A great deal has been written in the last few weeks about the efforts of a small group of historians to say the #1619project has glaring factual error that must be corrected. Others have tried to discredit the project all together. Now historians are pushing back. A THREAD.
Here the editor of the @ahr_editor of the premier historical journal weighs in responding to what he calls a hostile and belated reaction by @seanwilentz and a few others as well as the orchestrated campaign by @WSWSMedia. academic.oup.com/ahr/advance-ar…
Here is @jmadelman, an historian of early AMerican with an expertise in colonial newspapers who dismantled Wilentz’s assertions that there’s no evidence in newspapers that Southern colonists worried about the Somerset decision. earlyamericanists.com
Here is historian David Waldstreicher’s brilliant analysis of how the effort to discredit the #1619Project is really part of a larger feud amongst historians about how we should view our founding and the essential character of our country. bostonreview.net/race-politics/… 
And of course, @NicholasGuyatt @marthasjones_ @GilmoreGlenda @TheTattooedProf @CharlesPostel and many other historians have been having school on here about these issues for weeks.
As I have said many, many times, we consulted historians for the #1619Project, historians wrote for the project and historians fact checked this project. Just not the ones criticizing the project.
I am grateful to all the historians who have engaged, offered advice and critique and support. I find the debate fascinating and illuminating and a public good. It’s an amazing thing to see so many people engaged with this history and history in general.
And I am sure publications such as @TheAtlantic @WSJ @NRO @spectator @WSWSMedia that published pieces saying that the project had been trashed, discredited, panned by historians will devote as much print to these refutations as they did to those arguing we got our facts wrong.
