Nikole Hannah-Jones isn’t done challenging the story of America. A new Hulu series is the latest version of “The 1619 Project”

[j brown's body]

"On a bench outside the building that was once the Virginia governor’s mansion, Hannah-Jones is joined by award-winning historian Woody Holton to talk about the birth of America. Specifically, they are there to talk about John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, who was Virginia’s colonial governor during the American Revolution. In 1775, Dunmore issued a proclamation that, among other things, declared that any enslaved person who fought on behalf of Britain against the colonists would be granted their freedom — a proclamation that “infuriated White Southerners,” Holton says.

“So,” Hannah-Jones replies, “you have this situation where many Virginians and other Southern colonists, they’re not really convinced that they want to side with the patriots, and this turns many of them toward the revolution, is that right?”

“If you ask them, it did. The record is absolutely clear,” says Holton, a professor of early American history at the University of South Carolina. “I can’t think of a point that I could make about the American Revolution where I could compile as many quotes as I can from White Southerners saying how furious they are.”

That conversation serves the latest rebuttal to the controversy that has engulfed the project since its initial publication, as a series of articles in the New York Times Magazine, in August 2019."

Link

Watch and learn.

 

[Felis Leo]

"On a bench outside the building that was once the Virginia governor’s mansion, Hannah-Jones is joined by award-winning historian Woody Holton to talk about the birth of America. Specifically, they are there to talk about John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, who was Virginia’s colonial governor during the American Revolution. In 1775, Dunmore issued a proclamation that, among other things, declared that any enslaved person who fought on behalf of Britain against the colonists would be granted their freedom — a proclamation that “infuriated White Southerners,” Holton says.

“So,” Hannah-Jones replies, “you have this situation where many Virginians and other Southern colonists, they’re not really convinced that they want to side with the patriots, and this turns many of them toward the revolution, is that right?”

“If you ask them, it did. The record is absolutely clear,” says Holton, a professor of early American history at the University of South Carolina. “I can’t think of a point that I could make about the American Revolution where I could compile as many quotes as I can from White Southerners saying how furious they are.”

That conversation serves the latest rebuttal to the controversy that has engulfed the project since its initial publication, as a series of articles in the New York Times Magazine, in August 2019."

Link

Watch and learn.

Unfortunately, I do not have a Washington Post subscription. What "story of America" is Nikole Hannah-Jones challenging, exactly?

Because if it is the fact that Britain tried to get black slaves to rise up against their white masters in the South in order to help quell the Revolution, I am well aware of that history. What is the challenge otherwise?

 

[Tigerace117]

"On a bench outside the building that was once the Virginia governor’s mansion, Hannah-Jones is joined by award-winning historian Woody Holton to talk about the birth of America. Specifically, they are there to talk about John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, who was Virginia’s colonial governor during the American Revolution. In 1775, Dunmore issued a proclamation that, among other things, declared that any enslaved person who fought on behalf of Britain against the colonists would be granted their freedom — a proclamation that “infuriated White Southerners,” Holton says.

“So,” Hannah-Jones replies, “you have this situation where many Virginians and other Southern colonists, they’re not really convinced that they want to side with the patriots, and this turns many of them toward the revolution, is that right?”

“If you ask them, it did. The record is absolutely clear,” says Holton, a professor of early American history at the University of South Carolina. “I can’t think of a point that I could make about the American Revolution where I could compile as many quotes as I can from White Southerners saying how furious they are.”

That conversation serves the latest rebuttal to the controversy that has engulfed the project since its initial publication, as a series of articles in the New York Times Magazine, in August 2019."

Link

Watch and learn.

Learn what? Many of her arguments have been throughly rejected by historians.

Case in point....


“ As the events around Williamsburg revealed, Dunmore's order was a reaction to—not a cause of—a revolution already in full swing. The road to American independence began in Massachusetts over a decade earlier with men such as James Otis (incidentally, an early abolitionist) rallying against the crown under the banner of "no taxation without representation." Virginia expressed solidarity with this cause long before Dunmore's order.”

“ If there are historical parallels to be drawn between Dunmore's order and later events, it is not Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation but rather the desperate actions of his Confederate adversaries. In the waning days of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis authorized what became known as General Orders No. 14. The measure called for the "enlistment of colored persons" into the Confederate army, with provisions to accept any male slave "with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as he may, the rights of a freedman" in exchange for service. The Confederates paraded a handful of black companies on the streets of Richmond in late March 1865. Some of these troops were likely involved in a rearguard skirmish as Robert E. Lee's army abandoned the city and made its fateful retreat toward Appomattox Courthouse.”

“ The Confederates' measure was no act of magnanimity by the slavers, but rather an exercise in desperation by a government on the precipice of collapse. Like Dunmore some 90 years before him, Davis lost his seat of power and found his forces in disarray. Most historians interpret his actions in this panicked context, not as some sudden change of heart on the central issue that sparked the Civil War.”

Hulu’s 1619 Project docuseries peddles false history

The first episode paints an enslaver, plantation master, and Royalist autocrat as a leading and even celebrated agent of emancipation.

reason.com

 

[Visbek]

Unfortunately, I do not have a Washington Post subscription. What "story of America" is Nikole Hannah-Jones challenging, exactly?

The ones that try to erase racism, slavery, segregation, discrimination etc.

Because if it is the fact that Britain tried to get black slaves to rise up against their white masters in the South in order to help quell the Revolution, I am well aware of that history. What is the challenge otherwise?

You're missing the point. It's that the idea of freeing slaves infuriated Southerners and pushed them to side with the rebellion.

I.e. they were willing to fight and die so that they could continue to enslave people.

 

[Visbek]

Learn what? Many of her arguments have been throughly rejected by historians.

sigh

“As the events around Williamsburg revealed, Dunmore's order was a reaction to—not a cause of—a revolution already in full swing...."

Uh, hello? They aren't saying Dunmore started the war. The war started in April 1775, Dunmore's proclamation was in November 1775. No one is classifying it as "magnanimous."

It simply isn't the case that everyone picked a side the instant the war started. The point is that white Southerners were willing to fight, kill and die to keep enslaving people.

Yeesh.

 

[Tigerace117]

sigh


Uh, hello? They aren't saying Dunmore started the war. The war started in April 1775, Dunmore's proclamation was in November 1775. No one is classifying it as "magnanimous."

It simply isn't the case that everyone picked a side the instant the war started. The point is that white Southerners were willing to fight, kill and die to keep enslaving people.

Yeesh.

As the article points out : “Leaning heavily on Holton's academic work, she asserts that Dunmore galvanized the southern colonies against Britain by imperiling their slave plantations and moving them into the revolutionary column.”

As shown here:

“ Significant controversy has centered on the project's claim 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." According to Princeton University professor Sean Wilentz, the claim that there was a "perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776" is an ahistorical assertion, noting that the British abolitionist movement was practically non-existent in 1776.[60] Wilentz also criticized the project's mentioning the Somerset v Stewart case to support its argument, since that legal decision concerned slavery in England, with no effect in the American colonies.[60] Wilentz wrote that the project's claims that "if the Revolution had caused the ending of the slave trade, this would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South" did not consider the numerous attempts to outlaw—or impose prohibitive duties on—the slave trade by several colonies from 1769 to 1774.[60] The historians critical of the project have said that many of America's Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, James Otis, and Thomas Paine, opposed slavery. They also said that every state north of Maryland took steps to abolish slavery after the revolution.[49]”

The 1619 Project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This particular part of the project’s thesis simply doesn’t hold up to any sort of academic analysis, which is why most historians reject the premise the 1619 Project puts forth in regards to the Revolutionary War.

 

[Visbek]

“Leaning heavily on Holton's academic work, she asserts that Dunmore galvanized the southern colonies against Britain by imperiling their slave plantations and moving them into the revolutionary column.”

Actually, that section of the book relies on at least 5 different historians, not just one. But hey, who's counting?

"Significant controversy has centered on the project's claim... etc

Oh no Wikipedia says controversy!!! lol...

...the claim that there was a "perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776" is an ahistorical assertion, noting that the British abolitionist movement was practically non-existent in 1776.[60]

That section points out: "An enslaver himself, Dunsmore was no abolitionist. He issued his proclamation as a war tactic, an approach Abraham Lincoln used again nearly ninety years later." It in no way suggests that the British were fighting to end slavery. Rather, it's that many white Southerners were apparently willing to fight, kill and die to maintain slavery.

Anyway, this is all very typical. No one could possibly write a history book that would meet with universal agreement.

Wilentz also criticized the project's mentioning the Somerset v Stewart case to support its argument, since that legal decision concerned slavery in England...

The book refers to the effect as "limited," points out that it was "reported widely," and that American slaveowners were smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall.

Oh hey, what does Wikipedia say about this case?

The Somerset case was reported in detail by the American colonial press. In Massachusetts, several slaves filed freedom suits in 1773–1774 based on Mansfield's ruling; these were supported by the colony's General Court (for freedom of the slaves), but vetoed by successive Royal governors. As a result[citation needed], some individuals in pro-slavery and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, desired a distinct break from English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery.[40]

Beginning during the Revolutionary War, Northern states began to abolish or rule against maintaining slavery... In Massachusetts, rulings related to the freedom suits of Brom and Bett v Ashley (1781) and Quock Walker (1783) in county and state courts, respectively, resulted in slavery being found irreconcilable with the new state constitution and ended it in the state.[43][44] In this sense, the Walker case is seen as a United States counterpart to the Somerset Case.[40] In the case of Quock Walker, Massachusetts' Chief Justice William Cushing gave instructions to the jury as follows, indicating the end of slavery in the state....

Sounds like they largely agree with 1619 -- and used a wholly different set of sources.

The historians critical of the project have said that many of America's Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, James Otis, and Thomas Paine, opposed slavery.

Yeah? How many more can you name that didn't own slaves? Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe, Marshall, John Jay, John Hancock... oops, they owned slaves.

25 of the 55 attendees of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves.

11 of the 18 Presidents in office while slavery was legal owned slaves.

Got any more vague references to "historians?"

"They also said that every state north of Maryland took steps to abolish slavery after the revolution.”

What about all those states South of Maryland that didn't?

What about the states that waged a civil war to maintain slavery?

Do you really not understand how nothing you've written is a remotely serious, or even engaged, criticism of the 1619 Project?

This is exactly the kind of whitewashed attitude that the authors of the 1619 Project hope to correct. I certainly won't say they got every single thing right; no one's that good. But I am absolutely certain that the history I was taught in high school was deeply flawed, and made far more errors, and far more serious errors, in the other direction.

 

[RetiredUSN]

"On a bench outside the building that was once the Virginia governor’s mansion, Hannah-Jones is joined by award-winning historian Woody Holton to talk about the birth of America. Specifically, they are there to talk about John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, who was Virginia’s colonial governor during the American Revolution. In 1775, Dunmore issued a proclamation that, among other things, declared that any enslaved person who fought on behalf of Britain against the colonists would be granted their freedom — a proclamation that “infuriated White Southerners,” Holton says.

“So,” Hannah-Jones replies, “you have this situation where many Virginians and other Southern colonists, they’re not really convinced that they want to side with the patriots, and this turns many of them toward the revolution, is that right?”

“If you ask them, it did. The record is absolutely clear,” says Holton, a professor of early American history at the University of South Carolina. “I can’t think of a point that I could make about the American Revolution where I could compile as many quotes as I can from White Southerners saying how furious they are.”

That conversation serves the latest rebuttal to the controversy that has engulfed the project since its initial publication, as a series of articles in the New York Times Magazine, in August 2019."

Link

Watch and learn.

You watch and learn. Historians have already trashed this moron.

 

[Tigerace117]

Actually, that section of the book relies on at least 5 different historians, not just one. But hey, who's counting?


Oh no Wikipedia says controversy!!! lol...


That section points out: "An enslaver himself, Dunsmore was no abolitionist. He issued his proclamation as a war tactic, an approach Abraham Lincoln used again nearly ninety years later." It in no way suggests that the British were fighting to end slavery. Rather, it's that many white Southerners were apparently willing to fight, kill and die to maintain slavery.

Anyway, this is all very typical. No one could possibly write a history book that would meet with universal agreement.


The book refers to the effect as "limited," points out that it was "reported widely," and that American slaveowners were smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall.

Oh hey, what does Wikipedia say about this case?

The Somerset case was reported in detail by the American colonial press. In Massachusetts, several slaves filed freedom suits in 1773–1774 based on Mansfield's ruling; these were supported by the colony's General Court (for freedom of the slaves), but vetoed by successive Royal governors. As a result[citation needed], some individuals in pro-slavery and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, desired a distinct break from English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery.[40]

Beginning during the Revolutionary War, Northern states began to abolish or rule against maintaining slavery... In Massachusetts, rulings related to the freedom suits of Brom and Bett v Ashley (1781) and Quock Walker (1783) in county and state courts, respectively, resulted in slavery being found irreconcilable with the new state constitution and ended it in the state.[43][44] In this sense, the Walker case is seen as a United States counterpart to the Somerset Case.[40] In the case of Quock Walker, Massachusetts' Chief Justice William Cushing gave instructions to the jury as follows, indicating the end of slavery in the state....

Sounds like they largely agree with 1619 -- and used a wholly different set of sources.


Yeah? How many more can you name that didn't own slaves? Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe, Marshall, John Jay, John Hancock... oops, they owned slaves.

25 of the 55 attendees of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves.

11 of the 18 Presidents in office while slavery was legal owned slaves.

Got any more vague references to "historians?"


What about all those states South of Maryland that didn't?

What about the states that waged a civil war to maintain slavery?

Do you really not understand how nothing you've written is a remotely serious, or even engaged, criticism of the 1619 Project?

This is exactly the kind of whitewashed attitude that the authors of the 1619 Project hope to correct. I certainly won't say they got every single thing right; no one's that good. But I am absolutely certain that the history I was taught in high school was deeply flawed, and made far more errors, and far more serious errors, in the other direction.

Oh no, some folks are horrifically triggered by having to face the fact that the narrative of the Revolution being fought to save slavery doesn’t hold up!

And attempts to paint Dunmore’s proclamation as a proto emancipation proclamation....which is amusing because Dunmore HIMSELF was a slave owner. He was more than willing to try and stir up slave revolts, but contrary to the assertions of the 1619 project he had no real interest in “freeing slaves” in any meaningful way.

Anyway, historical accuracy is important, and handwaving away the facts about Dunmore to fit a narrative is simply bad history.

The “handwriting on the wall?” You mean like how Dunmore’s actions were nothing more than a cynical attempt to use former slaves as cannon fodder?

So, the point is quite clear— the narrative of the Founding Fathers being a cabal seceding from Britain in a desperate attempt to defend slavery, which the 1619 Project promotes, is a bunch of drivel.

You do realize how ridiculous claiming that historians pointing out one of the Project’s main arguments is complete bullshit “isn’t a criticism of the 1619 Project is”.....right?

You are aware than the Civil War occurred nearly a century AFTER the Revolution and trying to copy and paste the Confederacy onto the Revolutionaries is bad history......right?

“Deeply flawed” and “whitewashed” fits the Project’s treatment of the American Revolution to a T

 

[RetiredUSN]

Oh no, some folks are horrifically triggered by having to face the fact that the narrative of the Revolution being fought to save slavery doesn’t hold up!

The war on slavery began the minute the anti slavery founding fathers started signing documents.

It took 89 years, but they prevailed.

 

[VanceMack]

You watch and learn. Historians have already trashed this moron.

But the leftist retards love her......

Sadly...the same retards that bought into the Marxist lies of the 1619 project are the same people that have destroyed black Americans across the country. While they still shit themselves over colonials from 1775 and do their best to divide America today, the rat party they all serve has destroyed black Americans and black American families in ways their rat Klan ancestry could only stand in awe of.

 

[Visbek]

Oh no, some folks are horrifically triggered by having to face the fact that the narrative of the Revolution being fought to save slavery doesn’t hold up!

Except... It kinda does. I guess you didn't read my post.

And attempts to paint Dunmore’s proclamation as a proto emancipation proclamation....which is amusing because Dunmore HIMSELF was a slave owner.

lol... OK, now I know you didn't read my post. No one did that. That isn't what it says in the OP, that isn't what it says in the book. In fact, I explicitly quoted the passage in the 1619 Project which says a) he wasn't an abolitionist, b) he owned slaves, and c) it was a war tactic. Go back and look at my post. How did you miss it?

The “handwriting on the wall?” You mean like how Dunmore’s actions were nothing more than a cynical attempt to use former slaves as cannon fodder?

lol... Again, you clearly didn't read my post. That was referring to Somerset v Stewart, not Dunmore's act.

You do realize how ridiculous claiming that historians pointing out one of the Project’s main arguments is complete bullshit “isn’t a criticism of the 1619 Project is”.....right?

It isn't one of the "main arguments." The discussion of Dunmore takes up about 2 pages of the book. The entire section discussing "freeing slaves and the Revolutionary War" takes up about 5 pages in total.

If you had read the book, you'd know that the Revolutionary War is just small part of what it discusses.

You are aware than the Civil War occurred nearly a century AFTER the Revolution and trying to copy and paste the Confederacy onto the Revolutionaries is bad history......right?

lol... Again with the Not Reading. They're drawing parallels between very similar events. The idea that is somehow unjustified, or is just a "copy paste job," is utterly ludicrous.

“Deeply flawed” and “whitewashed” fits the Project’s treatment of the American Revolution to a T

How would you know? You clearly haven't read the book, let alone investigated its sources.

Even the authority you cite backs up the 1619 Project's claims about Somerset v Stewart.

Thanks, but no thanks, for the willfully uninformed and blatantly biased criticism of a book you couldn't bother to glance at.

 

[Tigerace117]

Except... It kinda does. I guess you didn't read my post.


lol... OK, now I know you didn't read my post. No one did that. That isn't what it says in the OP, that isn't what it says in the book. In fact, I explicitly quoted the passage in the 1619 Project which says a) he wasn't an abolitionist, b) he owned slaves, and c) it was a war tactic. Go back and look at my post. How did you miss it?


lol... Again, you clearly didn't read my post. That was referring to Somerset v Stewart, not Dunmore's act.


It isn't one of the "main arguments." The discussion of Dunmore takes up about 2 pages of the book. The entire section discussing "freeing slaves and the Revolutionary War" takes up about 5 pages in total.

If you had read the book, you'd know that the Revolutionary War is just small part of what it discusses.


lol... Again with the Not Reading. They're drawing parallels between very similar events. The idea that is somehow unjustified, or is just a "copy paste job," is utterly ludicrous.


How would you know? You clearly haven't read the book, let alone investigated its sources.

Even the authority you cite backs up the 1619 Project's claims about Somerset v Stewart.

Thanks, but no thanks, for the willfully uninformed and blatantly biased criticism of a book you couldn't bother to glance at.

No, it doesn’t. Arguing that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery is about as “valid” a historical take as the Lost Cause.

Gee, and yet, as I already proved the miniseries Hannah Jones is putting out is doing all of what I just mentioned. So hmm....sounds like she didn’t pay attention to the Project herself

In other words, “waaah! How dare you point out the claims are bullshit, they were only a bit of the overall argument!”

Bad history remains bad history now matter how much you try to downplay it.

It’s a very clear attempt to copy paste the Confederacy onto the Revolutionaries. The fact of the matter, as already addressed, is that the British had no real interest in “freeing the slaves”, and the Proclamation was nothing more than a flailing, desperate attempt to stoke up slave uprisings behind “rebel’ lines, not something which created the Revolution in any way, shape or form, despite what people like Hannah Jones keep insisting.

You being triggered by the facts doesn’t change them.

 

[Visbek]

Arguing that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery is about as “valid” a historical take as the Lost Cause.

And again, that isn't what the 1619 Project actually claims.

Gee, and yet, as I already proved the miniseries Hannah Jones is putting out is doing all of what I just mentioned.

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved, I see.

In other words, “waaah! How dare you point out the claims are bullshit, they were only a bit of the overall argument!”

Read my post.

Bad history remains bad history now matter how much you try to downplay it.

Tell that to all the historians who taught bad history for decades, kthx.

It’s a very clear attempt to copy paste the Confederacy onto the Revolutionaries.

No, it's just drawing a parallel, because... wait for it... Dunmore and Lincoln had very similar motivations. Historians do this all the time. You don't actually read any history, do you...?

The fact of the matter, as already addressed, is that the British had no real interest in “freeing the slaves”, and the Proclamation was nothing more than a flailing, desperate attempt to stoke up slave uprisings behind “rebel’ lines, not something which created the Revolution in any way, shape or form, despite what people like Hannah Jones keep insisting.

sigh

1) I have repeatedly told you that no one, including the authors of the relevant section of The 1619 Project, claim that the British were fighting to free any slaves.

2) The fact that "the British were not motivated by a desire to free slaves" does not change the fact that "many white Southerners were motivated by a desire to maintain slavery."

3) I have repeatedly told you that the 1619 Project points out that this was just a war tactic.

4) I already told you that the Revolutionary War started in April 1755, and the act was written in November 1755. The war dragged out for nearly 8 more years. The Declaration of Independence wasn't signed until 1776. France didn't get involved until 1778. Anyone who has ever studied the period should know full well that the British were nowhere near "flailing" or "desperate" at that point.

You being triggered by the facts doesn’t change them.

lol... Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Tigerace117]

And again, that isn't what the 1619 Project actually claims.


Your reading comprehension hasn't improved, I see.


Read my post.


Tell that to all the historians who taught bad history for decades, kthx.


No, it's just drawing a parallel, because... wait for it... Dunmore and Lincoln had very similar motivations. Historians do this all the time. You don't actually read any history, do you...?


sigh

1) I have repeatedly told you that no one, including the authors of the relevant section of The 1619 Project, claim that the British were fighting to free any slaves.

2) The fact that "the British were not motivated by a desire to free slaves" does not change the fact that "many white Southerners were motivated by a desire to maintain slavery."

3) I have repeatedly told you that the 1619 Project points out that this was just a war tactic.

4) I already told you that the Revolutionary War started in April 1755, and the act was written in November 1755. The war dragged out for nearly 8 more years. The Declaration of Independence wasn't signed until 1776. France didn't get involved until 1778. Anyone who has ever studied the period should know full well that the British were nowhere near "flailing" or "desperate" at that point.


lol... Pot, meet kettle.

The Revolution started in 1755? According to who?

You are so busy pouting over the Project because called out on its bad history you can’t even get the basic dates right

Lord Dunmore and the local British forces certainly was desperate, given that he’d been chased all the way off the mainland and was “governing” from a warship off the coast.

The assertion that “ slavery was essential to the beginning of the American Revolution, as colonists wanted to protect their right to own slaves” is one of the main assertions the 1619 Project has put forwards, and it is one historians have near universally debunked by now, no matter how much that triggers you.




Bull ****ing shit they did. As already established, Dunmore was a slaver himself who had no interest in fighting a war to free slavery; his proclamation was nothing more than an effort to stir up uprisings behind “rebel” lines. Trying to claim he and Lincoln were in any way equivalent is bad history, flat out.

You literally just claimed the British and Lincoln had “very similar motivations”. Congrats, you just wrecked your pitiful excuse for an argument....again.

Lol......thanks for humiliating yourself.

 

[mrjurrs]

"On a bench outside the building that was once the Virginia governor’s mansion, Hannah-Jones is joined by award-winning historian Woody Holton to talk about the birth of America. Specifically, they are there to talk about John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, who was Virginia’s colonial governor during the American Revolution. In 1775, Dunmore issued a proclamation that, among other things, declared that any enslaved person who fought on behalf of Britain against the colonists would be granted their freedom — a proclamation that “infuriated White Southerners,” Holton says.

“So,” Hannah-Jones replies, “you have this situation where many Virginians and other Southern colonists, they’re not really convinced that they want to side with the patriots, and this turns many of them toward the revolution, is that right?”

“If you ask them, it did. The record is absolutely clear,” says Holton, a professor of early American history at the University of South Carolina. “I can’t think of a point that I could make about the American Revolution where I could compile as many quotes as I can from White Southerners saying how furious they are.”

That conversation serves the latest rebuttal to the controversy that has engulfed the project since its initial publication, as a series of articles in the New York Times Magazine, in August 2019."

Link

Watch and learn.

Americans seem to forget that by the time of the Declaration of Independence, there had been slaves in VA for 250 years. White supremacy was ingrained into the cultural, economic and social fabric of the state.

7 Virginians signed the Declaration of Independence. All seven owned slaves.

7 Virginians signed the US Constitution. All seven owned slaves.

3 of our first four Presidents were from Virginia. All three owned slaves.

What is the quiet part about the founding of our country? That America was conceived and born under the umbrella of white supremacy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Americans seem to forget that by the time of the Declaration of Independence, there had been slaves in VA for 250 years. White supremacy was ingrained into the cultural, economic and social fabric of the state.

7 Virginians signed the Declaration of Independence. All seven owned slaves.

7 Virginians signed the US Constitution. All seven owned slaves.

3 of our first four Presidents were from Virginia. All three owned slaves.

What is the quiet part about the founding of our country? That America was conceived and born under the umbrella of white supremacy.

Gee, you know who owned slaves?

Lord Dunmore.

 

[Antiwar]

Learn what? Many of her arguments have been throughly rejected by historians.

Case in point....


“ As the events around Williamsburg revealed, Dunmore's order was a reaction to—not a cause of—a revolution already in full swing. The road to American independence began in Massachusetts over a decade earlier with men such as James Otis (incidentally, an early abolitionist) rallying against the crown under the banner of "no taxation without representation." Virginia expressed solidarity with this cause long before Dunmore's order.”

“ If there are historical parallels to be drawn between Dunmore's order and later events, it is not Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation but rather the desperate actions of his Confederate adversaries. In the waning days of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis authorized what became known as General Orders No. 14. The measure called for the "enlistment of colored persons" into the Confederate army, with provisions to accept any male slave "with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as he may, the rights of a freedman" in exchange for service. The Confederates paraded a handful of black companies on the streets of Richmond in late March 1865. Some of these troops were likely involved in a rearguard skirmish as Robert E. Lee's army abandoned the city and made its fateful retreat toward Appomattox Courthouse.”

“ The Confederates' measure was no act of magnanimity by the slavers, but rather an exercise in desperation by a government on the precipice of collapse. Like Dunmore some 90 years before him, Davis lost his seat of power and found his forces in disarray. Most historians interpret his actions in this panicked context, not as some sudden change of heart on the central issue that sparked the Civil War.”

Hulu’s 1619 Project docuseries peddles false history

The first episode paints an enslaver, plantation master, and Royalist autocrat as a leading and even celebrated agent of emancipation.

reason.com

Reason dot com is a right-libertarian website.

 

[Razoo]

The 1619 Project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

so interesting .........

 

[j brown's body]

Learn what? Many of her arguments have been throughly rejected by historians.

Case in point....


“ As the events around Williamsburg revealed, Dunmore's order was a reaction to—not a cause of—a revolution already in full swing. The road to American independence began in Massachusetts over a decade earlier with men such as James Otis (incidentally, an early abolitionist) rallying against the crown under the banner of "no taxation without representation." Virginia expressed solidarity with this cause long before Dunmore's order.”

“ If there are historical parallels to be drawn between Dunmore's order and later events, it is not Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation but rather the desperate actions of his Confederate adversaries. In the waning days of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis authorized what became known as General Orders No. 14. The measure called for the "enlistment of colored persons" into the Confederate army, with provisions to accept any male slave "with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as he may, the rights of a freedman" in exchange for service. The Confederates paraded a handful of black companies on the streets of Richmond in late March 1865. Some of these troops were likely involved in a rearguard skirmish as Robert E. Lee's army abandoned the city and made its fateful retreat toward Appomattox Courthouse.”

“ The Confederates' measure was no act of magnanimity by the slavers, but rather an exercise in desperation by a government on the precipice of collapse. Like Dunmore some 90 years before him, Davis lost his seat of power and found his forces in disarray. Most historians interpret his actions in this panicked context, not as some sudden change of heart on the central issue that sparked the Civil War.”

Hulu’s 1619 Project docuseries peddles false history

The first episode paints an enslaver, plantation master, and Royalist autocrat as a leading and even celebrated agent of emancipation.

reason.com

This might reject it, but it certainly doesn't refute it.

 

[Tigerace117]

This might reject it, but it certainly doesn't refute it.

It directly contradicts the claim she is putting forward about Dunmore.

 

[Felis Leo]

This might reject it, but it certainly doesn't refute it.

What confuses me is that we know how openly blatant slave owners were about what a good they felt their right to own slaves was. It was central to their prosperity and their being part of a Southern American aristocracy.

Did any of the Southern slave-owning founding fathers or other slave-owning leading political luminaries who supported the Revolution iterate that they were now rebelling against the Crown in order to defend their sacred right to own slaves? Because slave owners had no problem giving that as their primary if not sole reason for secession leading up to and during the American Civil War.

 

[Parrish]

She really chaps the hides of racists.

 

[Felis Leo]

Americans seem to forget that by the time of the Declaration of Independence, there had been slaves in VA for 250 years. White supremacy was ingrained into the cultural, economic and social fabric of the state.

7 Virginians signed the Declaration of Independence. All seven owned slaves.

7 Virginians signed the US Constitution. All seven owned slaves.

3 of our first four Presidents were from Virginia. All three owned slaves.

What is the quiet part about the founding of our country? That America was conceived and born under the umbrella of white supremacy.

True. But I would argue that more evidence needs to be provided to make the claim that the American Revolution was instigated and fought to protect slavery in the South (as seems to be the case).

 

[mrjurrs]

Americans seem to forget that by the time of the Declaration of Independence, there had been slaves in VA for 250 years. White supremacy was ingrained into the cultural, economic and social fabric of the state.

7 Virginians signed the Declaration of Independence. All seven owned slaves.

7 Virginians signed the US Constitution. All seven owned slaves.

3 of our first four Presidents were from Virginia. All three owned slaves.

What is the quiet part about the founding of our country? That America was conceived and born under the umbrella of white supremacy.

Oops...that should read "...there had been slaves in VA for 250 150 years."