You yourself were critical of modern historians in both your blog post and your own FR tagline. The inference made regarding your disdain for modern historians is obvious to see. (And I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to be distrustful. However, just because something is older does not inherently make it more trustworthy.)
Are you actually admitting openly that the idea is the pettiest and deepest form of gotcha, devoid of any real result whatsoever?
It's not a "gotcha" when you criticize more modern writers (the putative progressives in question) for playing the race card, yet the sources you cite deliberately bring up racial preferences as part (not the entire, but part) of the rationale for stopping the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Unless both of those two are wrong, and you're trying to defend left wing historians who are the source of all this poison. But why would you do that when they're working hand and glove with the media to destroy everything?
To be charitable, it's called trying to avoid a "self-own", or an "own goal"; if you're going to criticize modern historians for playing the race card, you'd better make sure your own sources don't do it either.
Case in point, you state "The document I cited does not state that. You're inserting your own racial bias."
To quote Bancroft once more, from your very own post: "Maryland, Virginia, even Carolina, alarmed...at the dangerous increase of the colored population, each showed an anxious preference for the introduction of white men..."
I don't know about you, but that's pretty much a point blank preference for whites over blacks.
Then again, you're the one citing Bancroft. Was he incorrect in stating that Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina demonstrated "an anxious preference for the introduction of white men" versus an "increase of the colored population"?
You have a creepy fixation for Bancroft, we have already moved past that.
Have a good day.