FWIW it's incredible to me how many bad faith arguments good historians have made against the 1619 project. Like the piece never said slavery was the only contributing factor to the AR, but an important one. What honest historian can deny that?
It's totally legitimate to challenge findings, but it feels like most arguments are about interpretation, not about evidence. But many criticisms I've read suggest their issues are with evidence. It feels very intellectually dishonest.
@gibsoche I don’t know. There’s a major difference between arguing many colonists were outraged by Dunmore’s Proc, which helped drive some towards rebellion, and arguing that protecting slavery was one of the main reasons for the Rev. It’s the latter claim that is problematic, no?
@gibsoche I think what’s happening is, fundamentally, a historiographical debate. Wilentz heavily implies that and it’s why he makes such sweeping statements based on narrowly selected portions of the text.
@gibsoche Not quite what it says, and for specialists the difference is significant. It says the colonists rebelled to protect slavery. There's almost no evidence for that. There's lots of evidence however that the Amer rev strengthened the institution of slavery and that independence...
@gibsoche The sad thing is how some point out small errors with conflicting primary sources to try to discredit the entire effort. No historian has seen every primary source or been exposed to every fact on any topic. Historians learn every day. @KevinMKruse limbaugh2020.com/three-men-are-…