[C19fan]

This author is rehashing the discredited theory popularized in the "1619" project that the Americans, especially from the southern colonies, wanted independence because Britain was going to abolish slavery. The people behind the "1619" project had an African-American historian vetted the piece and she warned then this theory is wrong.

[cranked]

The utter cricket silence of those academic university and college ‘Southern historians’ is resounding................................

[C19fan]

The Somerset decision was in 1772 just three years before the war started. Trouble was brewing for almost ten years before that as the Stamp Act was passed in 1765. The British did not ban the slave trade until 1807. Britain did not end slavery through out the empire until 1833. William Wilberforce did not enter Parliament until 1780. The Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was not formed until 1787.

[teeman8r]

with malice toward none. —Abe Lincoln

[C19fan]

If the southerners were motivated by slavery then why was the southern colonies the most Tory area during the Revolution. Banastre Tarleton led a British Legion that grew to 2,000 men in the south.

[Kharis13]

I’m a yankee (or, as my southern friends say, a durn yankee). I was proudly born in the north, and have family who fought - and died for - the Union during the Civil War. With all that said, I don’t have any problem with confederate statues. Robert E. Lee was a man of compassion and integrity, as were many confederate leaders. That doesn’t mean they were perfect people, but I think it’s better to keep the statues and learn history. When you LEARN from history, you have a smaller chance of repeating it.

[jeffersondem]

It must be understood the attacks on southern history was just the opening shot to destroy the American flag, and the Republic for which it stands.

[yardboyd]

Time? Is it still publishing?

[a fool in paradise]

This is all BULLSTALIN

THE UK continued to have slavery around the world.

[KC_Lion]

Almost as much B.S. as when they try to push the “Second Amendment was ratified to ensure slave patrols” bollocks.

[a fool in paradise]

Time is lying by omission.

They are now tearing down statues of Churchill, Ghandi, George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Christopher Columbus, and have come after statues and stained glass windows of Jesus Christ.

This isn’t about slavery or the civil war, this is about Western Civilization and white people.

[AbnSarge]

The headline is correct -
The first American conflict after forming the new government was going to war against the North African regimes, who were capturing and enslaving Americans from ships in the Mediterranean.

[FLT-bird]

DoN’t WoRrY. ItS oNlY sOuThErN hIsToRy ThAt WiLl Be DeMoNiZeD. ThEy WoUlD nEvEr dO tHaT wItH tHe ReSt Of AmErIcAn HiStOrY.

sO We CaN pIlE oN sOuThErNeRs At No CoSt. ThAt CrOcOdIlE wIlL eAt Us LaSt.

[myerson]

If you want your eyes opened, ask random people of all ages if Abe Lincoln owned slaves.

[Vendome]

These authors, whose work has more recently been cited by the New York Times’ 1619 Project, arrive at a single conclusion.

Almost stopped reading there but, Here is the punchline:

Therefore, depending upon how one wishes to take up the debate, or count the wars, it would appear that the Civil War was not the only time the United States of America engaged in battle over the preservation of slavery in the American south.

Today, as the country asks what to do about monuments to the Confederacy, some might also raise such questions about the Revolutionary War. What about Mount Vernon? What about Monticello and other plantation monuments? The restored plantations of four of our first five presidents are supported by foundations that enjoy a tax-free status. While the southern politicians who fought for freedom from Great Britain were “men of their times,” perhaps we are overdue in reexamining these monuments through the lens of our own.

The premise and implication of the article is idiotic

[SES1066]

So that we may know more about the author ...

His biography on this self-owned website; "Phillip Goodrich is a practicing general surgeon and has been active on physician forums for the past fifteen years. This is his first foray into the realm of narrative American history. An American history buff and graduate of Northwestern University and the University of Southern California, he has spent countless hours in research of American history. He lives with his wife Melodee and their geriatric dog and cat in Platte City, Missouri."

The squib for this book is; "Somersett is a narrative history of the secret plan of Benjamin Franklin, working with friends in London, to incite the American Revolution through political motivation of the colonies.
Benjamin Franklin, frustrated with the recalcitrance of the British proprietors of Pennsylvania regarding defense and financial support of the colony, conspired with friends in London, utilizing two major political events, to incite the thirteen colonies to revolution. This is the story of that plot, Franklin’s role in London, Philadelphia, and Paris, and the conspirators in London who successfully brought it to completion."

My opinion of the thought that Ben Franklin caused the American Revolution (AR) because he was 'pissed' at the 'British Proprietors of Pennsylvania Colony'? Well he was definitely on the 'outs' with the British Establishment of the times but to says he concocted a secret plot that successfully caused the AR both gives him too much credit & power and far too little blame to a class-ossified British Establishment & Government that made almost every error possible to generate the predicates and conditions leading to the war.