ICYMI: My new article for @BulwarkOnline takes an in-depth look at aspects of the #1619Project from the @nytimes
thebulwark.com/the-fight-over…
Package has some great material. But some of its key claims are ideologically skewed & based on shoddy scholarship.
thebulwark.com/the-fight-over…
Package has some great material. But some of its key claims are ideologically skewed & based on shoddy scholarship.
The assertion (defended by @nytimes) that preserving slavery was an important motive for the colonists' rebellion against British rule is linked to the 1772 Somerset case holding that in some situations a slave brought to England had a claim to freedom under British common law.
In fact, the anti-Somerset backlash in the American colonies is 99% myth, based on speculation or outright distortion. Here, a Loyalist pamphlet citing England's perceived slavery ban as a reason for colonies NOT to seek British liberties is passed off as an attack on Somerset. 
You know who *was* quite upset by Somerset? A lot of plantation owners in the Caribbean (i.e. the "West Indies"). And you know what happened? They grew *closer* to England even as American colonies rebelled.
You know who *did* strongly react to Somerset in the American colonies? Abolitionists, who saw it as an inspiration to challenge slavery in America.
Obviously, it's still true slavery & white supremacy were entrenched in Revolution-era America! I agree w/mostly pro-#1619Project historian George Waldstreicher that American republic was “built on slavery [AND] on antislavery” & “filled w/idealism, but also w/selfish motives.”
These are incredibly complex topics. But they need to be approached factually and with at least *aspiration* to objectivity. The #1619Project does neither.
FIN, for now.
FIN, for now.
