Some thoughts on key point of contention in #1619Project debates: What were the motivations (causes) of the American Revolution?
@AdamSerwer notes that @nhannahjones says “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery," fearing rise of abolitionist sentiment in GB.
bit.ly/2SkF5KX
bit.ly/2SkF5KX
Serwer notes that critics strongly object to contention that 1776 is grounded in a desire to protect slavery and rightly calls it an "explosive allegation."
Sean Wilentz told Serwer “To teach children that the American Revolution was fought in part to secure slavery would be giving a fundamental misunderstanding not only of what the American Revolution was all about but what America stood for and has stood for since the Founding.”
On this point, Hannah-Jones pulls back a bit, saying to Serwer that although “I do still back up that claim" she "phrased it too strongly . . . in a way that might mislead readers into thinking that support for slavery was universal."
Here Serwer intervenes to say that the critics have a point: "Although some southern slave owners likely were fighting the British to preserve slavery . . . the Revolution was kindled in New England, where prewar anti-slavery sentiment was strongest."
OK, but I want to lean the argument back toward Hannah-Jones. Not sure the Revolution was "kindled" in New England. It seems to have had multiple points of origin, and Virginia (with lots of nervous slaveholders) was certainly one of them.
Speaking of Virginia, completely absent in this discussion is the desire of colonists (especially Virginians like GW and TJ) who wanted to break from Great Britain to obtain freedom to get ahold of Indigenous lands so that their speculative investments could be secured.
In an excellent thread from yesterday @kawulf defended the #1619Project, but also made an important point about one weakness: the absence of settler colonialism and Indigenous dispossession. 
Since the Proclamation of 1763, many colonists (esp. Virginians, though also some Pennsylvanians) felt aggrieved about the Crown's restrictions on their perceived right to speculate in Native lands.
The Quebec Act of 1774 extended Quebec's boundaries into the Ohio Valley and blocked settlement (and hence contributed to the uncertainty of speculative ventures). The Quebec Act was particularly odious to Virginia's colonial elites. (See, esp., Holton, Forced Founders).
Unlike the issue of slavery, where there was some division, there was strong consensus among colonists about the desirability of Indigenous dispossession.
So, what if U.S. was founded not only because some colonists wanted to preserve slavery, but also because they wanted to dispossess Native people of their land? And what if this process involved theft and genocidal violence? How explosive of an allegation would that be?
