Much has been made of the criticism of the #1619Project by 4 historians on the World Socialist Web Site. Those 4+1 more submitted a letter 2 my editors demanding corrections. We stand behind our reporting. Here’s their letter & @jakesilverstein’s response nytimes.com/2019/12/20/mag…
A few key points. 
We did not have a secretive process. In fact, we went well beyond our normal process, consulting with well-respected historians and scholars before, during and after the project. Just not the historians who signed the letter.
Probably the most contested, and correspondingly most viciously opposed, assertion, was in my essay where I say preserving slavery was one of the motivations for the Revolution. This shocked many, but can be backed up in the historical record. I did not just make this up.
You do not produce a project like this and not expect pushback. History, in general, is contested. Historians debate, disagree and interpret differently the same set of facts. Historians also produce history from a vantage point. This project unsettled many. I think that is good.
I am, as I have always been, open to respectful and productive dialogue. Sincere criticism only strengthens the work. And when scholars have reached out to me, I have taken that critique to heart. Unfortunately, none of these historians did. But I respect their work.
As ever, I am grateful to have produced something that has people discussing, debating and excavating our national narrative and the ongoing legacy of slavery. Onward.
