That seems to be the strategy: pick something to get indignant about and harp on it for a long time. Then you convince yourself that you're really on to something, that you've somehow uncovered the fatal flaw in someone's argument or character, when really you're just being a pain.
If you can put someone else on the defensive and wax on and on about some supposed deception, you figure you've "won" in some way. All the better if you get someone else to melt down, or if you simply label their responses "meltdowns." It's all a very familiar game by now.
I can't help noticing that there's no real substance to your remarks. You aren't arguing the question of the importance of slavery to the Charleston Mercury, you're just coming down with a lot of indignation.
It's a kind of "metacommentary": you're not discussing the issues involved. You aren't contributing anything to the argument. You're just trying to sidetrack people with allegations of wrongdoing. It's all part of the same misdirection, the same stupid scam.
For whatever it's worth, I do spend less time on these threads than I once did. I try to get sidetracked into futile controversies again. If I have 15 minutes, I can make an off-the-cuff comment. It may be valuable or it may not. That's all part of the learning process.
But if I have an hour or two, I can get a lot of information. So now I found the texts of the editorials in question, and discussion ought to involve what those texts say, not on personal recriminations.
A lot of what we find on the net is likely to have been excerpted or selected. I thank PeaRidge for pointing out to me that this was the case. The question now concerns what the full document actually says and means, and so far he and you haven't proved me wrong about that.
I don't think I've used the word "peer-reviewed" for a long time. Maybe I never have, or maybe I did once. This "peer-reviewed" talk is part of the scam. We consider all kinds of articles, essays, and posts here. It's only if you don't have a real argument that you start to squawk about what's "peer-reviewed" and what isn't.
An article may just be bad. It may be poorly reasoned. There may not be any evidence for its contentions, or the evidence may be flawed. Those are all good grounds for calling a piece into question. But if you just keep repeating "it's not peer-reviewed," it looks like you don't have any real grounds for rejecting the article or its conclusions.