was worth it, whether that was the intention or not.

              1. That’s fair enough for us to think, but I was discussing why there was the Civil War, not why we might be happy that there was one.

                1. Umm, the Confederacy launched the war. Fort Sumpter!
                  The union had been ignoring them, totally.
                  Their “Congress” had been self-governing for several months.

                  I’m kinda scared that at least a dozen commenters are so totally ignorant of essential US History.

              2. Umm, the Confederacy launched the war. Fort Sumpter!
                The union had been ignoring them, totally.
                Their “Congress” had been self-governing for several months.

                I’m kinda scared that at least a dozen commenters are so totally ignorant of essential US History.

            2. Umm, the Confederacy launched the war. Fort Sumpter!
              The union had been ignoring them, totally.
              Their “Congress” had been self-governing for several months.

              I’m kinda scared that at least a dozen commenters are so totally ignorant of essential US History.

          3. Slavery of the individual is a greater evil from a libertarian standpoint than is the power or sovereignty of the state governments.

          4. ANOTHER ONE! Gaear Grinsrud

            Why was preserving the union worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings?

            History FAIL.
            The Union had already been split. The Confederacy had self-governed for months … until their crazy attack on Fort Sumpter.

            So, your question is backwards
            WHY WAS PRESERVING SLAVERY WORTH THE DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HUMAN BEINGS … when the Union was totally ignoring them?

      2. Be that as it may, which is more anti-libertarian – stopping slave-state governments from political secession and waging war to do so, or fighting to preserve and extend into the territories government laws and soverignty enforcing chattel slavery of individuals in direct violation of individual rights, and waging war to do so?

        1. Slavery is more anti-libertarian than imperialism.

          The South would have been more libertarian if it had abandoned slavery.
          The North would have been more libertarian if it had abandoned imperialism.

          1. It was not imperialism. The South was not originally in the Union by conquest, rather by consent. There is no right of revolution or to leave the union for an unjust cause.

            1. It was imperialism when the Brits attempted to prevent the colonies from seceding.
              It was imperialism when the North attempted to prevent the South from seceding.

              “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

              1. buybuydandavis

                It was imperialism when the North attempted to prevent the South from seceding.

                OMFG … NEVER HAPPENED.
                The Confederacy self-governed for months, totally ignored, until they fired on Fort Sumpter.

                When you get to high school, US History will educate you.

      3. OMG ….,ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP BY BRETT BALTIMORE!!! (It NEVER stops!!!!)

        The Union waged war to establish that the union was a roach motel.

        The war was launched by … THE CONFEDERACY!!!! They fired on Fort Sumpter. The union had IGNORED them for several months, while the Confederacy self-governed,

    7. Funny how you’ve mixed up the Revolutionary war (which the article discusses) with the Civil War (which you discuss). The article discusses a historian’s disagreement with the NYT’s view that “protecting the institution of slavery was a major reason the American colonies rebelled against British rule”.

      The NYT is essentially promoting a Democrat meme that Trump and his supporters are racist which IMHO is the whole reason for the 1619 project. Slavery is long gone from US law, but not in other countries. And it’s Democrats who don’t want a color blind government.

      1. The other thing that comes to mind, is indentured servitude and how it got started, and is so much like the student loan program the Democrats made. Today you borrow for your student loans, and if you don’t get a job with sufficient income to pay it off, you’ve become essentially a slave to government because like slaves of old, you were indentured to pay off your debts to your master.

      2. “which IMHO is the whole reason for the 1619 project”

        Nah. Even if Trump weren’t around, they’d be pushing hatred of America.

        1. New York Times was a big apologist for the Soviet Union.
          Why NYT should be dictating what 7th graders nationwide should know about American Revolutionary history is puzzling.
          NYT is a ministry of truth only in the Orwellian sense.

          1. The NYT dictates what 7th graders should know because the Marxist Long March Through the Institutions has trampled through government educational institutions.

            We should have a separation of all propaganda and State.
            Churches, Schools, Media, Art.

      3. More Freedom??? Educate yourself, Gomer.
        Our revolt was four years AFTER slavery was ABOLISHED in England and Wales.

        Proof of your partisan bigotry, and conspiracy delusions, is detailed here.

        https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/#comment-8159505
        It will be VERY embarrassing to you.

        Where was Obama born???

  8. “”Perhaps she will have a more difficult time discounting criticism from a historian whose expertise her project drew on.””

    That’s not how being “woke” works.

    1. well said

      1. Your both full of shit! Proof is on this page:

        https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/#comment-8159505
        It will be VERY embarrassing to you.

        Where was Obama born???

  9. “Some of 1619’s attempts to link contemporary America to slavery are plain absurd. Matthew Desmond says US capitalism is uniquely brutal, and “you can trace that to the plantation” (no, you can’t). Jeneen Interlandi argues that the one-syllable reason we don’t have single-payer health care is “race.” Project leader Nikole Hannah-Jones argues that our wealth is due largely to slavery, a widely debunked claim.

    For good measure, there is even a 1619 essay headlined ‘How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam.'”
    NYT’s 1619 Project tries to rob black Americans of their stake in 1776: The New York Times’ 1619 Project argues that the United States is inextricably rooted in the evil of slavery, brought to these shores in 1619. As a black scholar, I reject this narrative. Instead of 1619, I take pride in our true Founding — 1776.

    1. As a black scholar, I reject this narrative. Instead of 1619, I take pride in our true Founding — 1776.

      Unlce Tom

      1. I thought the current insult was “Oreo”?

        1. oreo is a threesome with a white girl in the middle

          1. Spot roast, or DP/DPP/DAP?

      2. Our revolution began four years AFTER slavery was abolished in England and Wales.

        Without our Revolution …
        1) The slave trade would have been banned earlier,
        2) Slavery would have been banned 33 years earlier (for the entire British Empire
        3) Hysterically, our slave owners would have been compensated, when Britain borrowed 16 million pounds — roughly 16 TRILLION today.
        4) We would not have abolished slavery 1/3 of a century AFTER even Mexico did.

        Knowing just that, for most THOUGHTFUL and EDUCATED Americans, the only honest answer is WE DON’T KNOW if the revolution was to retail slavery … even with TONS of merely circumstantial evidence, summarized elsewhere on this page.
        https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/#comment-8159505

        For libertarians, the larger question is ..,. why did we sell out our principles for the “new” Constitution, when the slave states were already fully adept at self-governance … for a Constitution despised by Jefferson?

        Or, we wouldn’t go to war to defend slavery, but we’d subvert our Constitution to satisfy slave holders.

    2. God forbid we ever start treating people like individuals. That’s not what this project is about. Collective guilt and grievance is about dividing people. Why do they want that?

      Haha

      1. SLAVES were individuals, Gomer.
        Were they treated as individuals?

  10. It’s so weird how everyone else’s settlements in the US–some existing for more than a century BEFORE 1619– don’t seem to matter.

    1. The hold of the Mayflower was packed with slaves.

      Sin,
      New York Times

      1. Well, oppressed women, for sure. And by intersectional extension all oppressed persons were in that hold.

    2. Yeah, like those Latinos from Spain and Portugal.

    3. Nor Native American slavery.

  11. “Perhaps she will have a more difficult time discounting criticism from a historian whose expertise her project drew on.”

    Well, the NYT should have known that racist counterrevolutionaries would try to infiltrate their ranks.

    But at least they can ignore these counterrevolutionary propagandists.

  12. Is there a bigger shithole than Africa?

    1. Are you the holocaust denial guy?

      1. He’s also the anti-1A guy.

        1. And the sexual orientation is a choice guy.

      2. I suspect he isn’t a fan of negroes either.

        1. Why? Is it because I call a spade a spade?

          1. Yes.

            1. Then all those “negroes” calling each other nigger, hate black people.

              1. And that makes it OK for you to hate Black people?

    2. Your mom?

    3. Rob Misek
      March.6.2020 at 3:39 pm
      “Is there a bigger shithole than Africa?”

      Guaranteed!
      Where do you live? It’s there.

    4. Look in the mirror and open your mouth.

  13. “I was concerned that critics would use the overstated claim to discredit the entire undertaking. So far, that’s exactly what has happened.”

    Aren’t overstated claims *part* of the undertaking?

    1. If part = whole

      1. The part that was true was just to lend credibility to the part that was false. The part that was false was the whole point of the thing.

  14. Slavery and the history of slavery in the US seems bad enough without having to make things up.

    1. Bingo, but pointing to the badness of slavery isn’t enough, apparently.

      Scapegoats must be found.

      Capitalist white Amerikkka is the target. (And by “white,” white progressives technically include themselves, but only to show the superiority of their wokeness. In reality, the problem is with the bad white people, the ones who aren’t progressives).

      It’s not enough to point to the vast hypocrisy of the divergence between the country’s ideals and practices. The ideals themselves are tainted, and instead we need to turn to totally no-racist, non-oppressive solutions like socialism.

      (Socialists aren’t racists, of course, unless it’s as a remnant of right-wingism sticking to them, showing the incompleteness of their socialism.)

      1. And by “white,” white progressives technically include themselves, but only to show the superiority of their wokeness.

        In the hope of being the last ones up against the wall.

        1. In practice, the toadies end up being the first against the wall.

      2. Another embellishment, if not outright lie, is that the American economy was built on slavery.

        Again, as I point out below, I’m sure there was some benefit to the overall economic output but not sure how cotton picking from the South made America an economic giant. All the industrial and manufacturing might was in the North. Shoot, I wouldn’t be surprised if French-Canadians who migrated to New England for manufacturing jobs weren’t exactly in a great spot either.

        Though I would love to hear from someone who may actually know something about that.

        1. “Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution came under indentures.[2] However, while almost half the European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired, and thus free wage labor was the more prevalent for Europeans in the colonies.[3]” – wikipedia

          1. White slaves don’t count!

        2. “Again, as I point out below, I’m sure there was some benefit to the overall economic output but not sure how cotton picking from the South made America an economic giant.”

          By exports. America’s largest money making industries were cotton and tobacco. They couldn’t have been economically viable without slave labor. French Canadians also prospered thanks to exports, but o beaver pelts which were in great demand. It was not necessary to import African slaves to make fur industry profitable.

          The industry in the north was protected by policies instituted by Hamilton and others. Slavers, on the other hand, were dedicated to free trade.

          1. “…They couldn’t have been economically viable without slave labor…”

            Unsupported claims are known as bullshit for a good reason, bullshitter.

            1. There was no profitable cotton or tobacco industry in the US without slavery.

              1. They were profitable after slavery so it’s not clear that they were only profitable because of slavery.

                1. They were profitable because of African labor. After slavery was abolished, Africans continued to work in these industries under an arrangement called share cropping. When your workers in debt to you, it turns out that you don’t need slavery.

            2. Figures, another pro slavery democrat.

      3. “Socialists aren’t racists…”
        That’s perfect.

      4. “(Socialists aren’t racists, of course, unless it’s as a remnant of right-wingism sticking to them, showing the incompleteness of their socialism.)”

        True, being a Socialist does not make you inherently a racist. However, racists socialists are no less socialist and no less left wing. Racism is a subset of collectivism, which has always been “left wing”. Indeed, when you sit down and spend the effort (and time) to consult source material built up over centuries you find that while “left” and “right” may seem fluid, the core element is individualism vs collectivism.

        Fascism is really a subset/variant of Socialism, and Italy/Germany represent a clear demarcation between the two. Race is but one avenue for collectivism. While we’d like to think it went the way of the dodo after the results of the 20th century, it did not.

        Indeed not only are there still Nazi Parties (National Socialist), but if you remove the racial aspect, or change the Jewish target to “white people”, “the patriarchy”, or for bonus points “white patriarchy”, you see they were indeed Socialists and would fit right in with the DSA today.

        1. HOW DOES THAT EXPLAIN TRUMP’S LYING-SACK-OF-SHIT RACISM … THAT THE RIOTING AND MASS ASSAULTS IN CHARLOTTESVILLE WERE INITIATED BY …. THE LEFT (pees pants laughing)

          Specifically: Your thoughts on Trump LYING to defend NEO-NAZIS and WHITE SUPREMACISTS. How is that NOT a disgrace to the Presidency???

          You also screwed up fascism! Italy’s was LEFT-wing (unionist). Hitler’s was RIGHT-wing (corporatist)

          Racism is a subset of collectivism, which has always been “left wing”.

          LIE! Or IGNORANCE?

  15. “The project has been praised for drawing attention to underscrutinized racial inequities throughout American history.”

    Examples please.

    1. “Under scrutinized”?

      Haha. That’s funny.

  16. Is anyone really surprised by this? That it would get targeted for revisionism by leftists?

    1. “Is anyone really surprised by this? ”

      Americans certainly are. They were raised to believe in the spirit of ’76: freedom and independence. Take a look at the comments here if you doubt me.

  17. “The project has been praised for drawing attention to underscrutinized racial inequities throughout American history.”

    While I can see this could have played a factor but these sort of things don’t necessarily last in perpetuity. There were black communities were thriving in the post-civil war era I believe. Some even got attacked and ruined by racists. So there’s argument to be made. But as a sole factor? Not sure I buy that.

    The main problem with clinging to this one ‘this is it and only it’ assertion is it dismisses outright cultural aspects that may have contributed to it. Sure, the same people will contend this is obviously because of slavery but again black communities and the family structure was strong in the 20th century. It was only when the welfare state did we begin to see a backward slide.

    Anyway, I could be wrong.

    1. “It was only when the welfare state did we begin to see a backward slide.”

      Don’t you think the fact that some 30% of black American males will be imprisoned (often for ridiculous drug crimes) at some point in their lives contributes to America’s troubles? Surely the money that goes into funding America’s gulags far outstrips any paltry and welfare spending.

      1. “Surely the money that goes into funding America’s gulags far outstrips any paltry and welfare spending.”

        You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

        1. Incarceration in a federal prison costs you about $100 per day. Welfare recipients receive a fraction of that, unless I’m mistaken,

          1. The question is, “How much does not incarcerating certain people in Federal prison — or any other prison — cost? For an answer, just look to New York and San Francisco, both busily eliminating incarceration — at great economic cost.

            1. “How much does not incarcerating certain people in Federal prison — or any other prison — cost?”

              There are costs to not incarcerating people. Our corporations no longer can avail themselves of cheap prison labor, and have to outsource to places like China. Prison guards will have to give up their well paying jobs and look for something in the fast food sector .Lots of people, aside from the prisoners themselves, have a financial interest in seeing America’s incarceration rate stay high or get even bigger. I don’t know why NY or SF should want to thwart these desires. Maybe their politicians are trying to garner black votes.

              1. And then all the contractors for food, transportation, medical services, supplies, the list goes on. A lot of those facilities are privately run and there are contracts and subcontracts to be had. I did some work with companies that had some of that for government detention centers. It was a sweet deal. Just got an email for what amounts to an offer to do some work like that. I am not interested right now but it is always an option. All of those have lobbyists.

          2. “Incarceration in a federal prison costs you about $100 per day. Welfare recipients receive a fraction of that, unless I’m mistaken,”

            You are mistake, and/or conflating different things. You originally claimed “Surely the money that goes into funding America’s gulags far outstrips any paltry and welfare spending.” As such your vague and irrational comparison will be interpreted as you supporting the original claim you made there.

            I won’t assume any particular intention, but will point out you are dead wrong.

            The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an annual budget in the 7Bn range. Federal entitlement spending, including “welfare” is measured in trillions. Direct welfare alone accounts for nearly 400Bn annually – roughly 6.7 times as much as the entire federal prison system.

            Further, you have an invalid understanding of the timeline. The mass incarceration happened after the onset of the effects of the welfare state. In some ways they were a response to them.

            1. MOAR MASSIVE B.S. … from “Anderson The Self Righteous” …
              You must compare costs per PERSON … since safety net funding will ALWAYS BE MUCH HIGHER!

              “Uh, why would it be much higher?” ATSR sneers.

              “Umm, 28,000% more people, righty. (lol)”

              Total FOP prisoners – 179,000 vs 50 million on welfare!
              So you’re alt-right bullshit has a 27,900% Margin of Error!

              Almost as bad as Trump! 🙂

              Here’s the latest FOP data,
              https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=131

              PLUS …
              AVERAGE POVERTY RECIPIENT GETS $400 PER month.
              Divide by 30 = $13.33 per day.
              Your alt-right b.s. HERE has only a 751% margin of error!

              That’s FIVE major blunders on this page … so far.

              Don’t pull that shit on a LIBERTARIAN wen site.
              Left – Right = Zero.

    2. There were black communities were thriving in the post-civil war era I believe. Some even got attacked and ruined by racists.

      Black communities like Harlem were thriving until attacked and ruined largely by Democrat Policies and Politicians.

      FTFY

      1. Tom Sowell should be required reading in schools not this historical revisionism.

      2. Some 30% of black males will be incarcerated, often on ridiculous charges. It’s happening today and it’s not only democrats who are responsible.

      3. blah blah blah

        We revolted just four years AFTER slavery was abolished in England (and Wales) … nearly a century before our abolition.

        We banned the slave trade AFTER it was banned in the entire British Empire.

        We abolished slavery a third of a century AFTER it was abolished in the empire … and

        Then we sold out or values in a second Constitution … to satisfy slave states .. with a Constitution opposed by Jefferson … when both the Union and Confederacy were fully competent for self-governance.

        Do you know the Constitution included
        1) Forbade Congress to ban the slave trade for 20 years,
        2) REQUIRED free states to ENFORCE SLAVERY on fugitive slaves.

        Hell, even MEXICO abolished slavery …. 33 years before we did!! (That’s WHY Texas was forced to secede.

        I have no idea if we revolted to preserve slavery … but the evidence for that is INFINITELY greater than your … nothing.

  18. The U.S. Paper of Record is a tabloid and Biden will secure the nomination for the D party. How will they keep him going. Lip Sync technology?

    1. Our first Deep Fake President. Max Headroom has arrived.

      1. NOBODY has EVER lied as SHAMEFULLY as Trump’s BULLSHIT that the Charlottesville rioting and assaults were launched by THE LEFT … the lying sack of shit defended his neo-nazi and white supremacist supporters.

        Do YOU alt-righties defend Trump on this … and neo-nazis … and white supremacists?

  19. So they lied, she told them so, and the printed the lies anyhow.
    ‘All the lies fit to print’!

    1. MOAR PROOF … SEVO FULL OF SHIT … AGAIN!

      https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/#comment-8159505

      Left – Right = Zero
      Both brainwashed puppets of the political elites … both beleeb what they WANT to beleeb … without a shred of evidence.
      The militant self-righteous (low IQ)

  20. The 1619 Project joins the Holocaust and much if not most of the rest of history in filling our kids’ heads with what Henry Ford properly called bunk.
    Fortunately, the kids either ignore or forget most of it. Pity our taxpayers’ dollars must go to such harmful waste.
    It’s better than (actually waging) war, I suppose.

    1. Jett Rucker
      March.6.2020 at 9:32 pm
      “The 1619 Project joins the Holocaust and much if not most of the rest of history in filling our kids’ heads with what Henry Ford properly called bunk.”

      You.
      Are.
      A.
      Scumbag.
      Bigot.
      And
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.
      Fuck off, ignoramus.

    2. Is this guy a Holocaust denier?

      1. Are you a bigot?

        Examples of bigotry in a Sentence
        “ a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments”

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry

        1. You.
          Are.
          A.
          Scumbag.
          Bigot.
          And
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.
          Fuck off, ignoramus.

          1. You’re a troll and a bigot. Constantly irrelevant and incapable of counter argument.

            Fuck yourself.

      2. Yes, the scumbag Misek is a Holocaust denier and a vicious anti-semite.

  21. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  22. The first and best option to control The Narrative is strategic silence.
    The second option is poisoning the well.

  23. Such is life on the lower, left hand side of the Bell Curve. Mixed in with a healthy dose of counterfactual history and you get a better understanding why so many AA remain mired on the bottom rung in society. Project 1619 will soon join the likes of Ebonics and Kwanza in the cultural backwaters.

    1. Why’d you have to bring the alcoholics into this?

  24. “the claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a major reason the American colonies rebelled against British rule”

    This is true. Court rulings in Britain against slavery prior to 1776 showed America’s slave owners that their position was in danger. By the early 19th century, the slave trade was illegal in Britain, but continued to flourish in the USA and other parts of the world not ruled by Britain. Slave owners in America who wanted to preserve their wealth had little choice but to break with the Crown.

    1. Thousands of slave owners were themselves black.

      1. Slavery wasn’t a racist thing. It was the free market without regulations, like human rights.

        1. I’m not sure what you mean. Human rights were like slavery or human rights were not a racist thing?

        2. Rob Misek

          Slavery wasn’t a racist thing.

          ANOTHER cowardly diversion!

          .

          FACT We revolted shortly after slavery was abolished in England (and Wales) It was banned BECAUSE their equivalent of our SCOTUS ruled slavery a severe violation of The Common Law. The Common Law also governed our colonies, even after our independence. Abolition was INEVITABLE as a colony, and the em[ire abolished slavery before we did. SO DID MEXICO!

          FACT: We banned the slave trade AFTER it was banned in the entire British Empire … which would have included US. duh

          FACT: Slavery was abolished in the empire, 39 years BEFORE we did … (which would have included US. duh,)

          FACT: Our revolution delayed abolition for nearly a century. (vs England)

          **FACT: Even MEXICO abolished slavery before we did .., by a third of a century … which is WHY Texas was forced to secede.

          ***HYSTERICALLY … Parliament borrowed 16 million pounds … roughly 16 TRILLION today …. TO COMPENSATE SLAVE OWNERS FOR EMANICPATION IN THE ENTIRE EMPIRE (smirk) … SO OUR REVOLUTION COST OUR SLAVEHOLDERS TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS … and the thousands of lives they lost with their dumbfuck war!!

          FACT: Then we sold out our core values .. to satisfy slaveowners in a second Constitution … when BOTH the Union and Confederacy were proven capable of self- governance.

          As a libertarian, with moral integrity, I have no idea if we revolted to escape the looming threat of abolition … but … THAT has infinitely more (circumstantial) evidence than … NOTHING by the historically illiterate, alt-right whiny pussies here.
          FACT.

          1. It is both my comment and a fact. There is nothing cowardly about it.

            You have said nothing that refutes it.

            1. Ummm, your diversion was the statement that slavery was not racist … which has NOTHING to do with what you “responded” to. (sigh)

              My response jammed the ACTUAL topic up your lyin’ ass.

      2. What difference does it make if the slave owner is black or white or anything in between?

        1. Black slave owners demonstrate that slavery was not a racist thing.

          1. Uneducated, uncivilized and unprotected people were what the slave market demanded. There were lots in Africa.

            We still fuck the same group over today, of any colour, it’s still called the free market, just not slavery.

            1. Africans were acclimatized to the south and not subject to the diseases that carried off people from Europe. America’s indigenous people were in a similar boat, but when they were enslaved, they simply ran off to join their friends and family in freedom, an option not open to Africans.

              1. Native Indians were also slave owners.

                1. So what? Indians played only a marginal role in 1776 and in the American economy. Slave owners in America were overwhelmingly white and the slaves they owned were almost entirely black. These are painful facts, I realize, but best faced honestly without your tergiversation.

                  1. So what?

                    It proves that slavery wasn’t racially motivated.

                    Slavery was economically motivated by the greed of those whoever had the opportunity. All races participated.

                    Calling that corruption racist is barking up the wrong tree.

                    Coercing the vulnerable is what the profit motive is all about.

                    Bark up that tree. You’ll find yourself.

                    It was

                    1. “It proves that slavery wasn’t racially motivated.”

                      It was economically motivated. But if it were racially motivated it would have undoubtedly turned out the same: slaves overwhelmingly black, slavers overwhelmingly white. (In the Americas, at least.)

                    2. Yes, simply because educated, “civilized” and protected people were overwhelmingly white.

                      Being educated, civilized and protected will always be a good thing.

                      Slavery wasn’t racially motivated, period, and no amount of racist revisionism will make it so.

                      All these fucking racist activists are barking up the wrong tree, just like the real culprits (unregulated free market advocates) want them to.

                  2. These are painful facts, I realize, but best faced honestly without your tergiversation.

                    This is an amusing comment from someone living in debate reality. That’s the reality which helps win the debate completely ignoring that it doesn’t exist.

            2. Rob Misek,
              If you really believe a free market allows COMPULSION ….. that would confirm you as an the Authoritarian Right,

          2. Black slave owners demonstrate that slavery was not a racist thing.

            (sneer) 1) How many?
            2) How did they treat their slaves?
            And why did we revolt shortly AFTER abolition in England and Wales?

      3. Thousands of slave owners were themselves black.

        Cowardly evasion
        And bullshit (on the numbers)

        1. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.

          http://www.africanamerica.org/topic/did-black-people-own-slaves?nc=1

          Now fuck off retard.

          1. Apology on the numbers.
            Merely another cowardly diversion, your specialty.
            AGAIN had NOTHING to do with what you “responded” to.
            And you’re downright CRAZY on Abe Lincoln’s middle name!

            1. Your “apology” only demonstrates that you lie in your arguments.

              Now fuck off retard.

    2. There was no significant anti-slavery movement in Britain until after the American Revolution, and the only court ruling was Lord Mansfield’s decision in Somersett vs. Stewart, (1772) that slavery “was not supported by law” in Britain (but which made no determination about the colonies). William Wilberforce didn’t start his campaign until 1787, and had little success in the beginning. Laws in 1807 and 1811 outlawed the slave trade, but not slavery. It lasted in the British colonies until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. So the South could have kept its slaves unchallenged until then, if only we hadn’t revolted. All this is available on Wikipedia, for those who haven’t had their wisdom handed down on tablets of stone from on high.

      1. “and the only court ruling was Lord Mansfield’s decision in Somersett vs. Stewart, (1772) that slavery “was not supported by law” in Britain”

        This was a court ruling that told the everyone that the end of slavery was on its way. Slavers as far away as Virginia understood that the writing was on the wall. Independence from the Crown meant that they could continue their slaving as they wished.

      2. Laughable falsehood

        There was no significant anti-slavery movement in Britain until after the American Revolution,

        England had ABOLISHED slavery, shortly before we revolted.

        Now the laughable part

        and the only court ruling was Lord Mansfield’s decision in Somersett vs. Stewart, (1772) that slavery “was not supported by law” in Britain

        WRONG.
        1) That was the King’s Court, the equivalent of our SCOTUS,
        2) It said a violation of the COMMON law — which is SUPERIOR to the law, like a SCOTUS ruling,
        3) So it ABOLISHED slavery in England and Wales, under the same COMMON law that governed the entire empire. Thus, abolition in all the colonies was INEVITABLE.
        4) Parliament did abolish slavery for the empire in 1833.

        Later, we sold out our moral principles … to satisfy slaveholders … for a second Constitution … one opposed by Jefferson … when we did not NEED the slave states, and each of those states was, of course, fully self-governing,

        Plus, Britain compensated slaveowers for emancipation what 16 TRILLION pounds (current value). So our slaveholders got NO compensation, ans lost thousands of lives in their dumbfuck war. All in all, a MASSIVE failure,

    3. Court rulings in Britain against slavery prior to 1776 showed America’s slave owners that their position was in danger. By the early 19th century,

      This is nonsense. Most obviously your timeline doesn’t work because the revolution had already occurred before “the early 19th century”. Further there was more anti-slavery sentiment in America than Britain where the issue was largely irrelevant. There was no fear on the part of revolutionists that Britain threatened slavery.

      1. smirk

        Marshall
        Further there was more anti-slavery sentiment in America than Britain where the issue was largely irrelevant

        SLAVERY WAS BANNED IN ENGLAND AND WALES IN 1772 … WE REVOLTED FOUR YEARS LATER.

        Even FREAKING MEXICO emancipated before we did! And Spain!!

        Parliament banned the slave trade before we did, for the entire empire.

        Parliament banned slavery in the entire empire, 39 years before we did … AND COMPENSATED SLAVEOWNERS WITH PROX 16 TRILLION POUNDS (current value, borrowed) …

        So, ironically, our revolution cost our slaveowners TRILLIONS OF POUNDS!! On top of thousands of lives in their dumbfuck war

  25. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online ………… Read more  

  26. The best thing that ever happened to the black race is that their own brothers sold their own people into slavery, and sent them to America. Blacks in America enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere on the planet. That is a fact the Old Grey Hag never mentions. I am sure that historical fact frosts their progressive asses.

    I am not speaking of the black slaves themselves, only the black race; slavery is reprehensible.

    1. That’s per an op-ed by a black journalist at the Washington Post, in the mid-1980s. Unlike you, he did not confuse that with slavery, or falsely imply as crazy as this:
      <blockquote<That is a fact the Old Grey Hag never mentions. I am sure that historical fact frosts their progressive asses.(smirk) That’s a recent fact, not a historical one, which more likely frosts your alt-right ass,.

  27. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online… More Read Here

  28. This is like New York Times’ reporting on guns and gun laws.
    A product of people in an echo chamber with no outside contact with reality re-enforcing assumed presumptions.

    1. Your own tribal echo chamber is exposed just below.
      Beleebing what you WANT to believe — all too common in today’s manipulated puppets, both left and right (thankfully a shrinking minority, combined)

      Left – Right = Zero

  29. Do the math, Gomers!

    1) INCONVENIENT FACTS: England ended slavery in 1772 … WE REVOLTED SOON AFTER. Ooops.
    (The King’s Court ruled slavery a violation of the Common Law. Originally applied to only to England and Wales, but the common law was followed by all colonies, to varying degrees, so only a matter of time.) Ooops.
    2) Our revolt delayed abolition for nearly a century.
    (Our Constitution includes two compromises, to appease demands by slave states.)

    3) Parliament banned the slave trade in 1807 … for the empire … would have included the colonies!! Ooops
    (In our Constitution, “The Slave Trade Compromise” forbade Congress — OUR parliament — from banning the slave trade until 1808, to appease slave owners)

    4) Parliament banned slavery, for the entire empire … in 1833 …would have included the colonies, 33 years before our abolition! Ooops
    (Parliament also borrowed 16 million pounds — roughly 16 TRILLION TODAY — to compensate slave owners IN THE ENTITRE EMPIREwould have included our own slave owners, if still colonies,
    (HAHAHA)

    5) Spain abolished slavery in 1811 … in all its colonies … a quarter-century before we did. Oops.

    6) Slavery was abolished in 1829 … a third of a century before us … BY EVEN FREAKING MEXICO! That’s WHY Texas left!! Ooops.

    Yeah, Gomers love to ridicule the NY Times. But HISTORY supports the main premise of “1619” … exposing that “historian” as a nit-picking, whiny pussy.
    (And shaming Robby’s research discipline)

    Proof of our shame is all the feverish attempts to whitewash how wrong it was to make those two compromises in our Constitution, selling out our national soul, for a Constitution opposed by Jefferson (then in Paris)

    1. Why would Bostonians oppose the Crown if slavery was abolished in Massachusetts? Did the people who opposed the British at Lexington and Concord, or Saratoga own slaves?

      You seem to have what I would call “anti-patriotism”. You seem to go to any lengths, including distortion of history, to try to destroy any pride, even rightful pride, in the nation.

      1. MY PRIDE in America does NOT require ME to LIE about its history. (sneer)

        And THIS makes you full of shit, Gomer.

        including distortion of history,

        You are called out as a fraud, Put up or shut up. What history did I distort?

        P.S. Article 4 also required our free states to HELP ENFORCE SLAVERY ,… fugitive slaves MUST be returned.
        “No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

        How shameful of you.

        1. Well argued.

          But like so many among us whose tenuous grip on self worth does require lying, the truth can’t matter.

          There can be no reasonable argument with bigots that won’t consider the truth much less the counter arguments that present it.

          How can they feel shame when their pride requires lying?

          1. So very thoughtful.
            I see their self-righteousness is a major factor. With hatred the fuel. And the fanaticism first described (fully) by Eric Hoffer

            Successful mass movements need not believe in a god, but they must believe in a devil. Hatred unifies the true believers”
            -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

            Throughout human history, the worst moral barbarities have been committed by those manipulated to believe they are defending some “greater good” against a threat to all of humanity — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God … Zealots and fanatics … The militant self-righteous.
            -Michael Hihn (1994)

    2. Why would there have been any compromises at all if the U.S. had intended to retain slavery? Why forbid the importation of slaves after 1826 if the overall intention was to preserve slavery?

      1. Why would there have been any compromises at all if the U.S. had intended to retain slavery?

        WTF?
        1) Why compromise to satisfy the demands of slave states?
        2) Google “Civil War”
        3) Check my dates again.

        Why forbid the importation of slaves after 1826 if the overall intention was to preserve slavery?

        WTF? 1808
        Those are two separate and unrelated issues, because ….
        “Negroes” reproduce! That means importation was not needed to EXPAND slavery, after a certain level.
        What that says is, “import as many as you can … for two decades.”

        Anything else?

  30. Robby’s revered historian made a MASSIVE fuckup.
    What she described came AFTER the revolution began … thus has NOTHING to do with WHY it began. DUH.

    See my own RELEVANT history just above. A near-century of shame.

    The historian’s anti-rational WHINING also says a lot about Robby’s research disciplines, eh? (This should be removed from reason.com, or, at the very least, updated)

    1. Why did the non-slave Northern states initiate the Revolution if the American Revolution was all about preserving slavery?

      1. Why are you such a lying sack of shit on what I said?
        TWICE?

      2. Why did the non-slave Northern states initiate the Revolution if the American Revolution was all about preserving slavery?

        REPEAT:
        Why did the northern states make so many shameful compromises to satisfy the slave states if, as you seem to assume, the Revolution could not have had anything to do with slavery?

        P.S. After secession, the southern states self-governed quite well on their own, for several months, until the self-destruction of firing on Fort Sumter.

        1. “Why did the northern states make so many shameful compromises to satisfy the slave states if, as you seem to assume, the Revolution could not have had anything to do with slavery?”

          Simple: in that era other countries were looking to take those states. Indeed in the first post-revolution government the large states (almost entirely slave states) were running roughshod over the “small states”. This was part of what led to the convention that produced the constitution we know of today, and it nearly fell apart over representation with the small states in negotiations with other European nations to throw they root in with them if they didn’t get an equal footing.

          More specifically, the northern states were in negotiations with France. Why is that notable? France outlawed slavery in 1794. Granted, by then the Northern states had already begun outlawing it (Pennsyvlania, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island for example). There was already a movement in the northern states to get rid of slavery prior to the Revolution.

          Indeed, despite your claims, several of the northern states abolished slavery prior to the end of the Revolution. Seems rather difficult to believe they participated in the revolution to protect something they were already getting rid of. Within 1 year of ending the war, six states had abolished slavery.

          If any decision in English law “foretold the end of slavery”, one would have expected the 1706 decision in Smith v. Browne & Cooper, that you could be a villain in England, but not a slave – and that “as soon as a negro comes into England, he is free”.

          One would also think that if the Revolution was about protecting slavery because GB would not allow it, then the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (barely four years after the revolution) would not have passed. This law covered the territory England ceded as part of the surrender. Nor, if your assertion held water, would it have been renewed a couple of years later. One final note on this: ready Article 6 of it, then read the 13th amendment.

          Englands first act limiting he Slave Trade came only in the form of limiting the numbers on a slave ship, and didn’t come about until 1788. Yet the United States was first to limit the slave ships in its war with GB.

          New York began their emancipation in 1799. Slavery was still legal and still being traded by England at this time. The next year Congress banned investment in the slave trade. Still, England permitted it.

          The last of the northern states to abolish slavery was New Jersey in 1804 bringing to total states that had done so to 9. Yet despite your claim about the 1772 decision being a bellwether, in 1805 the House of Lords rejected an abolition bill.

          Despite your claim that the 1772 decision made it obvious that it was going to be applied across the colonies, it took more than decade for anything supporting this notion to come into being. By then the American Revolution was underway. Further confounding your claim is that the Americans abolished slave trade prior to GB doing it. Further, based on sources material of the Confederate letters to King George, it was certainly not clear and obvious as they specifically argued that him supporting their side would boost his slave trade.

          Going back to the international slave trade, The U.S. and England both finally passed laws to make it illegal in 1807. The U.S. law doesn’t take effect until 1808, but it makes it a felony versus the English route of a fine. England finally makes it a felony three years later in 1811.

          It wasn’t for several more years that England finally gets around to abolishing the slave trade and two years later we see the Compromise of 1820 which banned slavery north of 36º 30′ and added slavery to piracy (as in , it was considered and treated as piracy as well.

          By the time England get around to actually declaring slavery illegal across its country, colonies, and territories, it has been fifty years since your alleged “slavery’s abolition in the colonies is imminent” assertion. By then over half of the original U.S. colonies had abolished it, as well as in the territory they got from England, and several states after the end of the Revolution. Yet somehow, you expect us to believe that they wanted to keep it.

          Not to mention that the Slave Act of 1833 may not have happened when it did absent the slave revolt in Jamaica in that started in 1831. It was also not universal across the Empire, specifically excluding areas.

          In your style, I can now pose this question:

          If, as you allege, the revolution was because Americans wanted to keep slavery and the decision of 1772 spooked them, why did over half of the original colonies have it banned decades in advance of England? Similarly why did several of them begin banning it before and during the American Revolution if they wanted to preserve it? Why did the United States crack down on the international slave trade harder than England?

          Thus your claim has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found lacking. It lacks any temporal support, it lacks any literary support, and it lacks any reasonable interpretation of the timeline.

          1. COUNT THE LIES, EVASIONS AND DIVERSIONS. (sneer)

            “Why did the northern states make so many shameful compromises to satisfy the slave states if, as you seem to assume, the Revolution could not have had anything to do with slavery?”

            Simple: in that era other countries were looking to take those states.

            YOU ALREADY LOST!! ,… WHAT WOULD WE LOSE IF THEY HAD BECOME A COLONY OF SPAIN? *sneer*

            Next, a MASSIVE lie .. the first of five

            <BLOCKQUOTE<Indeed, despite your claims, several of the northern states abolished slavery prior to the end of the Revolution.

            ***CITE THE EXACT WORDS YOU FALSELY ASSERT I CLAIMED

            Seems rather difficult to believe they participated in the revolution to protect something they were already getting rid of. Within 1 year of ending the war, six states had abolished slavery.

            BUT SOLD OUT THEIR VALUES … YEARS LATER … TO SATISFY SLAVEHOLDERS … INLCUDING THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE!

            ***PAY ATTENTION. IN THE ARTICLES, STATES WERE ESSENTUALLY AUTONOMOUS … THUS NO RELEVANCE TO WHAT OTHER STATES DID. ARE YOU REALLY SO CLUELESS ON HOW THE CONSTITUION UPPENDED ALL THAT?

            If any decision in English law “foretold the end of slavery”, one would have expected the 1706 decision in Smith v. Browne & Cooper, that you could be a villain in England, but not a slave – and that “as soon as a negro comes into England, he is free”.

            HAHAHA … also true in our slave states, if she was not property. ANOTHER DIVERSION.

            One would also think that if the Revolution was about protecting slavery because GB would not allow it, then the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (barely four years after the revolution) would not have passed.

            (smirk) Umm, geographically, what would cause the slave states to oppose territory in the NORTHwest? THEY WERE IN THE SOUTH

            Now you go TOTAL dumbass!

            Englands first act limiting he Slave Trade came only in the form of limiting the numbers on a slave ship,

            (yawn) They BANNED it in 1807.

            Yet the United States was first to limit the slave ships in its war with GB.

            ***ANOTHER DIVERSION!!!
            ONE MORE TIME: THE CONSTITUION FORBADE CONGRESS TO BAN THE SLAVE TRADE FOR 20 YEARS … YOU *AGAIN* FAIL TO JUSTIFY WHY WE SOLD OUT OUR VALUES TO SATISFY SLAVEHOLDERS … AMIDST A HURRIC ANEOF GASBAGGERY.

            THE CONSTITUION ALSO FORCED THE FREE STATES TO ENFORCE SLAVERY … SEE THE FUGITICE SLAVE CLAUSE
            <BLOCKQUOTE<The next year Congress banned investment in the slave trade.

            THE CONSTITUTION FORBADE CONGRESS FROM BANNING THE SLAVE TRADE UNTIL 1808.

            ***ONE MORE TIME: PARLIAMENT BANNED THE SLAVE TRADE IN 1807, FOR THE EMPIRE,

            Yet despite your claim about the 1772 decision being a bellwether, in 1805 the House of Lords rejected an abolition bill.

            FOR THE ENTIRE EMPIRE. (sigh)

            ****ONE MORE TIME: THE 1772 RULING APPLIED TO ONLY ENGLAND AND WALES.

            Next: ANOTHER PSYCHO LIE

            Despite your claim that the 1772 decision made it obvious that it was going to be applied across the colonies,

            I never said that EITHER
            I AGAIN call you out to cite the exact words in THIS delusion.

            Further confounding your claim is that the Americans abolished slave trade prior to GB doing it.

            LOL .,… YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DENIED THE CONSTITUION FORBADE CONGRESS TO BAN THE SLAVE TRADE UNTIL 18O8.

            If, as you allege, the revolution was because Americans wanted to keep slavery

            ***AGAIN: cite my words, liar

            You have a lot of your lies to defend, on what I said

          2. P.S. Anderson slimed down here … with his lengthy windbaggerry, lies and diversions …. TO PUNISH ME ,…. FOR TOTALLY DEMILOSHING THE MOST ABSOLUTE DUMBASS COMMENT OF THE YEAR,

            GET THIS!

            THE ALT-RIGHT BULLY ASSAULTED AND INSULTED SOMEBODY FOR STATING THE TRUTH ,,, WELFARE RECIPIENTS GET LESS MONEY PER DAY THAN THE COST OF PRISON INMATES,

            THAT REALLY PISSES OFF GOMERS.
            WHAT DID HE DO? .. YOU *MUST* SEE HOW STUPID HE WAS!

            https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/#comment-8160505

            READY? ….

            HE COMPARED TOTAL FEDERAL WELFARE SPENDING … AGAINST MUCH LOWER TOTAL SPENDING ON PRISONERS!

            BWAAAAA HAAAAAA

            DO YOU SEE IT?

            THERE ARE 179,000 PRISONERS … BUT OVER 50 MILLION WELFARE RECIPIENTS.

            HIS “POINT” REQUIRES SPENDING PER PERSON
            ***DO THE MATH (SNORT)
            ***HE HAD A ERROR RATE OF …. 27,900%!!!!

            IF WELFARE RECIPIENTS GOT A $5 A DAY, THEY’D STILL GET MORE TOTAL SPENDING!!!

            the ACTUAL number is that welfare recipients average $13 per day. Prisoners $100 .,.. THAT is why Gomer is so PISSED at me!

            Click the link! He used the same snarky, self-righteous arrogance … while making a TOTAL ass of himself.

            The same M.O. as here
            We KNOW how vengeful the Authoritarian Right can be, right?

  31. Quite a leap, Robby Soave, from ‘hey, there’s a bit of controversy here’ to ‘Ban it from the schools!’

    Harris’ criticism seems valid. After all, the American Revolution dates from the 1760’s. While the British didn’t ban slavery in their empire until early to mid 1800’s. But what relevance does this have to point of the 1619 Project?

    White farmers in Louisiana to this day, fretful of being out-farmed by their former black laborers, are manipulating USDA loan guarantee’s to take away those black farmers’ land. Fraudulently. While other whites look away.

    The only speer-chuckers in this drama seem to be the majority of those posting here whose intent is clear: …coverup….coverup…coverup.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.