Posted on 02/07/2020 6:12:19 AM PST by Enlightened1
The New York Times’ 1619 Project — a curriculum that makes the fantastical claim that a primary cause of the Revolutionary War was the colonists’ desire to protect slavery — has been adopted in 3,500 classrooms across all 50 states.
For this reason, some of the nation’s most renowned historians have called for The Times to correct this and other factual errors.
The Pulitzer Center, which is partnering with The Times to promote The 1619 Project, recounted in its 2019 annual report, “Good journalism, innovative educational resources, and deep community engagement are absolutely essential to bridging the divisions that threaten to rip our democracy apart. It is this belief that has driven the Pulitzer Center for the last 14 years.”
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The Times’ lead writer on the project, argued in her introductory essay to it, “The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’
“But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.”
Hannah-Jones went on to contend “that the year 1619 is as important to the American story as 1776.”
That was the year, she explained, that British colonists in Jamestown purchased 20 to 30 enslaved Africans.
“Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,” Hannah-Jones wrote.
The reporter is honest enough to admit that slavery in America predated the nation’s founding by over 150 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
Which means it was no different than Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. Lincoln's emancipation freed slaves only in the states in rebellion, and none in states that had remained loyal to the Union.
Philpsburg was a general emancipation because it didn't apply only to slaves who were willing to take up arms against the American rebels. It freed them regardless of whether they fought or not.
“You must not read your own links, because they say otherwise.”
Sure, because the education you just got by perusing documents that you never even knew existed until I made you aware of them today has rendered you an expert. Whereas I don’t know what’s in them. /sarc
Oliver Wendell Holmes, like Adams a Union combat veteran, ended up sharing an opinion somewhat similar to Charles Francis Adams Jr.
I couldn’t locate the quote of his that I was looking for just now but here’s another touching on the war:
“We believed that it was most desirable that the North should win, we believed in the principle that the Union is indissoluable, we, or many of us at least, also believed that the conflict was inevitable, and that slavery had lasted long enough. But we equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred conviction that were the opposite of ours, and we respected them as every men with a heart must respect those who give all for their belief.”
How come you always feel a need to be as nasty as possible? I mean you never change. Is your life really so miserable that you only get joy out of acting ugly?
Actually, I read them, saw what was in them, and also linked a Wikipedia page that showed you were wrong. That ain’t sarcasm either.
Also, the Emancipation Proclamation has NOTHING to do with the lies of the 1619 Project, which was the only thing I commented on.
"Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
"The only prize much cared for by the powerful is power." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
"A new untruth is better than an old truth." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
"For my own part, I often doubt whether it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether…We should lose the fossil records of a good deal of history and the majesty got from ethical associations, but by ridding ourselves of an unnecessary confusion we should gain very much in the clearness of our thought." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Holmes got a reputation as a liberal idealist and reformer, but he was more a nihilist. Some people blame his skepticism or cynicism about moral values on the war, but Darwin had a lot to do with it.
My life’s actually pretty awesome. I don’t feel the need to be nasty but I have seen that letter posted by lost causers, with the last paragraph conveniently removed, so many times that it really irritates me.
How about this. I will strive to be more polite and you strive to post the entire letter every time you post it?
And who comprised the legislatures of these states? What party?
No the South shouldn’t have seceded from the Union. Do you consider yourself an American or a Southner?
I can’t see how he could be proud of America since he seems to agree with these liberal loons that the founding fathers were just a bunch of racist who actually didn’t believe the words of “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence they signed.
Here’s a quote from James Madison from his notes on the constitutional convention that will shed some light on why the founders did not use the word slavery in it.
“The convention thought it wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
James Madison records of the convention August 25 1787
Notice he says the convention, in other words everyone there. Even the representatives from South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgie. The same representatives that blocked an immediate halt to the slave trade and threatened to walk out if slavery was not protected. Even they knew slavery was wrong.
Good post, good insights. These Rebs will never give up on the moral relativist angle. ‘’I always ask them this question: If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery?’’. Some of them just outright ignore the question and some twist themselves in knots with incoherent answers that in the end go no where.
“This year, 2020, will make freedom from Slavery/1863, for 157 years in America, the USA. Thanks to the The Emancipation Proclamation being declared in 1863”
Not quite the case. At the end of the War in 1865, there were still about 800,000 legal slaves in the United States.
These slaves resided in Kentucky, Delaware, and those areas exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation. These people would remain slaves until the XIII Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in December 1865.
Says he: “The Declaration of Independence itself, which lists dozens of grievances the Colonies had against the king and Parliament, makes just a passing reference to slavery by pointing to England’s efforts to “excite domestic insurrections.""
They produced 73% of the output. Somehow that money has to come back to them, so either directly or indirectly, they end up paying the taxes on any imports sent in payment. Even BroJoeK admits they produced 50% of the total, and on one occasion at least he has admitted they produced 60% of the total.
But the people you are arguing with don't accept your figures and don't think you understand economics, so your contributions to the discussion don't contribute much to the discussion.
More's the pity that they are economically ignorant. Also I would counsel most of their lack of understanding is somewhat explained by Upton Sinclair's observaton —
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
But with their "salary" substituted by a desire not to see something.
Northerners didn't dominate trade because of laws, but because it was their bread and butter. It was what they had to do, so they became quite good at it.
They had laws helping them, one of which was the "Navigation act of 1817", which gave them a virtual monopoly on all shipping for the nation. Read Robert Rhett's observation of what happened to Southern Ship building and shipping.
For one thing, they would keep parties that didn't like slavery out of power. For somebody always b*tch*ng about the power of the courts today, you seem oblivious to the importance of judgeships and control of Congress in the 19th century.
I b*tch about the courts making up false meanings and then forcing their bullsh*t down everybody's throat against their will. Courts that follow the laws as written are not a problem, and when the other side has total control of Congress, it is the laws that become the problem, not the "interpretation" of them.
The Northern coalition had managed to get control of congress in such a way as to enact laws that aided their financial prosperity but to the detriment of everyone else. As Kalamata likes to point out, they engaged in a great deal of "Crony Capitalism", especially regarding the rail roads, shipping and manufacturers.
I outlined in my post ways in which Republicans could weaken slavery over time - or ways in which Southern slaveowners thought the Republicans could weaken slavery. Did you just ignore all that?
I thought it was speculative and uncertain, though it is possibly valid. I've seen how the bureaucrats regulate and undermine existing social institutions in modern America, and how they have far too much power to regulate things which they ought not be able to regulate, so the idea that the Executive branch could damage groups out of favor with a thousand tiny cuts is not an unreasonable conjecture.
But I have never supported the role of the bureaucracy to do this sort of thing, and I don't think it was as bad back in that era as it is today. We had a lot fewer bureaucrats back then.
Lincoln took office in March of 1861, so the amendment was DOA from the beginning. It wasn't going to prevent secession, and the rejection of it did not mean that Southerners didn't care about slavery.
Prior to Lincoln taking office, all the slaveholding states would have voted for it. After Lincoln took office, and with pressure from him and his administration, a sufficient number of Northern states would have voted for it. As I said, Seward promised New York would ratify it, and if New York did it, it's network of satellite states would have done so as well.
So yes, the amendment had a very real chance of passing had the timing been a little different.
Again, I ask, what does your opinion or my opinion have to do with the opinions of people at the time?
You are trying to steer the conversation into the ditch. What is radical about believing that the status quo would continue if people were elected who did not threaten the status quo?
The South should have left or remained as their voters saw fit. Consent of the governed is the central principle upon which this nation was founded.
Do you consider yourself an American or a Southner?
I am not a Southerner, and I think the most American idea of all is "consent of the governed." It's also known as "freedom."
I currently see our existing government oppressing me in all sorts of ways, not the least of which is paying for things to which I object (Abortion, Welfare, Corporate Welfare) against my will.
Taxation is in itself a form of slavery in which a person toils for gain while others enjoy the fruits of his labor.
I do not have a "to" list. I simply grab names I see off of a thread. If you've told me not to ping you, I have forgotten, and there is a very good chance that I will likely forget again in the future. It would be nice if the website provided some means of reminding people when they try to ping someone, but if I have to rely on my memory, I will cop to being flawed at this.
Did you notice how many times President Trump referenced Lincoln in his SOTU address?
And why not? So far as most people have been taught, he is a hero. I used to believe this as well, and I don't blame people who have no better knowledge of what happened than they learned in public schools.
I really thought that you (being the #1 Lincoln basher on FR) would keep a low profile for a while. I am pretty sure President Trump would not approve of you.
I don't think i'm the number 1 Lincoln basher, because i've seen far worse things said by others than anything i've ever said, and I have in fact said quite a few good things about him on these threads.
As far as Trump not approving of me, I have little doubt that the vast majority of people in the nation would not approve of my commentary because they have been led to believe a narrative, and have no knowledge of any countering facts on the matter.
Yes, people are ignorant about what happened, and they have had a specific sanitized history fed to them all their lives. Of course they don't want to hear anything that conflicts with what they have been taught to believe.
Who would?
I like to think highly of the founders, but I am under no illusion as to what their opinions were on matters of race or equality. We must look at the past honestly and not as we would wish it to be.
You certainly don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.