This is the never ending saga of a racist who writes essays and the left's attempt to indoctrinate children & the feeble minded.


This is why the 1619 project is not history:

"Editor's note: Twelve Civil War historians and political scientists who research the Civil War composed a letter to  The New York Times Magazine  concerning 'The 1619 Project.' The  NYTM  editor, Jake Silverstein, responded but the  NYTM  declined to publish the letter and his response. The scholars created a reply and Silverstein had no objection to publishing the exchange in another venue. It is published below.

 To the Editor of The New York Times Magazine   12/30/2019

Re: The 1619 Project

 We are writing to you today, in tandem with numerous others, to express our deep concern about the New York Times ’ promotion of The 1619 Project, which first appeared in the pages of the  New York Times Magazine  on August 14th in the form of ten essays, poems and fiction by a variety of authors. The Project’s avowed purpose is to restore the history of slavery to a central place in American memory and history, and in conjunction with the  New York Times , the Project now plans to create and distribute school curriculums which will feature this re-centering of the American experience.

 It is not our purpose to question the significance of slavery in the American past. None of us have any disagreement with the need for Americans, as they consider their history, to understand that the past is populated by sinners as well as saints, by horrors as well as honors, and that is particularly true of the scarred legacy of slavery. 

 As historians and students of the Founding and the Civil War era, our concern is that The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery, especially since slavery was not just (or even exclusively) an American malady, and grew up in a larger context of forced labor and race. Moreover, the breadth of 400 years and 300 million people cannot be compressed into single-size interpretations; yet, The 1619 Project asserts that every aspect of American life has only one lens for viewing, that of slavery and its fall-out. “America Wasn’t a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One,” insists the lead essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones; “American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation,” asserts another by Matthew Desmond. In some cases, history is reduced to metaphor: “How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam.”

 We are also dismayed by the problematic treatment of major issues and personalities of the Founding and Civil War eras. For instance: The 1619 Project construes slavery as a capitalist venture, yet it fails to note how Southern slaveholders scorned capitalism as “a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, petty operators, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists.” [1] Although the Project asserts that “New Orleans boasted a denser concentration of banking capital than New York City,” the phrase “banking capital” elides the reality that on the eve of the Civil War, New York possessed more banks (294) than the entire future Confederacy (208), and that Southern “banking capital” in 1858 amounted to less than 80% of that held by New York banks alone. [2]

 Again: we are presented with an image of Abraham Lincoln in 1862, informing a delegation of “five esteemed free black men” at the White House that, because black Americans were a “troublesome presence,” his solution was colonization -- “to ship black people, once freed, to another country.” No mention, however, is made that the “troublesome presence” comment is Lincoln’s description in 1852 of the views of Henry Clay, [3] or that colonization would be “sloughed off” by him (in John Hay’s diary) as a “barbarous humbug,” [4] or that Lincoln would eventually be murdered by a white supremacist in 1865 after calling for black voting rights, or that this was the man whom Frederick Douglass described as “emphatically the black man’s president.” [5]

 We do not believe that the authors of The 1619 Project have considered these larger contexts with sufficient seriousness, or invited a candid review of its assertions by the larger community of historians. We are also troubled that these materials are now to become the basis of school curriculums, with the imprimatur of the New York Times . The remedy for past historical oversights is not their replacement by modern oversights. We therefore respectfully ask the  New York Times  to withhold any steps to publish and distribute The 1619 Project until these concerns can be addressed in a thorough and open fashion.

William B. Allen, Emeritus Dean and Professor, Michigan State University

Michael A. Burlingame, Naomi B. Lynn Distinguished Chair in Lincoln Studies, University of Illinois, Springfield

Joseph R. Fornieri, Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology

Allen C. Guelzo, Senior Research Scholar, Princeton University

Peter Kolchin, Henry Clay Reed Professor Emeritus of History, University of Delaware

Glenn W. LaFantasie, Frockt Family Professor of Civil War History and Director of the Institute for Civil War Studies, Western Kentucky University

Lucas E. Morel, Professor of Politics, Washington & Lee University

George C. Rable, Professor Emeritus, University of Alabama

Diana J. Schaub, Professor of Political Science, Loyola University

Colleen A. Sheehan, Professor of Political Science and Director, The Matthew J. Ryan Center, Villanova University

Steven B. Smith, Alfred Cowles Professor of Political Science, Yale University.

Michael P. Zuckert, N. Reeves Dreux Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame


historynewsnetwork

When a racist tries to write revisionist history, it is still just revisionist history in the end.

I wish it was that easy. I'm rapidly losing faith in modern man's ability to reason.

I know someone who watched Oliver Stone's JFK and thought it was a factual history.

Agree 100%.

All history is revisionist, it's the nature of the beast ...

neh

Exactly, which is why the 1619 revision is being debated.

The first thing I will note is that most of the people who whine about the supposed "racism" of the 1619 Project have never read a word of it. 

The 1619 Project was a massive undertaking consisting of nine long essays on various aspects of the effects of slavery on America past and present. This is enough material to fill a book, and in fact a book was created from the material and it is something like 500 pages long. The point being there are hundreds of facts, and opinions, in the 1619 Project. For historians to pick out a few they take issue with and then declare the whole thing is bogus is extremely disingenuous. I think a quick perusal would find most of these 12 historians in the letter are either conservatives (they are all white by the way) or are defending their "turf" as experts of a particular niche of history. 

The seeded article might lead one to believe that the History News Network itself concluded the 1619 Project is laced with falsehoods. That is far from the truth. There are numerous articles , on that site, written by historians and history professors, that defend the 1619 Project and defend the teaching of the material in schools. 

A book based on BS is BS.

See post 1. 

Unless you are saying none of them read it?

No, I'm saying that none of you on NT who whine about it have read it. 

I think a quick perusal would find most of these 12 historians in the letter are either conservatives (they are all white by the way) or are defending their "turf" as experts of a particular niche of history. 

1. What does their political affiliation have to do with their evaluations?
2. What does their race have to do with their evaluations?
3. Why do you feel that they have to defend "their turf"?

Why do you feel that Conservative white people are incapable of analyzing material in an unbiased manner? Would you be as critical if the historians were Black?

If you have an opinion give your opinion. Dont ask me any questions. I've seen enough. 

If you have an opinion give your opinion.

I have, many times.

Dont ask me any questions.

One learns by asking questions. That's why I ask people questions. I feel badly that you wouldn't answer the ones I asked you.

I've seen enough.

So have I.

Although you didn't answer my questions, I appreciate your reply.

most of the people who whine about the supposed "racism" of the 1619 Project have never read a word of it. 

Any proof to that claim?

The 1619 Project and the companion curriculum, developed in conjunction with the  Pulitzer Center , are vitally important because there is no national history curriculum in the United States. Each state has its own and the curriculum outline is often suggested, not required. With its focus on slavery and race, the 1619 Project challenges gaps, minimizations, and distortions in what gets taught in American schools.

Teachers and historians should applaud the 1619 Project for putting slavery and racism at the center of United States history and insisting that they be a major part of the school curriculum. Resolving disagreements about emphasis and corrections are part of the historical process and curriculum creation. Unless Americans understand the role slavery and racism played in the past and in the present, this country will never be able to create a more just and equitable future.

historynewsnetwork

Conservative media also extensively focuses on the unifying parts of history at the expense of divisive and shameful moments in the past......  Conservative powerbrokers prefer to showcase national triumphs because they promote a country that was consistently ready to change for the better with little resistance from its citizens. For the right, the present becomes the culmination of remarkable actions throughout the country’s past. Consequently, their histories must downplay the influence of the country’s mistakes and controversial events are frequently relegated to the footnotes and margins of American history. 

historynewsnetwork

A Heritage Foundation commentator wrote that teaching the project in schools would “ destroy our present institutions, economic system and ways of thinking, and replace them .” Newt Gingrich called the project “ a lie ,” and former president Donald Trump, conflating the 1619 Project and critical race theory, declared that both were “ toxic propaganda , ideological poison, that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together, will destroy our country.” Conservative lawmakers at the  federal  and  state  levels have sought to ban the teaching of the 1619 Project.

Such critiques are intended to undermine if not cancel the 1619 Project. Yet the questions these criticisms raise about history, ideology and the legacies of slavery provide compelling reasons for teaching the project in schools and universities.

In the first-year seminar on the 1619 Project that I teach at the University of Notre Dame, students discuss essays of the project exploring the relationship of slavery to present-day  capitalism ,  health care ,  mass incarceration  and other topics. Students read historians critical of the project, and  rebuttals  to these critiques.

historynewsnetwork

mediabiasfactcheck

All from a source with a left bias. But you already new that.

Only if you believe that everything politically to the left of Storm Front and The John Birch Society Newsletter has a left bias!

A deflection.  But you already knew that.

I watched the first episode on HULU. While there is nothing in it to object to, I thought it was a little too similar to many other tv documentaries on the topic of slavery that have been seen on PBS and other outlets. The material is fine but the approach, I thought, was a little lacking. 

by the way, Vic left this part out of his seed

historynewsnetwork

From Jake Silverstein, Editor,  The New York Times Magazine  1/10/2020 

Dr. Guelzo,

Thank you again for your letter regarding The 1619 Project. We welcome feedback of all kinds, and we take seriously the job of reviewing objections to anything we publish. As you know, the project has been the topic of considerable discussion in recent weeks. I’m sure you saw the letter from Sean Wilentz and others, along with my response, both of which were published in our Dec 29 issue. I believe that this earlier letter, together with my response, addresses many of the same objections raised in your letter.

 

I asked our research desk, which reviews all requests for corrections, to read this letter and examine the questions it raises. They did so, and concluded that no corrections are warranted. Your letter raises many interesting points, which is no surprise considering the distinguished group of signatories, but they are not points that prompt correction. For instance, you write that “The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery, especially since slavery was not just (or even exclusively) an American malady.” This is a critique of the project, not a request for correction. I believe you made a similar point in your essay for  City Journal . Similarly, your letter notes critically that “The 1619 Project asserts that every aspect of American life has only one lens for viewing, that of slavery and its fallout.” Those are your words, not ours, but again, the complaint goes to a difference of interpretation and intention, not fact. 

 

I do allow that some of the queries in your letter are of a more factual nature. Below is our research desk’s responses to those matters.

Sincerely,
Jake Silverstein
---
Notes from our research desk:

1. The letter states that the 1619 Project construes slavery as a capitalist venture and fails to note how Southern slaveholders scorned capitalism as ‘a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, petty operators, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists.’

This quote appears in James L. Huston's  The British Gentry, the Southern Planter, and the Northern Family Farmer: Agriculture and Sectional Antagonism in North America  (2016). In full it reads, "Free Society, we sicken at the name, what is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, petty operators, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists.’ All the Northern, and especially the New England states, are devoid of society fitted for a gentleman." Huston attributes this quote to "a Georgia editor in a foul humor." It does not have to do with capitalism but with aristocratic plantation owners scoffing at small-scale family farms of the north. In Hurston’s words, this is about the “aristocratic distain” of the slavers. 

 

2. The letter states that although the 1619 Project asserts that “New Orleans boasted a denser concentration of banking capital than New York City,” the phrase “banking capital” elides the reality that on the eve of the Civil War, New York possessed more banks (294) than the entire future Confederacy (208), and that Southern “banking capital” in 1858 amounted to less than 80% of that held by New York banks alone.

The sentence in Matthew Desmond’s essay has to do with New Orleans and New York City. The citation has to do with entire states—and not with the concentration of banking capital but with banks. Several works—Sven Beckert and Seth Rockman, eds.,  Slavery’s Capitalism  (2016); Seth Rockman, “The Unfree Origins of American Capitalism” in  The Economy of Early America  (2006); Calvin Schermerhorn,  The Business of Slavery and the Rise of American Capitalism, 1815-1860 —deal with the importance of finance and banking in the American South—in particular, with the rise of state chartered banks.

 

3. The letter asserts that Nikole Hannah-Jones does not provide enough context in her essay for Lincoln’s "troublesome presence" quote and that this was only Lincoln's description of the views of Henry Clay. 

 

Hannah-Jones does not state, as the letter implies, that Lincoln recited these words to the visiting delegation of free black men. Second, while the occasion for Lincoln’s words was indeed a eulogy for Clay, the full context makes it clear that Lincoln was endorsing Clay’s position: “He considered it no demerit in the society, that it tended to relieve slave-holders from the troublesome presence of the free negroes; but this was far from being its whole merit in his estimation... [Clay’s] suggestion of the possible ultimate redemption of the African race and African continent, was made twenty-five years ago. Every succeeding year has added strength to the hope of its realization. May it indeed be realized!” Hay’s diary entries about Lincoln’s eventual abandonment of the colonization scheme, two years after he met with the delegation, do not alter the fact that we correctly describe Lincoln’s views at the time of the meeting in 1862. The letter’s other concerns about how Hannah-Jones’s essay characterizes Lincoln are fundamentally requests for the inclusion of additional information--about Frederick Douglass’s estimation of Lincoln, or the conditions under which Lincoln was assassinated--rather than errors in need of correction. 

A  left wing rebuttal to Silverstein:

Silverstein has staked his reputation on the 1619 Project. This has gone badly for him. His name will forever be associated with the secretive manner through which the project invented its false and error-ridden historical interpretation, as well as the orchestration of the cover-up that has followed.

Specifically, Silverstein bears responsibility for the exclusion of leading scholars of American history—who would have objected to the 1619 Project’s central historical claims—and the intentional disregarding of objections made by the project’s own handpicked “fact-checkers.” Silverstein penned the devious reply to leading historians who pointed to the project’s errors. He then organized surreptitious changes to the already published 1619 Project, and, when exposed, claimed that it had all been a matter of word choice .

Silverstein’s 8,250-word essay is just the latest in this long line of underhanded journalism and bogus history. Once again, he fails to deal with any of the substantive historical criticism of the 1619 Project—in relationship to the origins of slavery, the nature of the American Revolution, the emergence of capitalism and the interracial character of past struggles for equality.

Instead of addressing any of this, and in keeping with the modus operandi of the 1619 Project, Silverstein’s essay piles new layers of falsification on old. If the original 1619 Project falsified American history, Silverstein’s latest essay falsifies the history of American history-writing—and it openly embraces a historical method that privileges “narrative” over “actual fact.”

wsws

Your writer has a couple large axes to grind

Hannah-Jones professes outrage over the African slavery of the past. But how will the future view the fact that she accepts sponsorship from the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, the scourge of Africa in the present? Or that she accepts an expensive sinecure at historically black Howard University, while the college administration forces students in the present to cohabitate with rats, fleas, cockroaches and mold? Silverstein encourages history to be more like journalism, which he says, provides “democracy its greatest service when most unshackled and critical.” Is Silverstein unaware, or just indifferent, to the fact that the world’s most critical journalist, Julian Assange, is right now shackled, and muzzled, in a maximum-security British prison for daring to expose the lies propagated by the Times about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

-

For the working class, “present reality” is a hard thing. It consists of the worst economic crisis and the greatest threat of world war since the Great Depression, a raging pandemic, the threat of environmental catastrophe and ruling classes everywhere lurching toward fascism. To make their way forward, workers and youth require an objective, truthful understanding of the past, just as they do the present.

Of course you posted from a socialist web site so that spin is to be expected. Your writer objects to the 1619 Project because it concentrates on race instead of class, and because it was a project of the hated New York Times. 

I'm going to watch this.

I'm going to dump HULU

That would be akin to dumping TSN because your team lost.

Is Hulu a team for you?

Maybe for you but not for me.

I'm going to dump HULU

Heaven forbid you should actually watch the show that you hold such a strong opinion of. 

Heaven forbid you should actually watch the show that you hold such a strong opinion of. 

Never stopped leftists before.

They jump all over bills that they have never read. Think Brandon read any of the Georgia voting law before he dubbed it "Jim Crow 2.0"? Think any of the leftist did? They went straight to lather; and midterms came and went with absolutely no voting issues in Georgia. Unlike some Democrat run states.

There are several people here tgat have said they dont read anything conservatives write. I would take your comment a little more seriously if you said yhe same thing to them also

Maybe i already read it and have had enough. There are hundreds of shows I don't watch.

Go woke go broke.

Never stopped leftists before.

I'm not talking about leftists.  I'm talking about you who would cancel your hulu subscription because somebody says a show is too woke without ever seeing it for yourself.  You should reserve your opinion of any show (or book, or drag queen story hour, etc.) until you've actually seen it.

There are several people here tgat have said they dont read anything conservatives write.

You're right about that but I've never said anything of the sort.

Exactly and Hulu is just airing shows that it thinks the market wants and lots of Americans want their history served differently but still simply.

Hulu is a business and should absolutely air shows that it thinks the market wants.  I'm going to reserve judgement on the show until I've seen it.  You should too.

I haven’t judged the show, just the original essays.

You've read the essays?

I don’t remember if I read all 10, but if not, I read most starting with the first one in the early Fall of 2019.

WTF is go woke go broke supposed to mean?

“…go woke go broke…”

Akin to ‘live in the dark and just bark’…

Step outside your bubble and google it.

 So...  Cancel culture then.

I don’t remember if I read all 10, but if not, I read most starting with the first one in the early Fall of 2019.

Ok I watched the first episode last night.  While there was some stuff from colonial history in it, most of this episode dealt with modern history, since the SCOTUS gutted the voting rights act, I remember all of it happening as it happened.  What, specifically, did you disagree with?

ry, since the SCOTUS gutted the voting rights act, I

Did it explain how black voting participation has gone up since the Court's ruling in the covered states? 

I disagree with the assertion that our War of Independence was primarily to protect slavery.

When did SCOTUS gut the Voting Rights Act?  

When has Black voter turnout been higher?

Did it explain how black voting participation has gone up since the Court's ruling in the covered states? 

Yes.

When did SCOTUS gut the Voting Rights Act?

I'm sure that was all in the essays that you read.

I don’t recall it, what did HULU say?

Dies this series simply use the essays as the script?  Is there nothing new?

I am not the one living in a bubble here.

Typical projection, deflection and denial, all you got.

Typical projection, deflection and denial, all you got.

Oh the irony.

So...  Cancel culture then.

Nope

The work of various historians, among them David Waldstreicher and Alfred W. and Ruth G. Blumrosen, supports the contention that uneasiness among slaveholders in the colonies about growing antislavery sentiment in Britain and increasing imperial regulation helped motivate the Revolution. One main episode that these and other historians refer to is the landmark 1772 decision of the British high court in Somerset v. Stewart. The case concerned a British customs agent named Charles Stewart who bought an enslaved man named Somerset and took him to England, where he briefly escaped. Stewart captured Somerset and planned to sell him and ship him to Jamaica, only for the chief justice, Lord Mansfield, to declare this unlawful, because chattel slavery was not supported by English common law.

It is true, as Professor Wilentz has noted elsewhere, that the Somerset decision did not legally threaten slavery in the colonies, but the ruling caused a sensation nonetheless. Numerous colonial newspapers covered it and warned of the tyranny it represented. Multiple historians have pointed out that in part because of the Somerset case, slavery joined other issues in helping to gradually drive apart the patriots and their colonial governments. The British often tried to undermine the patriots by mocking their hypocrisy in fighting for liberty while keeping Africans in bondage, and colonial officials repeatedly encouraged enslaved people to seek freedom by fleeing to British lines. For their part, large numbers of the enslaved came to see the struggle as one between freedom and continued subjugation. As Waldstreicher writes, “The black-British alliance decisively pushed planters in these [Southern] states toward independence.”

The culmination of this was the Dunmore Proclamation, issued in late 1775 by the colonial governor of Virginia, which offered freedom to any enslaved person who fled his plantation and joined the British Army. A member of South Carolina’s delegation to the Continental Congress wrote that this act did more to sever the ties between Britain and its colonies “than any other expedient which could possibly have been thought of.” The historian Jill Lepore writes in her recent book, “These Truths: A History of the United States,” “Not the taxes and the tea, not the shots at Lexington and Concord, not the siege of Boston; rather, it was this act, Dunmore’s offer of freedom to slaves, that tipped the scales in favor of American independence.” And yet how many contemporary Americans have ever even heard of it? Enslaved people at the time certainly knew about it. During the Revolution, thousands sought freedom by taking refuge with British forces.

As for the question of Lincoln’s attitudes on black equality, the letter writers imply that Hannah-Jones was unfairly harsh toward our 16th president. Admittedly, in an essay that covered several centuries and ranged from the personal to the historical, she did not set out to explore in full his continually shifting ideas about abolition and the rights of black Americans. But she provides an important historical lesson by simply reminding the public, which tends to view Lincoln as a saint, that for much of his career, he believed that a necessary prerequisite for freedom would be a plan to encourage the four million formerly enslaved people to leave the country. To be sure, at the end of his life, Lincoln’s racial outlook had evolved considerably in the direction of real equality. Yet the story of abolition becomes more complicated, and more instructive, when readers understand that even the Great Emancipator was ambivalent about full black citizenship.

The letter writers also protest that Hannah-Jones, and the project’s authors more broadly, ignore Lincoln’s admiration, which he shared with Frederick Douglass, for the commitment to liberty espoused in the Constitution. This seems to me a more general point of dispute. The writers believe that the Revolution and the Constitution provided the framework for the eventual abolition of slavery and for the equality of black Americans, and that our project insufficiently credits both the founders and 19th-century Republican leaders like Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner and others for their contributions toward achieving these goals.

It may be true that under a less egalitarian system of government, slavery would have continued for longer, but the United States was still one of the last nations in the Americas to abolish the institution — only Cuba and Brazil did so after us. And while our democratic system has certainly led to many progressive advances for the rights of minority groups over the past two centuries, these advances, as Hannah-Jones argues in her essay, have almost always come as a result of political and social struggles in which African-Americans have generally taken the lead, not as a working-out of the immanent logic of the Constitution.

And yet for all that, it is difficult to argue that equality has ever been truly achieved for black Americans — not in 1776, not in 1865, not in 1964, not in 2008 and not today. The very premise of The 1619 Project, in fact, is that many of the inequalities that continue to afflict the nation are a direct result of the unhealed wound created by 250 years of slavery and an additional century of second-class citizenship and white-supremacist terrorism inflicted on black people (together, those two periods account for 88 percent of our history since 1619). These inequalities were the starting point of our project — the facts that, to take just a few examples, black men are nearly six times as likely to wind up in prison as white men, or that black women are three times as likely to die in childbirth as white women, or that the median family wealth for white people is $171,000, compared with just $17,600 for black people. The rampant discrimination that black people continue to face across nearly every aspect of American life suggests that neither the framework of the Constitution nor the strenuous efforts of political leaders in the past and the present, both white and black, has yet been able to achieve the democratic ideals of the founding for all Americans.

this was the Dunmore Proclamation, issued in late 1775 by the colonial governor of Virginia, which offered freedom to any enslaved person who fled his plantation and joined the British Ar

A perfect example of how dishonest Silverstein is.  How can he, or anyone, write about the Dunmore proclamation without noting that it only applied to slaves of people in rebellion?   That omission undercuts the entire logic that the Proclamation is what caused southerners to rebel to protect the right of slavery. Dunmore promised, and did, return slaves who ran away from loyalist owners. 

The message from Dunmore was, if you want to keep your slaves, support the Crown. 

The entire claim that defense of slavery was a primary motivator of the rebellion, which wouldn't even pass muster in a high school history class, ultimately became even to embarrassing for the NYT to maintain, so it was ultimately edited. 

en.wikipedia

The Virginia Convention was outraged and responded on December 14, 1775, with an unambiguous declaration that all fugitive slaves would be executed:

WHEREAS Lord Dunmore, by his proclamation, dated on board the ship William, off Norfolk, the 7th day of November 1775, hath offered freedom to such able-bodied slaves as are willing to join him, and take up arms, against the good people of this colony, giving thereby encouragement to a general insurrection, which may induce a necessity of inflicting the severest punishments upon those unhappy people, already deluded by his base and insidious arts; and whereas, by an act of the General Assembly now in force in this colony, it is enacted, that all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make insurrection, shall suffer death, and be excluded all benefit of clergy : We think it proper to declare, that all slaves who have been, or shall be seduced, by his lordship's proclamation, or other arts, to desert their masters' service, and take up arms against the inhabitants of this colony, shall be liable to such punishment as shall hereafter be directed by the General Convention. And to that end all such, who have taken this unlawful and wicked step, may return in safety to their duty, and escape the punishment due to their crimes, we hereby promise pardon to them, they surrendering themselves to Col. William Woodford, or any other commander of our troops, and not appearing in arms after the publication hereof. And we do farther earnestly recommend it to all humane and benevolent persons in this colony to explain and make known this our offer of mercy to those unfortunate people. ^{[11] [12]}

So? 

Why did Silverstein  omit that Dunmore's proclamation only applied to slaves owned by people already in rebellion? 

The message from Dunmore was, if you want to keep your slaves, support the Crown.

Or, that British authorities were willing to free slaves in order to advance their interests. If the colonies stayed British they would be subject to the freeing of the slaves whenever Britain found it wise or useful. 

Why did Silverstein  omit that Dunmore's proclamation only applied to slaves owned by people already in rebellion? 

The 1619 Project was a series of essays about the history and effects of slavery, not a historical text. Anyone is free to disagree with any of its conclusions. 

Personally I dont consider Hannah-Jones opinion of what led to American independence to be of that much importance. The point of the 1619 Project is that black people were central to American history from the beginning and that the way history is taught has never fully acknowledged that. 

I dont even know why the concept is controversial. 

Anyone is free to disagree with any of its conclusions. 

Of course. But intentionally omitting that the proclamation only applied to slaves owned by people already in rebellion in order to create the impression that it applied to all slaves is incredibly dishonest and manipulative. If they have to resort to that kind of blatant deception to make an argument, why should anyone take anything they say seriously, let alone use it as a basis for teaching kids? 

Sean, the 1619 Project is tens of thousands of words. It is not dependent on what Lord Dunsmore did or didnt do. 

 It is not dependent on what Lord Dunsmore did or didnt do. 

Actually, good history is premised on accurately recounting what someone did or didn't do. 

But you are correct, for propaganda purposes, it doesn't really matter what actually happened. It's about manipulating the reader into believing a narrative that can be exploited. 

If your argument is "it doesn't matter if a history project intentionally misstates basic facts," there's really nothing more to be said.  

Essays are usually not regarded as historical treatises. The New York Times clearly describes the material as essays. They also go into detail about their criteria for determining the accuracy of the material. 

I didnt read the entire thing, but I looked at most of it to one degree or another, and the 1619 Project goes far beyond Hannah Jones opinion on one topic among dozens.  

Essays are usually not regarded as historical treatises.

Otherwise a racist who took a course in creative writing might be confused with a historian.

Essays are usually not regarded as historical treatises.

Where did you get that idea? It’s not even logical. A history essay is not a historical treatise? It makes no sense.

And what would be the significance of such a distinction even if anyone believed it? It almost seems like you’re saying the 1619 Project is something people shouldn’t pay any attention.

Essays are usually not regarded as historical treatises.

I hope I'm wrong, but this comment seems to mean that the essays of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Shelley, Lamb, James Baldwin, Arthur Miller, Swift, Langston Hughes, Addison, Arnold, Jack London, Hunt, Henry Louis Gates, Auden, T.S. Eliot, Forster, et al, no longer have meaningful value and shouldn't be part of education. 

For millennia, essays have expressed an author's accurate critiques/observations of history as well as socio-political conditions of the times during which they were written. The 1619 Project's essays do not live up to these standards.

Since the commonwealth of Virginia also offered freedom to slaves that fought against the Crown,  I assume you would argue that one of the primary reasons the colonies rebelled was to end slavery.  

You are wrong, as usual.  

Then you assume wrong...

Although your comment asserts that I am wrong, it doesn't provide evidence. Now is the time to show your proof - I'm sure it won't take much time to find it.

Then you assume wrong...

Of course.  It should be obvious that I knew John wouldn't agree.  To answer yes would require consistency and to  not  be a prisoner of ideology.  Because the Dunmore declaration and the Act of the Virginia Commonwealth were mirror images of each other.

Dunmore freed  slaves who fought for the British. Virginia freed slaves who fought for the rebels. The left only celebrates one of them and bizarrely credits it as an attempt to end slavery that supposedly caused the already rebelling Colonies to rebel. What I'm guessing the 1619 video won't tell you is that  The Dunmore declaration was issued from an English Warship because the already rebelling colonists had caused Dunmore to run away off shore.   

I hope I'm wrong, but this comment seems to mean that the essays of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Shelley, Lamb, James Baldwin, Arthur Miller, Swift, Langston Hughes, Addison, Arnold, Jack London, Hunt, Henry Louis Gates, Auden, T.S. Eliot, Forster, et al, no longer have meaningful value and shouldn't be part of education. 

you are wrong

where did i say essays dont have meaning?

The Declaration of Independence enumerated the reasons why the American Colonies we're rebelling against the British and freeing the slaves of America was not among them...

You must have missed Sean’s point about consistency of thought.

where did i say essays dont have meaning?

We are discussing US history, so please see comment  8.1.9

Essays are usually not regarded as historical treatises.

Your comment provided no proof of anything. What is there for me to provide except to point out that you're wrong, as usual.

What evidence is there to provide for a comment (wrong) that you made?

Where's your evidence?

You are wrong, as usual.

Oh. I'll contact all of my high school and university English Lit teachers and professors and tell them that all of the essayists we analyzed were wrong.

Please see comment 8.1.24 .

I am still trying to figure how olde yours teachers would be...

You are wrong, as always

Yea. You know evidence. It is what neither you or several others never have when someone challenges a bullshit claim you make.

Why do you care, is it like your interest in Bristol Palin’s botched breast reduction surgery?

[deleted]

I am still trying to figure how olde yours teachers would be...

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to put an end to your figuring/wondering. I've maintained contact with more than 20 of my teachers and professors for decades. The oldest is one of my primary grade teachers ... she's 85. All are still sharp as tacks, and many still teach part time/ very active. Many are also younger than the current POTUS and Congresspeople ...

oldest

Is there anything else that's off topic and Meta that you'd like to know?

There is something wrong with you. 

Thank you for directing another kind, open-minded comment to me, John.

Look on the bright side. February is only 3 days from now - we can start celebrating Black History Month. I already have 3 people lined up. I hope you'll participate!

I'm sure it won't take much time to find it.

I think you meant to type "I'm sure you won't find any".

No need to deflect and deny, you're wrong, as usual.

[deleted]

Refer to prior private notes for the answers, you and the truth are not acquainted

Wasn't the biggest misrepresentation in the original NYT's articles that “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”?

That assertion was made without any accompanying historical evidence.

No answers yet.

Allow me: the answer is YES!

Why is it that whenever you ask a question the whole place comes to a halt?

As I have said, and shown, Hannah-Jones opinion of the founding fathers intention regarding the British view on ending slavery is hardly the beginning and end of the 1619 Project. 

I am sure you havent read a word of it, because if you had all your comments on it wouldnt come down to this one thing, or the letter from the 12 historians. 

You act as if there is academic unanimity that the 1619 Project is broadly "wrong", when that is not the case at all. 

And people dont answer questions from someone who does little else but ask questions. 

If he has an opinion about the topic let him express it in his own words. 

, because if you had all your comments on it wouldnt come down to this one thing

Which one thing? The ridiculous claim that the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery or that 1619 was the true founding of this nation?


You act as if there is academic unanimity that the 1619 Project is broadly "wrong", when that is not the case at all. 

Act as? I never said it was unanimous. Academia is loaded with Marxists who use race in place of class.


And people dont answer questions from someone who does little else but ask questions. 

The asking of questions is vital when it comes to reaching the truth.


If he has an opinion about the topic let him express it in his own words. 

I don't have to worry about him. He speaks quite well. No slogans needed.

Lets be blunt. You know next to nothing about the 1619 Project and what is in it. 

Right wing media has fixated on one small aspect of the material , and that is all they focus on. A declaration that America broke from England because they were afraid that England would end slavery is an OPINION.  Just like a claim that Jefferson opposed slavery is an opinion. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves his entire life and didnt free any of them. On what planet is that being "against" slavery? 

Lets be blunt.

Yes Lets


You know next to nothing about the 1619 Project and what is in it.

I know that it's a story promoted by the New York Times masquerading as history. Now it will be streamed on "Hulu" and people are going to belive it.


Right wing media has fixated on one small aspect of the material , and that is all they focus on. A declaration that America broke from England because they were afraid that England would end slavery is an OPINION. 

It is just ONE OPINION by someone who has skin in the game.


 Just like a claim that Jefferson opposed slavery is an opinion.

"Even before his departure from France, Jefferson had overseen the publication of  Notes on the State of Virginia . This book, the only one Jefferson ever published, was part travel guide, part scientific  treatise , and part philosophical meditation. Jefferson had written it in the fall of 1781 and had agreed to a French edition only after learning that an unauthorized version was already in press.  Notes  contained an extensive discussion of slavery, including a graphic description of its horrific effects on both blacks and whites, a strong assertion that it violated the principles on which the  American Revolution  was based, and an apocalyptic prediction that failure to end slavery would lead to “convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of one or the other race.” It also contained the most explicit  assessment  that Jefferson ever wrote of what he believed were the biological differences between blacks and whites, an assessment that exposed the deep-rooted racism that he, like most Americans and almost all Virginians of his day, harboured throughout his life."

britannica

When one reads that, one can see the contradiction. It is taught as history. There is nobody hiding that history and nobody needs to embellish it.

Jefferson was more concerned with what effect slavery had on whites than the effect it had on the slaves. 

People claim he opposed slavery, yet this great man kept slaves until the day he died. He "tried" to get the slave trade banned in Virginia, which was misleading because Virginia already had all the slaves it needed and the arrival of more would dilute the worth of the ones Jefferson and his sort already owned. 

. But in the draft of the Declaration that he writes, he inserts a paragraph essentially calling for the end of the slave trade. He blames the slave trade and, in some sense, slavery itself, on George III. It's a rather preposterous propagandistic position. But one can imagine that maybe he's trying to say, "This is the opportunity to end slavery, and we can, in this great revolutionary transformational moment, end it all."

It's more likely that he was only calling for the end of the slave trade. Within Virginia, ending the slave trade was a popular position. They already had enough slaves, and it was actually in their economic advantage to end the slave trade.  

pbs

If he has an opinion about the topic let him express it in his own words. 

These historians have expressed it far better than I could:

To the Editor of The New York Times Magazine  12/30/2019

Re: The 1619 Project

We are writing to you today, in tandem with numerous others, to express our deep concern about the New York Times’ promotion of The 1619 Project, which first appeared in the pages of the New York Times Magazine on August 14th in the form of ten essays, poems and fiction by a variety of authors. The Project’s avowed purpose is to restore the history of slavery to a central place in American memory and history, and in conjunction with the New York Times, the Project now plans to create and distribute school curriculums which will feature this re-centering of the American experience.

 It is not our purpose to question the significance of slavery in the American past. None of us have any disagreement with the need for Americans, as they consider their history, to understand that the past is populated by sinners as well as saints, by horrors as well as honors, and that is particularly true of the scarred legacy of slavery. 

 As historians and students of the Founding and the Civil War era, our concern is that The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery, especially since slavery was not just (or even exclusively) an American malady, and grew up in a larger context of forced labor and race. Moreover, the breadth of 400 years and 300 million people cannot be compressed into single-size interpretations; yet, The 1619 Project asserts that every aspect of American life has only one lens for viewing , that of slavery and its fall-out. “ America Wasn’t a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One ,” insists the lead essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones; “American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation,” asserts another by Matthew Desmond. In some cases, history is reduced to metaphor: “How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam.”

 We are also d ismayed by the problematic treatment of major issues and personalities of the Founding and Civil War eras . For instance: The 1619 Project construes slavery as a capitalist venture, yet it fails to note how Southern slaveholders scorned capitalism as “a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, petty operators, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists.”[1] Although the Project asserts that “New Orleans boasted a denser concentration of banking capital than New York City,” the phrase “banking capital” elides the reality that on the eve of the Civil War, New York possessed more banks (294) than the entire future Confederacy (208), and that Southern “banking capital” in 1858 amounted to less than 80% of that held by New York banks alone.[2]

 Again: we are presented with an image of Abraham Lincoln in 1862, informing a delegation of “five esteemed free black men” at the White House that, because black Americans were a “troublesome presence,” his solution was colonization -- “to ship black people, once freed, to another country.” No mention, however, is made that the “troublesome presence” comment is Lincoln’s description in 1852 of the views of Henry Clay,[3] or that colonization would be “sloughed off” by him (in John Hay’s diary) as a “barbarous humbug,”[4] or that Lincoln would eventually be murdered by a white supremacist in 1865 after calling for black voting rights, or that this was the man whom Frederick Douglass described as “emphatically the black man’s president.”[5]

 We do not believe that the authors of The 1619 Project have considered these larger contexts with sufficient seriousness, or invited a candid review of its assertions by the larger community of historians . We are also troubled that these materials are now to become the basis of school curriculums, with the imprimatur of the New York Times. The remedy for past historical oversights is not their replacement by modern oversights. We therefore respectfully ask the New York Times to withhold any steps to publish and distribute The 1619 Project until these concerns can be addressed in a thorough and open fashion.

William B. Allen, Emeritus Dean and Professor, Michigan State University

Michael A. Burlingame, Naomi B. Lynn Distinguished Chair in Lincoln Studies, University of Illinois, Springfield

Joseph R. Fornieri, Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology

Allen C. Guelzo, Senior Research Scholar, Princeton University

Peter Kolchin, Henry Clay Reed Professor Emeritus of History, University of Delaware

Glenn W. LaFantasie, Frockt Family Professor of Civil War History and Director of the Institute for Civil War Studies, Western Kentucky University

Lucas E. Morel, Professor of Politics, Washington & Lee University

George C. Rable, Professor Emeritus, University of Alabama

Diana J. Schaub, Professor of Political Science, Loyola University

Colleen A. Sheehan, Professor of Political Science and Director, The Matthew J. Ryan Center, Villanova University

Steven B. Smith, Alfred Cowles Professor of Political Science, Yale University.

Michael P. Zuckert, N. Reeves Dreux Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame

I know that it's a story promoted by the New York Times masquerading as history. Now it will be streamed on "Hulu" and people are going to belive it.

You continue to act as if there is only one element to the 1619 Project , and that is the one element you and the right keep obsessing on. 

The 1619 Project is tens of thousands of words , covers a few hundred years, and discusses many individual aspects of slavery and its legacy. 

To bring it down to one of the nine writers opinions on one aspect of the material is, well, dishonest. But since you havent read any of it and basically dont know what you are talking about , what else can we expect? 

Vic posted the exact same letter in the first comment on this seed. But thanks for trying. 

There is also a reply letter from the New York Times to this letter somewhere on this article comments. 

Jefferson was more concerned with what effect slavery had on whites than the effect it had on the slaves. 

Centuries after his death it has had a tremendous impact on white Americans. 

I want to use this one example: Do you remember the O J Simpson verdict? When it was announced there was at least one news network that showed the reactions of people in various parts of LA. We were shown videos of white people in shock and then videos of black people cheering. Later and incredibly, black jurors admitted that they let Simpson off as payback for Rodney King. What stayed with me was when they interviewed some average looking white construction worker. He said that he couldn't believe there was so much resentment in the black community. I think the modern democrat party has depended upon it. Evidently the left took notice as well and they are using it in a very destructive way. 

He "tried" to get the slave trade banned in Virginia, which was misleading because Virginia already had all the slaves it needed and the arrival of more would dilute the worth of the ones Jefferson and his sort already owned. 

Lol. He tried to ban the slave trade but  he was wrong for trying!

People claim he opposed slavery

TJ quotes:

Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made ... will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the..1782

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. 1782

I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in...1782

The General assembly shall not have power ... to permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which shall be living on the 31st. day of December 1800; all persons born after that day being hereby declared free. 1784

That after the year 1800 of the christian æra, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty. 1785

What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment or death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him thro’ his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage,...1787

I congratulate you, my dear friend, on the law of your state for suspending the importation of slaves, and for the glory you have justly acquired by endeavoring to prevent it for ever. this abomination must have an end, and there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it. 1788

I become daily more & more convinced that all the West India islands will remain in the hands of the people of colour, & a total expulsion of the whites sooner or later take place. it is high time we should foresee the bloody scenes which our children certainly, & possibly ourselves ...1795

a more general and certain means of providing for the instruction of the slaves, and more desireable as they would in the course of it be mixed with those of free condition. whether, for their happiness, it should extend beyond those destined to be free, is questionable. ignorance &...1797

as to the mode of emancipation, I am satisfied that that must be a matter of compromise between the passions the prejudices, & the real difficulties which will each have their weight in that operation. perhaps the first chapter of this history, which has begun in St Domingo, & the next...1799

nothing has ever presented so threatening an aspect as what is called the Missouri question. the Federalists compleatly put down, and despairing of ever risihe fathers of this republic waged a seven years war for political liberty. Thomas Jefferson taught me that my bondage was, in its essence, worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.ng again under the old division of whig and tory, devised a new one, of slave-holding, & non-slave-holding states, which, while it had a..1820

The fathers of this republic waged a seven years war for political liberty. Thomas Jefferson taught me that my bondage was, in its essence, worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose. Frederick Douglas 1864

Here is an indirect statement (note the date 1858 and "do the math" back 100 years) to further this discussion. And as John stated below, don't keep 'fielding' questions for questions sake: Let this 'work' we do on here sink in and do its 'best' work to correct error and melt hearts and change minds.

For your consideration:

The Gilder Lehrman Collection GLC05302 www.gilderlehrman.org   gilderlehrman

Abraham Lincoln
s.l., circa July 1858 .

Autograph manuscript, 2 pages.

I have never professed an indifference to the honors of official station; and were I to do so now, I
should only make myself ridiculous. Yet I have never failed – do not now fail – to remember that
in the republican cause there is a higher aim than that of mere office –

I have not allowed myself
to forget that the abolition of the Slave-trade by Great Brittain [ sic ],
was agitated a hundred years before it was a final success ;

that the measure had it’s open fire-eating opponents; it’s stealthy “don’t care” opponents; it’s dollars and cent opponents; it’s inferior race opponents; it’s negro equality opponents; and it’s religion and good order opponents; that all these opponents got offices, and their adversaries got none – But I have also remembered that [ inserted : though] they blazed, like tallow-candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, stank in the dark for a brief season, and were remembered no more, even by the smell – School-boys know that Wilbe[ r ]force, and Granville Sharpe, helped that cause forward; but who can now name a single man who labored to retard it? Remembering these things I can not but regard it as possible that the higher object of this contest may not be completely attained within [ 2 ] the term of my [ inserted : natural] life. But I can not doubt either that it will come in due time. Even in this view, I am proud, in my passing speck of time, to contribute an humble mite to that glorious consummation, which my own poor eyes may [ struck : never] [ inserted : not] last to see –

Here is an indirect statement (note the date 1858 and "do the math" back 100 years) to further this discussion

1758?

Sharp wrote A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery, the first paper in England attacking slavery. Sharp argued that the laws of nature grant equality to all humans regardless of any artificial laws imposed by society.

Wilberforce launched the first fight to end slavery through the British Parliament in 1789.

Abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic traded thoughts and support regularly.  

Of course 1758 leads up to/precedes 1776. I know both men are mentioned in my excerpt, and so what is your point?

That both engaged after 1758.

Still 1758 is before 1776. . . . Which allows room for the Revolutionary War to have been impacted in the minds of some in the colonies by by abolitionists 'talks' in Britain.

Still 1758 is before 1776.

You got that right CB, by 18 years.

Which allows room for the Revolutionary War to have been impacted in the minds of some in the colonies by by abolitionists 'talks' in Britain.

Yes, there were abolitionists in both countries then, what is your point?

See 9.3 for my point. I am steadily working toward an explanation for your comment 9 above. It would appear slaves and slavery as an institution in the colonies was affected by talks of 'wholesale' freeing of slaves in the colonies, to wit: A net negative jolt to the colonies' economies and 'becoming' and continuing as "king cotton" and tobacco profit centers .

A net negative jolt to the colonies' economies and 'becoming' and continuing as "king cotton" and tobacco profit centers .

Huh? 

Natchez Misssissippi during the 18th century became "King Cotton" exporter to the world. And Virginia was "King" tobacco exporter. None of which could have occurred had Lord Dunmore and his Ethiopian Regiment" (what the former Africans were labeled) has succeeded in keeping the colonies from independence.

None of which could have occurred had Lord Dunmore and his Ethiopian Regiment" (what the former Africans were labeled) has succeeded in keeping the colonies from independence.

Why would those markets have disappeared?

To be clear, I did not say the markets would have disappeared and that was never the intend of Lord Dunsmore, Governor of Virginia, anyway.

There would be a lack of/disruptions to chattel slaves and white men who were either  "genteel" and. . . possibly worried about skin cancers.  /s

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription [excerpt. ]

In Congress, July 4, 1776

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

archives

---

Point? 

You need to keep up. I can not do it for you! Deduce something already or just move away from this. See (your) 9 for a 'hint.'  This is starting to 'lag' because somebody is dragging and needing to be carried along in discussion!

You copied and pasted some information but I don’t know the point that you want to make with it.  It isn’t sel evident to me.  Sorry.

Did you read it? . . . it goes with your question 9. Do you bother to check the link? (Hint: The excerpt from the DOI goes to the talk of insurrection of the 'blacks' and it was a grievance for which the representatives charged the King of England in 1776! Lord Dunsmore was the British governor of Virgiinia who freed slaves ahead (1775) of July 4, 1776!  Of course, freeing slaves and stirring up insurrection in the ranks of the slaves would affect this young nation's economy in the South!

Now you have to 'help' her and apply yourself. 

Did you read it? . . . it goes with your question 9.

Yes, I read it and it doesn’t support in incorrect thesis on 9.  

Dunmore owned slaves, prior to her s proclamation, he did nothing to free slaves.  His proclamation was attempt to get ground forces to counter the growing local militias and talk of a revolt.  

The Revolutionary War wasn’t in order to defend the institution of slavery, because the colonists were afraid that their right to own slaves would be taken away.

Abolitionist movements began in the first in the colonies, not in Britain.  It primarily started among Quakers in the 1680s.

I think that slavery here would have ended sooner had the cotton gin not been invented.  But the there was just at to much money being made in both the South and the North.

Your comment seems disjointed . Did you proof-read it (yes, I know that is rather 'rich' coming from me who sometimes does similarly )? For example: What does Lord Dunsmore privately owning slaves have to do with his activities as an official of the King of England and Governor of Virginia?

9 Drinker of the Wry   2 days ago

Wasn't the biggest misrepresentation in the original NYT's articles that “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”?

That assertion was made without any accompanying historical evidence .

Lord Dunmore is historical evidence you can put before you. You have no choice but to accept it. It is inarguable.

Lord Dunmore wasn’t an abolitionist and was reacting to the coming revolution.

 It has no meaning I can discern.

It means that the principle reason for our Declaration of Independence wasn’t to keep the institution of slavery.

Relevance to us?

Just a historical fact of the origin of abolitionist movement.

This is puzzling. Why would the cotton gin which is a tool for working more efficiently with cotton not have hastened the end of (plantation) slavery?

The cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for labor to grow and pick the cotton. Cotton growing became so profitable as it was our largest export.  The demand for both land and enslaved labor grew exponentially after this invention.

constitutioncenter

And, in your last sentence, did you just 'support' the economic factor/elements of Britain's causing (Slave/Indian) insurrections as affecting the "patriots" decision to declare independence from the King of England?

No. England was threatening slave ownership in the 1770’s.

I'm sorry. I no longer can follow what you are arguing, because my focus is strictly on resolving a request for a link in comment 9! This is getting to wide and 'scattered' from that original request for a link! 

So I am going to corral this now. As my eyes are starting to 'glaze over' with all this superfluous chatter.

As I have not the time (I have other things I must do today as well in the real world) or inclination to get into minutia about Virginia, Dunmore, or the wealth of the North and South, I conclude your 'request' for a link (at 9 way ↑ there) has been completed.

(Let Vic Elred know!)

If you really want to understand, read

Schlesinger’s The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776.

Or Gordon Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution 

I’ll add one more, The Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution by Gary Nash.

I do not have time to read (all) those books, as I am currently reading several books already—including an Audible.com version of The 1619 Project (book edition).  There is only so much one can do in an "allotted" discussion time-frame.

Again, your 9 above has been completed with the requested link to Lord Dunmore. You have no choice but to accept it, because it happened and led up to the Revolutionary War and was listed in the rebel/colonists grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

You have no choice but to accept it, because it happened and led up to the Revolutionary War and was listed in the rebel/colonists grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

I accept that it happened but it didn’t cause the war.  The acts that provoked the war were the Proclamation of 1763, paying for the French and Indian Ear, the Quartering Act, the Intolerable Acts and the Boston Massacre.

WT"h" does that mean? How can we discuss history if you should to curtail it selectively to suit a narrative of your own choosing? As stated at 14.1.2 slaves/slavery was a cause of insurrection problems which VEXED the "rebel patriots" enough to want independence from the King of England rules over them. BTW, the rebel grievances were listed in the Declaration of Independence in descending order. One of which was, the stirring up of insurrection in the colonies. It is EVIDENCED and inauguable that Lord Dunmore was causing riot and insurrection within the ranks of the colonies. . . .

And as you indicate: there were an assortment (not a single cause) of the revolutionary war. 

Now. . . well, let's move on.

Lord Dunmore was trying his hardest to get rebels to back down, but it was way to late.

You have at least one link ANSWER to number 9 for consideration!

“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,” Wilentz told me. Anti-slavery ideology was a “very new thing in the world in the 18th century,” he said, and “there was more anti-slavery activity in the colonies than in Britain.” politico

So what?  Yes, there were all sorts of people and organizations which complained that slavery shouldn't exist in a free land, but it all fell on the masters, plural, deaf ears, no?

I have answered your point with a link to Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virgiina, who freed slaves staring in 1775, which led to a grievance of "insurrection" in the colonies list of charges against the British Crown in the 1776 Declaration of Independence

I have answered your point with a link to Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virgiina, who freed slaves staring in 1775

No you failed.  In 9. I wrote:

Wasn't the biggest misrepresentation in the original NYT's articles that “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”? That assertion was made without any accompanying historical evidence.

You nor the 1619 Project have provided any evidence that “one critical reason” was the protection of slavery.

The war had already started and the Continental Congress had meet twice before Dunmore’s proclamation.  

Read some real history before replying.

I won’t speak to the historical virtues of the 1619 project because I haven’t read any of it. However, I feel I can comment on the popular reaction.

There seems to be this notion that the authors have blown the lid off some hidden secret. That the fact of slavery being critical to the development of our country was somehow hidden from us all these years. Much of the excitement in favor of this 1619 project seems to be based on the erroneous myth that a history of slavery in America is not taught in our schools. But of course it is, and it always has been.

“Much of the excitement in favor of this 1619 project seems to be based on the erroneous myth that a history of slavery in America is not taught in our schools.”

Not sure if ‘excitement’ is the proper word here. Perhaps perspective. Of course you and I learned about slavery, but always and only from one side. The 1619 Project is valuable, if only in giving us a different viewpoint and a point worthy of discussion. 

Appreciate your take on all matters, Taco. 

Of course you and I learned about slavery, but always and only from one side.

I’m not sure what that means, but I certainly never got the impression in school that either slavery wasn’t a big deal or that it was somehow a good thing. Maybe there’s more to this than that, but what little I know about it is that 1619 is supposed to be a date focused on slavery. I don’t need a new perspective on history to understand that the history of black people in the New World has been mostly shitty.

I have not listened to the 1619 Project myself (so much reading and listening (audiobooks) on my 'list'), but it  will get a turn now (and soon)! My first impression is this: We are entitled to have a reasonable telling of our past history through legitimate usage of historical materials. It reminds me of of what a block buster,  Roots (1974)  by Alex Haley was for all of the United States audience-groups. Also, The Passion of Christ (2004) produced, directed and co-written by Mel Gibson. The former was celebrated and remains so to this date, the latter was condemned before and after production and distribution. Still, both, convey a serious undertaking of what it means to suffer pain, horrors, joys, and indignation from their "mother" country.

I could go on, and I will, but a much needed break is called for right now.

Nikole Hannah Jones could probably be fairly described as being black centric or Afro centric. She does make black people the center of American history. 

However, is this necessarily a bad thing?  She is giving a viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that American history has neglected the black experience as "American" experience, and thus has never come to terms with its history. 

Out of the hundreds of assertions of fact in the nine long essays the critics have centered on just a few of them. 

Americans should grow up. We have an undeniable history of being a racist country. The sooner everyone admits that and determines to change it, the sooner all this will be behind us. 

However, is this necessarily a bad thing?  She is giving a viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that American history has neglected the black experience as "American" experience, and thus has never come to terms with its history. 

Exactly, the way to combat a lack of knowledge or understanding of our history is to provide an alternative, distorted history.

Americans should grow up. We have an undeniable history of being a racist country.

I’ve never denied it and it’s not a unique historical experience of Black Americans.  How about indigenous Americans, Asian Americans bought in the 1850’s and beyond, Irish, Italians, Jews, etc.

Do Black Lives Matter, or do All Lives Matter ? 

Or do you know why the Black Lives Matter people object to the interjection of All Lives Matter into their discussion? 

Do Black Lives Matter, or do All Lives Matter ?

Both of course are true, adding too, as in Black Lives Matter Too might be lesdivisives  to some people.  

Or do you know why the Black Lives Matter people object to the interjection of All Lives Matter into their discussion? 

Sure, if the context is protesting racism against Blacks, saying All Lives Matter changes the subject.

Are you saying all lives don't matter?

Is BLM saying all lives don't matter?

nypost

Sure as hell looks like BLM doesn't. What about you?

The reason Black Lives Matter wont use All Lives Matter as a slogan is because it would water down their message. There is an assumption that all lives matter, but do black lives matter? 

For the people who push it, "All Lives Matter" is MEANT to belittle Black Lives Matter. Got it? 

Nikole Hannah Jones could probably be fairly described as being black centric or Afro centric.

I think good, common sense people would simply refer to her as "racist".

The reason BLM won't use All Lives Matter is because it would remove BLM from being the center of attention that they crave.

seems to be based on the erroneous myth that a history of slavery in America is not taught in our schools. But of course it is, and it always has been

And there is the rub.  I raised children in SC who thought Jeff Davis was the First President and they never learned a thing about slavery until we were transferred to PA.

Just saying, what they learned, they learned at home.

Just saying, what they learned, they learned at home.

Was that a bad thing?

raised children in SC who thought Jeff Davis was the First President and they never learned a thing about slavery until we were transferred to PA.

Sure. 

What year and what grade?

Was that a bad thing?

Well, you can't really expect the children of folk with barely 8th grade educations who disparage and ridicule higher education, tell their kids science is fake, the earth is only 9,000 years old, evolution is a lie and the 'deep state' is coming to take their guns and imprison them in FEMA camps to turn into a doctor who figures out how to cure cancer or a physicist that solves the worlds energy problems by inventing clean energy nuclear fusion. So if one considers raising a child to be a complete waste of space not contributing a damn thing to society, not seeking knowledge, rejecting facts and reality as a "bad thing", then yes, it's a bad thing.

5 years of elementary and middle school in the mid 93 to 98 time frame

When we moved back to PA, they thought I had brainwashed their new

teachers.

I raised children in SC who thought Jeff Davis was the First President and they never learned a thing about slavery until we were transferred to PA.

That’s pretty insane. I grew up in California, so maybe that’s why I don’t get this alleged need to expose some heretofore unspoken truth about black history in America.

Thanks, maybe 30 years has made a difference.

We were stationed in California, transferred to SC in 93.

First day of 5th grade, daughter comes home livid that she got in a fight with a teacher that George Washington was the father of our nation, not JD.  

She said what country did you move us to?  Took her a while to get over it.

Did the teacher go off the reservation?

I had more than a few meeting with the Principal

more so about my son

His English teacher was a young lady from Peru who 

repeatedly mispronounced assimile and hyperbole. 

It didn't go well, lol.

I was stationed at the Naval Hospital at Camp Pendelton in California from 1981 through 1984. My kids went to elementary school on the base with no problem. We then transferred to the Naval Communication Station San Miguel in the Philippines. Kids went to a DOD Dependent School on the base. Best educational system I ever saw. At that time all teachers had to have a Master's in education in hand just to apply, pass NSA background checks, and many were within a few semester hours of or already had PHD's already. One of my kids was in a talented and gifted program and never had problems academically the four years we were there until we came back to the states. He was so smart, the teachers labeled him a behavior problem because there were no such programs where we lived.. 

Did the teacher go off the reservation?

"The acting commissioner of Indian affairs to-day received a telegram from Agent Roorke of the Klamath (Oregon) agency, dated July 6, in which he says: 'No Indians are off the reservation without authority. All my Indians are loyal and peaceable, and doing well." ( Baltimore Sun , July 11, 1878)

"Secretary Hoke Smith...has requested of the Secretary of War the aid of the United States troops to arrest a band of Navajo Indians living off the reservation near American Valley, New Mexico, who have been killing cattle, etc." ( Washington Post , May 23, 1894)

"Apaches off the reservation...killing deer and gathering wild fruits." ( New York Times , Sept. 7, 1897)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as a metaphor meaning "to deviate from what is expected or customary; to behave unexpectedly or independently."

"The issue with 'off the reservation' and similar phrases is that these things are said without any thought. They become a part of the common vernacular. Freely they move from mind to mind, mouth to mouth. Maybe the meaning of these sorts of phrases never should have been the issue. Maybe living lives without thinking about what we say and do is of greater concern."

"I bristle when I hear the phrase because many of the people who use it nonchalantly have likely never thought about its origin, nor have they probably ever visited a reservation." - Rob Capriccioso, citizen of the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Washington D.C. Bureau Chief for  Indian Country Today

Should Saying Someone Is 'Off The Reservation' Be Off-Limits? : Code Switch : NPR

As for the teacher in question "deviating from expected norms", I think the reality is that in the South, teaching the civil war wasn't about slavery and that Jefferson Davis was more a father to the country than George Washington is the rule rather than a deviation from the norm.

Good points, I shouldn’t have used that old expression and won’t in the future, thanks.  

As two Southern teachers, I grew up in Ohio but went to high school in TN.  We had classes and discussions about the Civil War, slavery and segregation.

Wow, I’ll bet it felt a lot better after getting all of that out of you ass.

I think the reality is that in the South, teaching the civil war wasn't about slavery and that Jefferson Davis was more a father to the country than George Washington is the rule rather than a deviation from the norm.

Your reality and the real world in the South are vastly different things.

As for the teacher in question "deviating from expected norms", I think the reality is that in the South, teaching the civil war wasn't about slavery and that Jefferson Davis was more a father to the country than George Washington is the rule rather than a deviation from the norm.

And your reality is wrong. I went to 1-12 grade in north Florida, where it was then referred to as South Georgia, in the 70s and 80s\, and what you so is blatantly false, but making up crap is so much easier to do.

It seems the alleged conservatives/gop/gqp are the ones who are perpetually offended and reside in a state of projection, deflection, and denial.

It appears making up shit is what you do best

So prove me wrong....

Wait...

What am I thinking. We all know that would never happen.

No need.

We all know the truth.

No need.

Translation....

Like normal, I can't prove you or any conservative wrong when I am challenged to show proof of what I claim"

Like usual, WRONG, you've never provided a single fact to dispute anyone here.

We all know that.

 We had classes and discussions about the Civil War, slavery and segregation.

Were you taught that historically America has always been a racist country?  Were you taught that slavery in America became unique because it was based on race?  

Were you taught that historically America has always been a racist country? 

No. My schools did not teach that certain segments of the population were/are perpetual victims.

"Were you taught that slavery in America became unique because it was based on race?  "

Slavery in the US was not unique in that is was based off race. The vast majority of slavery throughout history all over the world was based off race.

Were you taught that historically America has always been a racist country? 

I was taught that slavery existed, that we had a Civil War over the issue, I learned what Jim Crow was, what segregation was, the civil rights struggles, etc.

Were you taught that slavery in America became unique because it was based on race?  

Unique?

 textbooks are printed for national markets and ap standards are nationalized, yet the south apparently teaches a fantastical version of history without leaving a paper trail.

textbooks are printed for national markets and ap standards are nationalized, yet the south apparently teaches a fantastical version of history without leaving a paper trail.

Must be one of those fabled conservative miracles!

The claims fall apart when the facts are looked at, or if one ever talks to anyone educated in the South in the last 40 years.

Mom taught 5th and 6th grade public school social studies in a small Oklahoma city during the 1960s. I had her as my SS teacher both grades. Fifth grade was American history and sixth grade was world history. Those books were very progressive with a strong moral viewpoint. There was no ambiguity about the moral wrongness of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the subjugation of indigenous peoples around the world at the end of European guns...

Slavery was "America's Original Sin" and the Civil War and Jim Crow were portrayed as reprehensible. Being Oklahoma slight notice was given the annihilation of Native Americans. The United States was basically glorified for defeating fascism and as the last defense against totalitarianism. That two year two book course was plainly a purposeful citizenship course intending to point youth toward a brighter future through learning from past mistakes and the consequences thereof.

No way that course would be allowed taught in OK today...

It sounds like you also experienced similarly in your youth.

You and I didn't get a whitewashed education and children today deserve true history, "Warts and all", as Mama says...

They are not getting that now and Desantis is just riding a wave of false populist indignation against CRT and 1619!

Like banning drag and books it makes the gop looks foolish.

No way that course would be allowed taught in OK today..

Link for that claim, please.

She asks where she can meet you to explain a few things to you in person. She may be ancient and tiny, but she would love to teach you a thing or two. In the meantime, she told me to tell you to, "Fuck Right Off... fella!"

She asks where she can meet you to explain it in person. She may be ancient and tiny, but she would love to teach you a thing or two. In the meantime she says you can, "Fuck Off!"

So the short, more accurate version is that you made a claim you can't back up.

Seems weird to me that in the height of Jim Crow days, kids were taught accurate history and now you think they aren't.

She asks where she can meet you to explain a few things to you in person.

Send an Uber for her, I live in Texas, might be too long of a drive for her.

ere was no ambiguity about the moral wrongness of the Crusades

What about the Muslim jihad that preceded it?

o way that course would be allowed taught in OK today...

Probably not anti-American enough.

Scared Huh?

In Oklahoma in the 1960s? Quit being so ridiculous. Nobody take it seriously when you're not being serious. Try again...

Scared Huh?

Of an old lady? Doubtful!

You could save her a trip and just get the link I asked for from her, but for some strange reason you seem unable to produce one.  I expected that would be the case, but thought I would at least give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had some facts to back your claim up. Clearly my mistake,

In Oklahoma in the 1960s?

Were you taught the Muslim Jihad that exploded out of the Arabian Peninsula was "morally wrong" or just the Crusades? 

Yes, history courses have gotten much more critical of America. 

Seems weird to me that in the height of Jim Crow days, kids were taught accurate history and now you think they aren't.

Interesting article about Oklahoma education and how they fought against integration ...

However, racial segregation did not end. Most schools remained segregated into the 1960s. By 1956, there were 273 integrated schools in Oklahoma. Despite that, there was still segregation among students, depending on where they lived within the district. Segregation continued even after the federal court cases  Dowell v. Oklahoma City  (1963). In this case, the school district of Oklahoma was sued in attempt to gain admission for Dowell’s son to an all-white high school. Not long after, on July 11, 1965, US district Judge Luther L. Bohanon claimed the dual school system operated by the Oklahoma City school district violated the  Fourteenth Amendment  of the United States Constitution. Judge Bohanon ordered Oklahoma to come up with integration plans. It took seven years to get this process started. This resulted in the creation of cross-district busing in 1972.

okhistory

Uh oh...Sounds like somebody's mama is lying about what she taught in the 60s.

I don't know. But, what I do know is that even now, 10-12 year olds don't learn about the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. The focus is still on forming a foundation of US Civics and US History at those young ages that is explored, in more depth, in grades 7-12.

Nikole Hannah Jones's career singlehandedly destroys the theory underlying CRT

Fairfax County Public Library officials are paying controversial writer Nikole Hannah-Jones, author of the “1619 Project” $35,350 for a one-hour lecture on Feb. 19 at the McLean Community Center, with a price tag that amounts to $589 per minute, according to a copy of the contract obtained by the Fairfax County Times...

Local taxpayers are raising issues with the expenditure, coupled with the $22,500 that the Fairfax County Library paid for divisive author Ibram X. Kendi for a 60-minute virtual discussion last month. The combined amount to both speakers equals $57,850, or about the annual starting   salary of about $54,421   for a librarian in Fairfax County. This past August,   library officials announced   they were curtailing operating hours because of “ongoing staff recruitment challenges”.    “ By my estimates, the Fairfax County Public Library is using over $60,000 in taxpayer funds to host Ibram Kendi and Nikole Hannah-Jones as speakers ,” said William Denk, a local resident who first alerted the Fairfax County Times to the bill, after discovering the fee. “I would like to see the Board of Supervisors reach out to Kendi and Hannah-Jones to ask that they return these funds to Fairfax County to help our local homeless population.”

fairfaxtimes

Nikole Hannah Jones's career singlehandedly destroys the theory underlying CRT

In what way?

The legal theory of CRT has been grossly distorted with a populist construct endorsed by people who

decry racism while defending their own.

A Lesson on Critical Race Theory (americanbar.org)

In what way?

She has a successful career and gets lucrative speaking fees. That somehow undermines the theory of CRT.  

n what way?

She was offered a tenured position at a good public university despite not having a doctorate and having no academic publications. She's also received a paycheck as a reporter from the leading newspaper in the country despite having authored nothing for two years. And, of course, local governments are breaking their budget for her to give short prepared talks. 

In a world where the government  was systemically oppressing black people, would any of that happen?  

Jealous?

Would you really trade places with her?

In a world where the government  was systemically oppressing black people, would any of that happen?

There have always been exceptions, Frederick Douglas, entertainers, sports figures, General Powell, Barack Obama, but for the vast majority?

What is redlining and is it still happening across the U.S. - CBS News

The policing of black Americans is racial harassment funded by the state | Paul Butler | The Guardian

Nearly a quarter of young black people say they’ve been harassed by police, poll finds | PBS NewsHour

Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of Whites, new report on state prisons finds | CNN Politics

Study of 100 million police stops finds black motorists are more likely to be pulled over | CNN

Wealth and success are great insulators from reality for those less fortunate.

Jealous?

To make seven figures a year for giving a couple speeches to dozens of people a dozen or so times and have a no show job at the most prestigious newspaper in the country?  Sure, who wouldn't take that? 

ere have always been exceptions, Frederick Douglas, entertainers, sports figures, General Powell, Barack Obama, but for the vast majority?

You are  undercutting your own argument.  Exceptions don't exist  with actual systematic oppression.  Can someone outside the system succeed,  like sports figures, sure.  But in a country with actual systematic oppression,  Powell and Obama don't succeed within the system and become the most powerful people within it. And  Jones, of course, has financially benefited from "system" as much as  anyone (public universities, public taxpayer funds, the paper that represents the system more than anyone else) for shoddy work attacking the system that's made her one of the fabled one percent.  

None of that is consistent with systematic racism. Black people weren't being paid millions by Jim Crow governments to attack it, were they? 

I can see your problem.

Systemic is not the same as systematic.

Powell and Obama don't succeed within the system and become the most powerful people within it.

Sure they could . Frederick Douglas and much later Martin Luther King became "powerful" people within the culture in spite of living in eras of rampant , and legal, racial discrimination. 

d . Frederick Douglas and much later Martin Luther King became "powerful" people within the culture in spite of living in eras of rampan

They were never institutionally very powerful. They were not  Presidents, or Generals, or made rich by governmental institutions. Their "power" cam from the outside and was based on the moral strength of their argument.  Do you believe Frederick Douglas could have been President? 

She has a successful career and gets lucrative speaking fees

Most people call it "grift", but in large scale.

That's what the alleged conservatives/gop/gqp are - grifters, but in large scale, like your PD&D.

Nope...As usual I am correct.

She is a grifter and a racist.......nothing more.

[removed] 

[removed]  

[private notes are just that; private and should not be made public] 

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I concur.

[deleted]

[deleted]

This thread will be locked, but I'm going to remind everyone here that the proper step to take if one is being harassed via chat or PN is to report it to the mods or Perrie.  Do NOT make private conversations public.

Having slaves in the Virginia Colony did not seem to bother  Lord Dunmore when he was in power. but he tried to get them to fight in his   Ethiopian Regiment to keep his position.   

And Dunmore  had no problems using slave labor in his subsequent posting in the Caribbean. 

the idea that one sentence offering slaves of rebels freedom if they joined the British army included as part of a general declaration of martial law was some sort attempt at ending slavery is preposterous. It was a punitive war measure, like seizing bank accounts of enemies in todays world.

Actually you misunderstand Lord Dunsmore intentions, or do you have a link. BTW, do you have a link to it being only "slaves of rebels" that were offered freedom? I'd like to look upon it.

I do require every person capable of bearing arms to resort to his Majesty’s STANDARD, or be looked upon as traitors to his Majesty’s crown and government, and thereby become liable to the penalty the law inflicts upon such offences, such as forfeiture of life, confiscation of lands, &c. &c. And I do hereby farther declare all indented servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining his Majesty’s troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper sense of their duty, to his Majesty’s crown and dignity

Good point. Thank you for linking to it using my supplied link. Of course I knew this as I read the link before posting it!

Do you know what Lord Dunmore motivation/intention was for emancipating the slaves of rebels?

Do you know what Lord Dunmore motivation/intention was for emancipating theslaves of rebels

Yes, he had two.  One to disrupt farming and add to the growing fear among the colonists of armed slave insurrections. Planters would be distracted from waging war against Britain by the necessity of protecting their families and property from an internal threat. Also, he need soldiers, he had a force of 300 soldiers, seamen and loyalist recruits.  They were cut off from the support of British troops in Boston, would be supported by black fighting men and laborers.

Eureka! There you have evidence from your own 'pen.' Lord Dunmore issued his proclamation as offical Governor of Virginia calling for (from the rebel colonist masters perception) insurrection of slaves to forsake their rebel masters.  A disruption of the established order of the colonies.

As Governor he gave his 'order' wide distribution in the newspapers of the day  ( #2 below) to incite wide-spread external outbreaks of distrust/chaos between slaves and masters (intent ):

1.

“I do hereby further declare all indentured Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY'S Troops as soon as may be,” he wrote.

In addition to promising freedom to the enslaved, Dunmore’s Proclamation imposed martial law and stated that the American patriots had betrayed the Crown.

Loyalist Governor Sought to Expand His Troops

The proclamation was months in the making, as Dunmore was in a vulnerable position as throngs of rebels filled the Virginia capital of Williamsburg, prompting the loyalist governor to depart for Norfolk. Worsening matters for him was that many of his forces had deserted him, leaving him with only about 300 troops.

Given Dunmore’s dire predicament, six months before he issued the proclamation, rumors spread that he was considering this course of action, and a group of enslaved African Americans approached him about joining forces with the British against their American captors. Although he ignored these African Americans, the colony’s plantation owners feared that he would act on his plan to grant freedom to the enslaved.

On June 8, Dunmore boarded the British battleship Fowey at Yorktown. He proceeded to expand his troops, including by asking enslaved African Americans to accompany him. This all culminated with Dunmore’s Proclamation, the complete text of which appeared in newspapers such as the Virginia Gazette .

Dunmore figured that his proclamation would make plantation owners more concerned about possible insurrections of the enslaved than they would be about battling British troops. Without material support from the British troops stationed in Boston, Dunmore needed more resources, which he felt he would have by building up his forces with enslaved Black men, though some women were part of the effort as well.

history

---

2 .

Although Dunmore’s Proclamation applied only to Virginia, it was printed in newspapers throughout the thirteen colonies. This copy of the proclamation was published in the Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser on December 6, 1775.

The American Revolution had a profound effect on the institution of slavery. It gave enslaved African Americans unprecedented opportunities to escape from slavery by serving in the British or Continental armies. Others took advantage of the chaos to run away and forge new lives elsewhere. When the American Revolution began, approximately 450,000 people were enslaved in the thirteen colonies. Some estimates claim that as many as 80,000 to 100,000 slaves throughout the thirteen states escaped to the British lines.

gilderlehrman

---

In the Declaration of Independence (DOI) 1776, the rebel representatives mentioned insurrection acts against the colonies/ists:

  9.3 He [the king's representative government] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us , and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Drinker! It is time to come to a conclusion on this point. You have your comment 9 request for a link supplied. It is time to accept it or sufficiently dispute recorded history itself or just continue to insist on the indefensible!

You have your comment 9 request for a link supplied. It is time to accept it or sufficiently dispute recorded history itself or just continue to insist on the indefensible!

Nothing that you provided or said reflects that the principle reason that we went to war with Britain was protecting slavery.  You have been seduced by this erroneous thought in The 1619 Project.  

The Origins of our Revolution was the Northern merchant class and some Virginian idealists.

9  Drinker of the Wry    2 days ago

Wasn't the biggest misrepresentation in the original NYT's articles that “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth.

You appear to be moving the goalpost. The word "critical" in 9 above does not of necessity mean "the principle" - as in the ONLY reason for the colonists to declare war was any one thing. I suggest you stay within our scope of discussion. This is about truth not defending a position.  I just want to state what history says about this. I don't want (or need) to win.

I’ve moved no goalposts.

On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times , repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America…

Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “ One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

You continue to erroneously assert causation between this proclamation that only effected VA and the decision to go to war.

BTW, the proclamation came after Patrick Henry said to give him liberty or give him death to Dunmore.

Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution

Was a fear of insurrection by the rebels a stated complain of theirs in the Declaration of Independence? Yes or No. (READ the DOL and get back to me.)

Now then, if the King of England was the authority over the colonies; how is it that it is the REBEL/"PATRIOTS" who are declaring independence by citing "insurrection acts" against the colonies in the States?

"Tackle"/Answer the question!

The proclamation was issued to Virgina, but I pointed out to you that Dunmore gave "permission" for it to go wide-spread to all the colonies for his own intentional purposes of stirring unrest sufficient enough to make the rebels/"patriots" against the King of England list the threat and invoking of INSURRECTION as a grievance against the Crown in the DOL.

Patrick Henry? Cute, but not relevant to the link request at 9 above. Focus!

 but not relevant to the link request at 9 above.

Of course it is was as another example that the die was already set before the proclamation.  Look at the time line of events leading to the war:

• 1763, The Treaty of Paris ends the French and Indian War.  The costs of the war and maintaining an army will lead the British government to impose new taxes on its colonists.
• 1765, Britain passes the Stamp Act
• 1768, British Troops Occupy
• 1772, Committees of Correspondence are established throughout the colonies to coordinate American response to British colonial policy.
• 1774, British Parliament passes the Coercive Acts, or Intolerable Acts, closes the port of Boston and requires British troops to be housed in taverns and vacant buildings.
• April, 1775, first shots of the Revolutionary War are fired at Lexington and Concord
• June, 1775, first major engagement of the war at Breed’s and Bunker Hill
• November, 1975, Dunmore’s proclamation 

See the war had already begun 7 months earlier.

By the early 1770s, more and more colonists became convinced that Parliament intended to take away their freedom. Americans saw a pattern of increasing oppression and corruption happening all around the world. Parliament was determined to bring its unruly American subjects to heel. Britain began to prepare for war in early 1775. The first fighting occurred in April.

By August the King declared the colonists “in a state of open and avowed rebellion.”

Dunmore was late to the Party with his  Proclamation in Nov. 

The Declaration came after the fact the following year.

he rebels a stated complain of theirs in the Declaration of Independence? Yes or No. (READ the DOL and get back to me.)

Do you not understand that insurrection and emancipation are completely different things? 

This is very simple, the revolution began.  Dunmore lost control of Virginia and fled, with his own slaves, to a warship in Norfolk. He then issued a declaration of martial law, that included one sentence that offered freedom to those slaves of people already in rebellion who  joined the forces of the crown.  

Tackle Chronology and what Dunmore actually did before using a sentence he authored after the revolution had begun to claim a primary cause of the rebellion was fear England would free the slaves. 

Again so what?! The abolitionists (Quakers, Thomas Paine, Puritans, The Enlightenment, The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Held in Bondage (circa, 1775), and so on and so forth 'complete' the listing.

Moreover, you have Lord Dunmore, official Governor of Virginia under the British Crown authority, in your list as apportioned with the lot of the 'die cast.'

The Declaration came after the fact the following year.

November 1775 came in sufficient time to be added the list of July 4, (Independence Day) grievances against the CROWN, yes or no?  (Hint: INSURRECTION CAUSED BY AGENTS OF THE CROWN IN THE 'self-governing' colonies.)

Again so what?

Again you fail to understand the time line and principle causes of the war.

in your list as apportioned with the lot of the 'die cast.'

I don’t know what you are trying to say, do you?

November 1775 came in sufficient time to be added the list of July 4, (Independence Day) grievances against the CROWN, yes or no? 

Yes, but well after the war had already begun.

but I pointed out to you that Dunmore gave "permission" for it to go wide-spread to all the colonies 

permission?  Dunmore had no authority in any other colony.

Don't you dare return 'late' to discussion and try to misstate my position. Get it straight. I don't have to overstate Lord Dunmore's, Governor of Virginia, position, the link I supplied-which links to even more sources, makes his position plain to anyone who chooses to read it 'straight.' Lord Dunmore was worried about a great many things, including the loss of his seat in the physical capitol city of the state of Virginia. Those other 'peripherals' are of no concern to this discussion.

I will not rehash for you the comment 9 thread above—peruse, 'digest,' and deduce its meanings for yourself!

As for this statement :

Tackle Chronology and what Dunmore actually did before using a sentence he authored after the revolution had begun to claim a primary cause of the rebellion was fear England would free the slaves. 

What statement "after. . . " are you referring? The proclamation was issued in November 1775. Well ahead of the Declaration of Independence July 1776 being delivered. This comment by Drinker is what is being drilled down on, not just some 'heated' conflicts:

9   Drinker of the Wry     2 days ago

Don't you dare return 'late' to discussion

Who the fuck do you think you are, the NT official clock watcher?

his position plain to anyone who chooses to read it 'straight.'

His position after the war began is plain.  It’s also plain that the war started before his proclamation and you’ve provided no evidence the a critical reason for the war was a protection of slavery, Dunmore thought the opposite, that it would keep Americans from fighting.

My question is if you found out your are a descendant of a black slave holder, how would you plan on paying reparations to the descendants of those that were held by your ancestors?

Who the fuck do you think you are, the NT official clock watcher?

Well let me tell you "who the fuck" I think I am; somebody telling you to piss off for two days (as I am going to ignore you until TUESDAY January 31.) because you think you have some place to come from with disrespecting me. You don't have to discuss anything with me and you DAMN SURE don't get to talk to me any damn way you wish! BYE TO THE BYE-BYE.

You must think that the 5,000-6,000 African Americans that fought the British were pretty stupid to fight to protect slavery.

Well bugsy, "reparations" is beyond the scope of this thread and this disussion so I guess I 'lucked' out of the question, no?

It’s not beyond the scope of The 1619 Project, it’s the last essay.

BYE TO THE BYE-BYE.

Does anyone know what this means?

Not a clue, but CB thinks it’s bold.

Weird is the world some live in

Perhaps, get out of the 'bubble' more? I mean really. Which word, "exactly" is giving you the most trouble understanding?

I mean, I get the whole conservative don't want to be anywhere in the 'brain' culturally and politically with liberals, but its just sad that common parlance is "threatening" to conservative raison d'être. In any case, you will be required to get out of the bubble more, because I ain't changing my speech simply to appease selfish ignorance on some conservatives part!

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I get the whole conservative don't want to be anywhere in the 'brain' culturally and politically with liberals

Good, then you understand why we don't want our IQs to drop dramatically and instantaneous if we get into the "brains" of a liberal. 

[removed]

Look bugsy, it's an open secret that both conservatives and liberals are good for this country's best interests. What I am after is less of these unremarkable insults and more substantive sharing. If you can't be moved to understand simple parlance used in our common society, then I can't cater to your 'taste' in speech, per se. We all have to do our best to get along, if any of this is to be advantageous to me, you, or NT.

“One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”?

The author of '1619 Project' The New York Times amended the overbroad statement/assertion (above) from the colonists to some colonists when the book version of 1619 Project was issued.  And here is a link to that particular occurrence:

Four days in July: The story behind the Declaration of Independence Hardcover – January 1, 1958
by Cornel Adam Lengy el 

Excerpt:

With the indictment of the slave trade—which had been debated Wednesday and which had been firmly opposed by two colonies , Mr. Thomson had concluded that list of grievances against the King.. . .

Whether the traffic was wrong, whether the King was to be blamed for condoning it and permitting it (slavery) to continue, South Carolina and Georgia were dependent on slave labor. . . .

"If left to itself in Georgia, it (slavery) will be gradually ended." he repeated. "Let us not intermeddle. For the time being we cannnot do with slave labor. Our whole economy would be ruined."

amazon

---

As it turns out according to the above reference material, the convention on the Declaration of Independence (DOI) would have added a grievance against King George III of 'giving' slavery to the colonies through England control. . . but, two states, Georgia and South Carolina could not agree to the line being in the list of grievances which was approved in the DOI. Thus, the line was 'cut out' or removed. Elsewise, the two states would not have signed the document.

As we can see there was a truth about the two states which removed the line from the list of grievances "wanting to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies - because of the wealth slavery brought those colonies (kept them out of financial ruin).

The author of '1619 Project' The New York Times amended the overbroad statement/assertion (above) from the colonists to some colonists when the book version of 1619 Project was issued. 

Imagine that.

As we can see there was a truth about the two states which removed the line from the list of grievances "wanting to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies - because of the wealth slavery brought those colonies (kept them out of financial ruin)

We had been at war for over a year when the DOI was approved.