"I’ve never even talked about or defended the ludicrous claims of the 1619 Project, so I don’t know even know why you’re bringing it up to me as a point of criticism."
See post 1. - ("original post", if you prefer this phrase. IOW, scroll to the top. It's there.)
"you pinged me to this thread (and I certainly don’t recall ever requesting that I be added to any American history ping list of yours), when our only prior interaction had been on another thread related to the history of slavery and abolition in America."
I did which makes it on topic. You're not on the big ping list, it was a separate ping. Our prior conversation was unresolved by continued CW muck. The callous minimization of American abolitionism and the deeds of our Founding Fathers is a dark deception cooked up by progressive academics. I'm showing what they have omitted and one way how to get information out efficiently - this is how progressives fool people is that they hide inconvenient things. Now it's on YouTube.
"claims about slavery in America being a British institution (as compared to a global one that had existed for time immemorial) are as ridiculous"
They are not any more ridiculous than claims of slavery in the Caribbean. Somehow hard left wing historians have found success in convincing people that "American slavery" is somehow deeply unique and distinct, when every aspect appeared elsewhere in the Americas - all of which under European control prior to 1776. One of the most famous of these claims - the so called "Black Codes" - first appeared in Barbados! They were imported from the islands. Do you have the willingness to admit that? Somehow that too gets blamed on the U.S. Am I too zealous in favor of the U.S.? Absolutely. That's a feature, it's not a bug in the program.
At the end of the day, it wasn't the globe who controlled the Caribbean. It wasn't the globe who controlled the 13 colonies. This should not be difficult for you to grasp. It was controlled by the British Empire. Ergo, they are the topic. Simple! Yes.
"There existed abolition movements in both the colonies and in Great Britain."
No. Absolutely not. The timeline could not be more clear as to whom was first and whom was second. This is absolutely non-negotiable. I have a feeling you'll insist on ignoring The Timeline. So, The Timeline. America was first and deserves credit for it. The empire tried to stop us, which is the whole point, and they likewise deserve (dis)credit all the same for their recorded and provable misdeeds.
Oh, and in case you forgot, I didn't. The Timeline.
You are actively minimizing American abolitionism. That is why I pinged you and the rest here. By purposefully distorting the timeline and the historical record, you are, yes, you are, minimizing American abolitionism. It was in fact the first of its kind during the transatlantic period. The entire world would look different had the empire allowed American abolitionists to do their jobs unfettered.
"There also existed Americans who, after independence was declared, were unwilling to manumit their slaves, and would not do so until forced to as a result of the Civil War."
That's fine. What happened afterward is irrelevant. I don't care about you and your little group's Civil War navel gazing.
It was the progressives who so eagerly brought up 1619, and we could be and should be aggressively ramming it down their throats as thoroughly as we can. Fully exposed, they won't like the taste of it. But we keep letting them get away with it, as you're doing right now in this instant.
Perhaps you are a British citizen and not an American one - I never thought to ask. That would explain a lot. If that is so, well then to that point from here forward I apologize because that is my error to own, it is my failed assumption and that is my fault.
"So blaming the British for the obstinacy of American slaveholders, decades after independence was declared, rings hollow."
That's your own argument, not mine. So yes, it is just you. Absolutely just you all alone. First and foremost, I have no need to blame.... Isn't that beautiful! Real guilt is real and thorough guilt. It sounds crazy to say it, but I guess that's where you've pushed us to. We have the evidence.
My argument is: blaming pointing out the British for the obstinacy of American slaveholders, of the crown which you so desperately want to keep avoiding, decades after prior to independence was being declared, rings hollow loud and clear, my friend.
Easier to read - My argument is: pointing out the obstinacy of the crown which you so desperately want to keep avoiding, prior to independence being declared, rings loud and clear, my friend.
Not all colonies were equal; treating the American colonists as one mass of abolitionists is as much a distortion of history as those who claim the colonists were rampant slavers. Consider the case of James Oglethorpe, the proprietor of the colony of Georgia: at his behest (partially due to concerns with runaway slaves potentially aiding the Spanish who controlled Florida, but also because of his motivation regarding the moral character of the colonists), he actually got the House of Commons in Parliament to codify a ban in 1735.
Slavery was only made legal in the colony of Georgia at the behest of its own colonists in 1751, after a petition to Parliament was filed in 1749 to reverse the ban.
Somehow hard left wing historians have found success in convincing people that "American slavery" is somehow deeply unique and distinct, when every aspect appeared elsewhere in the Americas - all of which under European control prior to 1776.
And they are wrong to characterize America so; you'll get no argument from me on that front.
At the end of the day, it wasn't the globe who controlled the Caribbean. It wasn't the globe who controlled the 13 colonies. This should not be difficult for you to grasp. It was controlled by the British Empire.
Throughout the 18th century, control of the Caribbean vacillated between the Spanish and the British to varying degrees (with smatterings of French, Dutch, and Danish possessions; the Swedes only showed up in the 1780s). All of them practiced and participated in the slave trade. To render the Caribbean as though it were solely British is inaccurate.
The empire tried to stop us, which is the whole point, and they likewise deserve (dis)credit all the same for their recorded and provable misdeeds.
The British could do nothing to stop the new American states from manumitting their slaves and fully abolishing slavery after the conclusion of the American Revolution. But by that point, fully abolishing slavery ran into the brick wall called...their fellow Americans. Sad, but true.
Perhaps you are a British citizen and not an American one - I never thought to ask.
I am a natural-born citizen of the USA. As such, I have no interest in making out American historical figures to be anything other than what they were; turning them all into angels is just as deceitful and wrong as turning them into devils wholesale.