This is the book written by historian Peter W Wood in order to counter a false narrative. A narrative that outrageously claimed that 1619 was the origin of the United States of America. All based on this little story of a British pirate ship that came to the settlement of Jamestown with 20 slaves, which were what remained of a Spanish slave trader's cargo. The true story tells us that the settlement of Jamestown did not recognize slavery, so the 20 were made into indentured servants. That is not a desirable position, but it is a temporary one, and it was for the 20 who were eventually granted their freedom.

In any case, slavery had already been in North and South America a century before 1619 since the Native Americans frequently enslaved other Native Americans and eventually enslaves Whites that they captured. At the time slavery was universal all around the world with various people & cultures holding others in slavery. The idea being fostered by the New York Times, a legacy newspaper believe it or not, is that the US was the inheritor of all of that. The idea was immediately pushed by leftist activists to become part of America's school curriculum, which has already taken place in many school districts.

The Book is:

1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project

By Peter Wood


HISTORIAN

This is the book written by historian Peter W Wood in order to counter a false narrative.

There is no "false narrative" being pushed by the 1619 project, just facts about American history. The fact that there were 20 slaves brought by Europeans doesn't alter the fact that native tribes did also have slavery as you point out and that acceptance of slavery was the norm at that time. Teaching this in our schools is a must if we want to teach them facts. Also teaching that in 1776 some used slavery as a wedge issue since there were British governor's threatening to enlist and free the slaves (slavery was illegal in Britain at the time) and turn them against the colonists if they revolted. And while that wasn't the main reason the colonist did revolt, it was one of the many issues of that time and a major reason some Southern slave owner loyalists turned against the British.

These are all facts presented by the 1619 project and there should be no reason for conservatives to be so desperate to counter facts with some whitewashed tall tale righteous mythology of American history to make us seem grander than we really were or to generate false pride in a nation that has taken hundreds of years to reach the level of liberty, freedom and diversity we have today. There should be nothing wrong with teaching the facts, warts and all, as that shows how truly far we've come, but also remind us of the legacies we need to continue to work on overcoming. Those who only want some comic book hero fantasy version of America to be taught in our schools are fooling themselves, they do our next generation no favors in hiding and burying the less attractive parts of our history. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, so covering over our warts with whitewash simply put the next generations at higher risk of repeating some of our same mistakes.

Because in 1619 when there was but one colony town in one of the future 13 colonies that would eventually become states and before the Pilgrims arrived with their beginning ideas of a governing contract and of religious liberty our fate as an evil nation was already sealed…. That whole concept is so utterly stupid and laughable.  

their beginning ideas of a governing contract and of religious liberty our fate as an evil nation was already sealed

Our fate as an evil nation was certainly not sealed, we've proven that. We as a nation were able to overcome the bigoted rhetoric of vile piece of shit white Christians who claimed that black people were the "sons of Cain" and were cursed by God and deserved to be treated as inferior. We as a nation were able to overcome the bigoted rhetoric of vile piece of shit white Christians who claimed that gay people were sinners cursed by God and deserved to be treated as inferior. We have made huge strides toward equality for all, where minorities of all stripes, whether you're black, Hispanic, Jewish, gay, transgender, Muslim, Hindu, or any other faith or skin color that white Christians have historically discriminated against because we are first and foremost a secular constitutional Republic and not just some worthless bigoted theocracy. This is a great thing and something to be celebrated as true constitution loving patriotic Americans.

Just at a very basic level, the concept of “all men are created equal” didn’t even exist - especially in European culture - at that time. Europeans - and the English in particular - assumed that people born into higher castes of society were automatically “better people” than those born to lower castes. This approach tied in nicely with the institution of slavery, which had existed for millennia.

Even the African slave trade as it existed - not just to the Americas, but to other parts of the world - was a few centuries old by the 1619s.

Against the deeply entrenched ideologies and sort of social predestination, uniquely American concepts of liberty and equality struggled for another - mere - two hundred years until people were ready to go to war and die for those rights for all people. It’s a huge revolution in human thinking about society, class, and race and should be seen as a great victory.

Instead some people seem to want to act like America invented slavery and foisted it upon a free society. To the contrary, the cancer of slavery spread without a second thought to America, just as it had spread around the world. It was simply the way life was back then. But America has since developed into the most enthusiastic defender of liberty in the history of the world. That is a reason to love America, not hate it.

Slavery began shortly after the importation of the first Africans to Virginia in 1619. Before too long it became based on racial heredity. Those are just facts. 

The premise of the 1619 Project is that American intent on "freedom" co-existed with race based slavery in the colonies, and after.  But US history has never been taught that way. 

So the 1619 Project is saying "look here, at this information, it was in effect almost from the start of the country.  (Jamestown was founded in 1607).

Why is it that the hypocrisy of people yearning for freedom from England yet keeping slaves is so downplayed in American school books? 

Last week one of the members here tried to claim that it wasnt' important because Virginia wasn't that important to the Founding Fathers. 

Which is nonsense since 4 of the first 5 US Presidents were from Virginia (Founding Fathers all).

Slavery began shortly after the importation of the first Africans to Virginia in 1619.

FALSE. It had been going on before the Europeans even got here!


Those are just facts. 

They are LIES.


The premise of the 1619 Project is that American intent on "freedom" co-existed with race based slavery in the colonies, and after.  But US history has never been taught that way. 

Of course it hasn't been taught that way. The 1619 narrative is basically false. Jamestown rejected slavery and the initial 20 slaves were made into indentured servants and eventually set free. So your story begins with a whopper of a lie!


So the 1619 Project is saying "look here, at this information, it was in effect almost from the start of the country.  (Jamestown was founded in 1607).

And forbid slavery. So the project by a newspaper is a lie that became a curriculum?


Why is it that the hypocrisy of people yearning for freedom from England yet keeping slaves is so downplayed in American school books? 

It never got downplayed. Everything has been there save progressive hate.

Slavery began shortly after the importation of the first Africans to Virginia in 1619.

Slavery existed long before that. It just found the beginning of a new market on the eastern seaboard of North America because Europeans were settling there for the first time. Slaves had been used in the Caribbean and South America for over a century by 1619. Furthermore, African slaves had been shipped to various locations in the Old World for a couple of centuries before that.

Why is it that the hypocrisy of people yearning for freedom from England yet keeping slaves is so downplayed in American school books? 

It’s hardly a secret in the schools that slaves were used in the land that ultimately because the United States of America. There seems to be this sense with 1619 that somehow we have been hiding the fact of slavery from American students. That’s just not true. There also seems to be this desire to say that it was somehow unique to - or developed solely for - the United States, and that isn’t true either.

Still, the vast majority of settlers coming from England or living in the colonies prior to 1776 didn’t own slaves - especially in the North. There is a lot to talk about when learning American history. Slavery is in the curriculum, but it isn’t the only thing worth studying.

avery began shortly after the importation of the first Africans to Virginia in 1619. Before too long it became based on racial heredity. Those are just facts.

You are better than that John. I'd expect that sort of nonsense from some here, but you know better. 

Why is it that the hypocrisy of people yearning for freedom from England yet keeping slaves is so downplayed in American school books? 

What history book doesn't mention the conflict between the ideals set forth in the Declaration and the fact that some founders owned slaves? 

I think that this wise author was on Life Liberty, and Levin on Sunday evening discussing the 1619 project and his 1620 counterpoints.  It re airs Saturday evening at 7pm eastern time.  

I think that this wise author was on Life Liberty, and Levin on Sunday

Thanks for proving he is a biased far right wing nut. 

Slaves taken by N American tribes were very different than what happened with black slaves. One tribe would take members of the losing tribe as "slaves" but eventually were taken in as tribal members. Once black slave trade came here, the nature of Indian slaves changed. Some did get involved in black slavery, while others took in runaway blacks as members of the tribe. The very nature of European slave trade did affect how Indians look upon these newcomers. 

To imply that the European slave trade didn't affect how Indians behaved is a false narrative.

Furthermore, whites did take Indians in as slaves.

historytoday

Furthermore, whites did take Indians in as slaves.

But it was Whites in America who ended slavery! 

Why did Native Americans fight for the Confederacy?

historyofyesterday

Whites in America who ended slavery!

Do you know how many US presidents owned slaves? 

-

Prior to the ascension of  Abraham Lincoln in 1860, there was no impetus from the political ranks to end slavery, and in fact nothing was done to end it. The importation of slaves was ended in 1808, but by that time there were more than enough African slaves in America to keep the institution reproducing indefinitely. 

Do you know how many US presidents owned slaves? 

Did you miss the part where I said slavery was once a universally accepted practice?  That meant every society, everywhere!  We are looking back from 2021.


Prior to the ascension of  Abraham Lincoln in 1860, there was no impetus from the political ranks to end slavery, and in fact nothing was done to end it. 

" The abolitionist movement was an organized effort to end the practice of  slavery  in the United States. The first leaders of the campaign, which took place from about 1830 to 1870, mimicked some of the same tactics British abolitionists had used to end slavery in Great Britain in the 1830s."

history


You see John there was already a national discussion on the subject well before the 1860 election. Lincoln was the culmination of it. Going back to the colonies, many colonists were upset about the number of slaves that the colonizers brought in. (the Spanish in Florida for example.)  


  The importation of slaves was ended in 1808, but by that time there were more than enough African slaves in America to keep the institution reproducing indefinitely

You may not believe this John, but I, more than anyone alive, dread the day that even one slave was brought here.

’Whites’ have done nothing but look out for ourselves

Why include yourself?  Aren't you one of the good whites?

Because they lived in the south and developed southern attitudes towards blacks and had become slave owners by American standards. Also, they felt that the southerners would give them sovereignty. 

Native Americans  served in both the Union and Confederate military during the American Civil War. Many of the tribes viewed the Confederacy as the better choice due to its opposition to a central federal system which lacked a respect for the sovereignty of  Indian  nations. en.wikipedia .

• The army was made up of Native American soldiers, and was led by Cherokee General Stand Watie. 
• Like many Native Americans, Watie regarded the federal government, which had stripped his people of its ancestral land, as their chief enemy. 
• businessinsider

And I guess that is why they drew the animosity of the Victorious Union. 

"Along with the internal struggle that the war brought, the Native American relations with the American government were at an all-time low. Following the war, Natives were forced to sell even more of their land to the government. However, the prices for the land were at a reduced rate on the grounds that Native Americans needed to pay war reparations for the damage they caused to the Union."

historyofyesterday

Only a ‘White’ that tries to understand our role in history...a role that has demonstrated a lack of respect for anyone, any race, any culture that may form a threat to our ill-conceived, self-absorbed, and self-defined providence. 

But you didn't look at who ended slavery, did you?   Your perspective is that of a progressive looking for oppressors and victims.

but who was responsible for it to begin with.

That goes back to the beginnings of mankind. It precedes the Europeans. So you have a lot of other races to call "oppressors."

Context alright. PROPAGANDA is the word.

You have been a big supporter.

Are you aware of why they were called the Five Civilized Tribes? It would help your understanding as to why they joined the Confederacy. I suppose that you're aware that the Cherokee and Creek joining the Confederacy split both tribes. 

There were over 600 tribes in the US many of which fought for the Union. U.S. Grant's aide de camp was Col. Ely Parker a Native American that wrote the terms of surrender used at Appomadox where Gen. Lee is said to have said that Ely Parker was the only true American there. 

You could goggle Company K, 1st Michigan Sharpshooters probably the most famous all native unit in the Union Army. 

When it comes to Native Americans being enslaved you should research King Phillips War and the aftermath of natives being enslaved until 1880. brown

Many NA tribes were an instrumental part of the Underground RR. There is so much information out there for those that chose to look for it. 

Points well taken. Perrie made good points as well.

Who was the Chief that warned them not to get involved?

Vic,

The original question was why some Indian tribes for the South. The fact is the most fought for the North. And the "Civilized Indians" were paid for their dedication with the Trail of Tears.

I think you may have been better off when you simply gave me the answer you gave.

I have never seen a report of most Native Americans fighting for the north.

Can you show me where you read that?

"No, again.

Not looking at who ended slavery (as you pat yourself on the back) , but who was responsible for it to begin with.

The why’s and where’s and who’s are much more informative to the causality than the obvious reasons that led to the end of the most inhuman of institutions."

The  Cherokee ,  Choctaw ,  Chickasaw ,  Seminole ,  Catawba , and  Creek  tribes were the only tribes to fight on the Confederate side.

en.wikipedia

John Ross of the Cherokee and Chief Opothleyahola of the Creek.

You say only , yet they were the largest contributors.

The article (Wikipedia) said:

Of the 3,530 Native Americans who fought for the Union, 1,108 were killed, an incredibly high rate.

It goes on to say:

Stand Watie , along with many Cherokee, sided with the Confederate Army, in which he was made colonel and commanded a battalion of Cherokee.

 During the Creeks’ and Cherokees’ first two months in the war, almost 300 died in Kansas while around 4,000 were killed overall by the end of December 1861. 

In other words those who fought for the Confederacy lost more than the total that fought for the Union.

In other words those who fought for the Confederacy lost more than the total that fought for the Union.

That shouldn't be a surprise since more southerners died total.

About 10 minutes of research led me to the recognition that the author of the book being praised in this article is a right wing scholar of anthropology and not a professional historian. Whats more, Peter Wood has an obvious bias in the matter being discussed. 

Wood was a speaker at President Trump's conference known as the 1776 Commission, a conservative group that was started as a "patriotic" response to the 1619 Project. 

Peter Wood is also someone who wrote two books attacking "diversity", and in one of them an entire chapter is devoted to attacking Barack Obama.  I wont mention the extent to which he attacks Obama other than it is all related to Obama being the first black president. 

===============================================================

Here is an excerpt of an article I found concerning Peter Wood

...on Constitution Day this year—last Thursday, September 17—President Trump convened a panel to discuss American history in the Great Hall of the National Archives, followed by his own presentation of the issues as he viewed them. Its central purpose was not to promote history but to use history to fuel the culture wars. His speech —most likely written by Stephen Miller with input or inspiration from  David Horowitz —condemned the use of history by the left as being nothing less than “decades of left-wing indoctrination.”

.....another panelist, Peter Wood, is an anthropologist and not a historian; he is the president of the National Association of Scholars, a conservative group that opposes many left-wing courses and curricula. Wood went rather off the deep end when claiming that recent violence on the streets is connected to the left-wing education of college students. The ideology “crafted on campus” is “exported to the streets, particularly hatred of America and contempt for law.” He added that the anger and “fiery emotion” is “ignited on campus and intensified by the mob in the streets.”

Wood’s claims then grew even stranger: He said that activists who learned radical ideology on campus and who were “alienated from our cultural norms and primed for lawlessness” were participating in “staged events managed by well-trained experts.” Such events are “made to look like impulsive outbursts of passion but they run according to a well-rehearsed script.” Does Wood have proof that those participating in riots and vandalism learned that they should act this way from taking a course of a leftist historian?

His answer follows:

Who writes that script? The answer is fairly evident. It is the campus activists—some faculty as well as students—who have spent years immersed in anti-liberal ideology, identitarian indignation, and the study of Maoist tactics. They’ve been taught that gaining power by any means necessary is the legitimate path to what they think of as “social justice.” And they are eager to put what they have learned into practice.

“Maoist tactics”—really? What college or university teaches this? Wood acknowledges that “only a fairly small minority of college students” have been fully indoctrinated, but these few, he says, are “the organized, managerial staff of the riots.” Again I ask, where is the proof? Has Wood interviewed the rioters in Kenosha and Portland? I doubt it. Does he know for a fact that they tie in with “local networks of Antifa and BLM?” If all this is, as he says, “fairly evident,” where is the evidence?

Wood cast the problem in existential terms.

“Our civilization could quickly disappear” if it were “neglected or attacked outright.” Indeed, our civilization “is disappearing,” he says. The “current wave of protests,” he said, is the result of “decades of efforts by our radical left to turn our colleges and universities into incubators of profound dissatisfaction with the American way of life.” Some students leave school with “a proud delight in destruction for its own sake,” or even with “an Ivy League diploma in one hand and a Molotov cocktail in the other.”

The latter line is likely an allusion to the lawyers arrested last month in New York after throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police car. These  sad and deluded individuals  are clearly alone in what they sought to do. One was a successful Princeton- and NYU Law-educated corporate lawyer. Neither Wood nor anyone else has much of an idea at this point about what motivated them to act so stupidly.

thebulwark

Gee, what a surprise that this guy is not a historian, as noted!

Let us get this straight, your so called "research" led you to a leftist opinion piece attacking Peter Wood???

Shame on you John.

Oh, one more thing - This cannot be ignored:

  Does Wood have proof that those participating in riots and vandalism learned that they should act this way from taking a course of a leftist historian?


Allow me to prove it:

Let us get this straight, your so called "research" led you to a leftist opinion piece attacking Peter Wood??? Shame on you John.

LOL. The shame is on you for posting a biased article as historical "fact". 

Peter Wood wrote TWO books attacking diversity 

Diversity Rules

and 

Diversity: The Invention of a Concept

He has a right wing ideology and is thus a non objective critic of the 1619 Project. 

Have you read the book 1620?

Prove that it is not historical fact!

Maybe I should post the excerpt from one of his books where he plays footsie with birtherism.  Would that matter to you ? 

Would that matter to you ? 

Absolutely not.  All I care about is the teaching of fact based history.

I know you love Obama & diversity (except for diversity of thought), but I couldn't care less!

So I assume you haven't read the book?

It is a fact that America , FROM THE BEGINNING, was hypocritical about slavery. That is in fact the premise of the 1619 Project. 

Your 1619 story is a LIE!

You've been called!   You and the New York Times!

I have a subscription to Scribd so I am able to look at tens of thousands of books if need be.  I glanced at the first chapter of the book you seeded but didnt have time to read it with any thoroughness. 

I then saw one of his other books there and looked a small bit at that. That is where I saw him attacking Obama and playing footsie with birtherism. 

It is what it is. He has an opinion , like other people do on the other side. 

Oh please. 

Historians have argued that the rise of liberty and equality in America, America's democratic experiment, was shadowed from its beginning by its dark obverse: slavery and racism. Slavery in the midst of freedom, Edmund Morgan writes, was the central paradox of the birth of America.

The rapid expansion of opportunities for Europeans was made possible only by the enslavement and exploitation of African and Indian peoples.

Non-Europeans were consigned to a permanent underclass excluded from the benefits of white society, while Europeans profited enormously from the fruits of the labors of those they oppressed.

This is the major contention of the 1619 Project, is it not? 

But this was written prior to the 1619 Project by a white man.  So what is the big deal? other than to try and marginalize black activists as un-American and even communists. . 

thenewstalkers

I have a subscription to Scribd so I am able to look at tens of thousands of books if need be.  I glanced at the first chapter of the book you seeded but didnt have time to red it with any thoroughness. 

Then read it before you call him a liar. One thing we do know - he exposed the 1619 story as a lie.


I then saw one of his other books there and looked a small bit at that. That is where I saw him attacking Obama and playing footsie with birtherism. 

I'm not interested in his thoughts on other matters.


It is what it is. He has an opinion , like other people do on the other side. 

No John, anyone can have opinions. Only facts are allowed in history books. History books tell an unbiased story without using a lens of oppressors and victims.

You are using a seed to argue a point?

he exposed the 1619 story as a lie.

You dont even know what the "1619 story" is. 

You dont even know what the "1619 story" is.

I know the true story and I've posted it how many times today?

Do you want to dispute it?

You better have something more that Nikole Hannah-Jones Bull Shit!




Hannah-Jones has become something of a lightning rod: While the 1619 Project attracted considerable praise—even winning a Pulitzer Prize—many historians ( and not just those on the political right ) have objected to both the project's framing and  certain claims that it makes .

https://reason.com/2021/05/20/1619-project-nikole-hannah-jones-denied-tenure-at-unc-chapel-hill/#:~:text=Nikole%20Hannah-Jones%20is%20a%20New%20York%20Times%20reporter,well.%20But%20this%20appointment%20has%20come%20with%20controversy.

Don't know the difference?  It is now symbolic. Modern propaganda vs traditional history.

Or in the case of MS Hannah-Jones, a collection of essays.

The "argument" was originally that Nikole Hannah-Jones and the others who wrote essays for the New York Times series were just making shit up. 

I decided to look for something on the year 1619 that was not from either a conservative or "progressive" source. 

So I found an article on American Heritage that predated the 1619 Project by a couple years. In it the writer, a college professor who specializes on the colonial history of Virginia , makes an argument that is pretty similar to the premise of the 1619 Project (the difference being his article also talks about the democratic processes that were enacted in Virginia in 1619. Of course, this only highlights the hypocrisy). And the writer is white. 

From the American Heritage article

Historians have argued that the rise of liberty and equality in America, America's democratic experiment, was shadowed from its beginning by its dark obverse: slavery and racism. Slavery in the midst of freedom, Edmund Morgan writes, was the central paradox of the birth of America.

The rapid expansion of opportunities for Europeans was made possible only by the enslavement and exploitation of African and Indian peoples.

Non-Europeans were consigned to a permanent underclass excluded from the benefits of white society, while Europeans profited enormously from the fruits of the labors of those they oppressed.

That IS the premise of the 1619 Project. 

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Hannah-Jones has been criticized by historians on all sides of the political spectrum for making shit up. If slavery is the great evil, why would we need to embellish stories?  The story she told is simply not true and it is being incorporated as part of the curriculum for many school districts.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do about progressives/regressives?

Why wouldn't you simply compare what she wrote to the facts?

You have seized upon a few sentences from a ten or twenty thousand word essay. 

The passages I quote from the American Heritage article I seeded last week support the premise of the 1619 Project. 

Vic, a few days ago you said that the traitors who seceded from the Union in order to protect slavery were better people than today's progressives. 

I don't care about your opinion of progressives. 

You have seized upon a few sentences from a ten or twenty thousand word essay. 

I'm seizing upon facts.

1) Nobody who came off the pirate ship was enslaved.

2) Jamestown didn't allow slavery.

3) All 20 from the ship became freemen.


Indisputable facts.

Hannah-Jones is a liar and I would say most likely a racist!

Why don't we stick to the argument.

You were trying to prove MS Hannah-Jones had it right, as I recall. Please proceed...

They were. Not to say that those people were good for what they did but they weren’t as bad as today’s progressives.  The worst Americans ever.  

I think the issue is who is telling the real American History. The fact is that neither version is correct. There are is a lot of half-truths and just bad academia involved. Also, when it comes to Indians, no one but the Indians can tell their own tale.

. The fact is that neither version is correct.

Perrie, can you explain what you mean by that?


 Also, when it comes to Indians, no one but the Indians can tell their own tale.

In general terms, I admire Native Americans, but history can never be written solely from the perspective of "victim."  That cannot be history.

The fact is that neither version is correct.

Perrie, can you explain what you mean by that?

That neither 1619 or 1776 are accurate accounts of history. They are both agenda driven.

In general terms, I admire Native Americans, but history can never be written solely from the perspective of "victim."  That cannot be history.

You see, this is where people who are not Indian get it wrong. We recognize what was done to us, but fight on to rectify it. We do not see ourselves as victims, but as a people who abused but still survived. We are survivors despite all that was thrown at us and we take great pride in that and fight on.

That neither 1619 or 1776 are accurate accounts of history. They are both agenda driven.

I am sure that is true. But , over time, our society has been taught that the founding fathers were pure hearted men who only wanted "freedom" and "self rule" and were admirable and honest and forthright people. 

A major aspect of modern right wing ideology is a firm adherence to what the Founding Fathers wanted America to be. They talk about the Founding Fathers all the time, often in terms of them wanting America to be a Christian nation. 

It is totally appropriate to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the founding fathers owning slaves and the pervasive racism that developed from that ownership. 

-

James Madison was by most accounts the main author of the Constitution. 

Over a long public career that included a leading role in the federal  Constitutional Convention of 1787  and two terms as  president of the United States  (1809–1817),  James Madison , a Virginian who owned enslaved people, compiled a record on the issue of slavery that was mixed at best. Madison supported legislation allowing those who claimed people as property to free their workers without the approval of state or local authorities, but he never liberated his own enslaved workers. Madison opposed the  African slave trade  throughout his career, yet late in life he defended the westward expansion of slavery. He regularly attacked slavery as a violation of republican principles, without ever putting forward a realistic program to eradicate the institution. Instead, he embraced an unworkable plan to colonize freed enslaved people in Africa. Political realities, economic self-interest , a desire to avoid an issue that could split the Union, and an unwavering conviction that, largely because of white prejudices, whites and free Blacks could not peacefully coexist led Madison to routinely compromise his antislavery convictions. encyclopediavirginia

I am sure that is true. But , over time, our society has been taught that the founding fathers were pure hearted men who only wanted "freedom" and "self rule" and were admirable and honest and forthright people. 

Not true. Even in the play 1776 which was made in the 1970's, made a point of portraying our founding fathers as flawed.

Well, history necessarily involves using a perspective. So then it becomes which perspective is more fairly describing what happened.  

Flatly stating that the founding fathers wanted to eliminate slavery from the beginning is not a fair perspective.  If that was the case some of them would have actually done something. 

12 of the first 18 US presidents owned slaves. 

That is not getting it done. 

o one but the Indians can tell their own tale.

That's flat out racist. 

Andrew Sullivan authored a great summary of CRT and it's incompatibility with traditional liberal thought:

It insists that “white supremacy” is the   definition   of the United States, that its true founding was therefore 1619, that its core principle from the get-go was not freedom but slavery, that slavery is the true basis for American wealth, that the police today are the inheritors of slave patrols, that only black Americans fought to end slavery, and so on. It insists that the Declaration of Independence was “false”, not merely imperfectly implemented, and designed to obscure the real project of racist oppression. And its goal is the dismantling of liberal epistemology, procedures, ideas and arguments in order to revolutionize what cannot by definition be reformed.

This is what makes CRT different. When it began, critical theory was one school of thought among many. But the logic of it — it denies the core liberal premises of all the other schools and renders them all forms of oppression — means that it cannot long tolerate those other schools. It must always attack them.

Critical theory is therefore always the cuckoo in the academic nest. Over time, it throws out its competitors — and not in open free debate. It does so by ending that debate, by insisting that the liberal “reasonable person” standard of debate is, in fact, rigged in favor of the oppressors, that speech is a form of harm, even violent harm, rather than a way to seek the truth. It insists that what matters is the identity of the participants in a debate, not the arguments themselves. If a cis white woman were to make an argument, a Latino trans man can dismiss it for no other reason than that a white cis woman is making it.  Thus, identity trumps reason. Thus liberal society dies a little every time that dismissal sticks.

andrewsullivan.substack

"Identity trumps reason" is about as succinct a summary of CRT as you can find.