What's Wrong With The 1619 Project?
In August of 2019, the New York Times published The 1619 Project. Its goal is to redefine the American experiment as rooted not in liberty but in slavery. In this video, Wilfred Reilly, Associate Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University, responds to The 1619 Project’s major claims.
According to The 1619 Project, everything that’s wrong with America is tied to _______________________________.
the economic greed of Wall Streetreligious zealotryAmerica’s ‘original’ sin of slaverythe Republican PartyIf you asked the Founders why they no longer wanted to be a British Colony, what would some of their answers be?
taxation without representation was unacceptablethe Stamp Actthe desire to be free, to chart their own destiny as a sovereign nationall of the aboveBritain didn’t free the slaves in its overseas colonies until 1833- 57 years later after the Declaration of Independence.
TrueFalseIn the American Civil War, 360,000 Union soldiers died in order to free how many slaves?
one milliontwo millionthree millionfour millionIn the last 50 years, _____________ black Africans have come to America as legal immigrants because they know that America holds opportunity for everyone.
one milliontwo millionthree millionfour million
- The NYT’s 1619 Project claims that out of slavery and anti-black racism grew “nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional.”
The thesis of The New York Times’ 1619 Project is that the United States was founded in 1619, when the first slave was brought to North America, rather than 1776, when the American colonies declared independence from England. According to The 1619 Project, “Out of slavery — and the anti-Black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional.”
View source“1619. It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth,” reads the August 2019 print version of the introductory essay to the project. “What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?”
View sourceShortly after The 1619 Project was published, a group of distinguished historians — the majority of whom are left-leaning — wrote a public letter condemning it. The historians wrote that they were “dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process” behind its production. “These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’ They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds — that they are the objections of only ‘white historians’ — has affirmed that displacement.”
View sourceRelated reading: “The 1619 Chronicles” – Bret Stephens, The New York Times
View source- The 1619 Project’s lead writer was awarded a Pulitzer despite historians shredding her essay for its fatal factual errors.
The lead author of The 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her essay, which claimed that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery."
View sourceHannah-Jones’ core premise was promptly debunked by esteemed historians. After she was awarded the Pulitzer, The National Association of Scholars penned an open letter signed by 21 scholars calling on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the award because of the essay’s fatal factual errors and the Times’ failure to properly acknowledge revisions.
View sourceIn an op-ed, New York Times opinion writer Bret Stephens declared that The 1619 Project had “failed” in both historical accuracy and journalistic transparency. “Journalists are, most often, in the business of writing the first rough draft of history, not trying to have the last word on it. We are best when we try to tell truths with a lowercase t, following evidence in directions unseen, not the capital-T truth of a pre-established narrative in which inconvenient facts get discarded. And we’re supposed to report and comment on the political and cultural issues of the day, not become the issue itself. As fresh concerns make clear, on these points — and for all of its virtues, buzz, spinoffs and a Pulitzer Prize — the 1619 Project has failed.”
View sourceRelated reading: “Ideology Over Excellence: Awarding The Pulitzer Prize To The 1619 Project” – Patricia Barnes, Forbes
View source- The 1619 Project’s claim that preserving slavery was a primary cause of the American Revolution has been thoroughly debunked.
In their public letter condemning The 1619 Project, a group of esteemed historians debunked its claim that the revolution was fought to ensure that slavery would continue: “On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain ‘in order to ensure slavery would continue.’ This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false.”
View sourceSlavery was not under threat from the British when Americans declared independence; in fact, Britain didn’t free the slaves in its overseas colonies until 1833.
View sourceNorthwestern University historian Leslie M. Harris, who was asked by the Times to help fact-check The 1619 Project, wrote in an op-ed for Politico in March 2020 that she “listened in stunned silence” as lead author Nikole Hannah-Jones “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. … 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.”
View source- Slavery did not make America rich, as The 1619 Project claims. If anything, it held back economic growth in the South.
Slavery certainly made some Americans, like Eli Yale, rich. However, the institution of slavery did not make the country rich. In fact, the slave system badly slowed the economic development of half the country. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, in 1860, just one year before the Civil War began, the South had only one-sixth as many factories as the North.
View sourceAt the time of the Civil War, almost 90% of the country’s skilled, well-paid laborers and professionals were based in the North.
View sourceBanking, railroads, manufacturing — all were concentrated in the North. The South was an economic backwater in comparison.
View sourceThe cost of abolishing slavery was enormous, economically (Abraham Lincoln borrowed billions to pay for it) and in terms of human life: 360,000 Union soldiers died in order to free 4 million slaves. Some historians say the numbers are even higher.
View source- View source
In the almost 200 years since the Civil War, the population of the country has grown almost 900% and our national GDP has increased 12,000%.
View source- The 1619 Project wants people to believe that America cannot overcome its flaws when it comes to race. Yet that’s exactly what it’s done.
The 1619 Project suggests that the United States is an inherently racist country that cannot overcome the “original sin” of slavery, claiming that “nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional” grew out of slavery and racism.
View sourceAmerica has become the most successful multi-racial country in history, and the only white majority country to elect a black President, twice. Two million black Africans have come to America as legal immigrants in the last 50 years, and they have become one of the most successful groups in the country.
View sourceBlack Americans have heroically fought for their rights, often against great odds. Joining them in the fight for racial equality over the decades has been a vast number of white people. One key example: the U.S. Senate that passed the landmark Civil Rights Act in 1964 contained 98 whites and two men of color, both Asians.
View sourceIn their open letter exposing significant errors in The 1619 Project, a group of distinguished historians cite the famous endorsement of the U.S. Constitution by Frederick Douglass and highlight Abraham Lincoln’s attempts to promote racial equality, writing: “The project criticizes Abraham Lincoln’s views on racial equality but ignores his conviction that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed universal equality, for blacks as well as whites, a view he upheld repeatedly against powerful white supremacists who opposed him. The project also ignores Lincoln’s agreement with Frederick Douglass that the Constitution was, in Douglass’s words, ‘a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.’ Instead, the project asserts that the United States was founded on racial slavery, an argument rejected by a majority of abolitionists and proclaimed by champions of slavery like John C. Calhoun.”
View source
Have you heard of The 1619 Project? It was published by the New York Times in August of 2019. It won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2020.
Its thesis: The United States was founded in 1619, when the first slave was brought to North America.
Wait—that brings up some questions…
What happened to 1776? To July 4th? The Declaration of Independence? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison?
According to The 1619 Project, the Founding Fathers pushed for all that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” stuff to protect their slave holdings. Independence from England? That was just a smoke screen.
To them, everything that’s wrong with America is tied to her “original sin” of slavery: from segregation to traffic jams (yes—traffic jams!). For The 1619 Project authors, racism is not a part of the American experience; it is the American experience.
Is this true? Let’s look at three of the project’s major claims:
1. Preserving slavery was the real cause of the American Revolution.
If you asked the Founders why they no longer wanted to be a British colony, they would have given you a long list of reasons: Taxation without representation, conflicts over debts from the French and Indian War, and the Stamp Act would be just a few.
Probably most important was the burning desire to be free—to chart their own destiny as a sovereign nation. Protecting slavery? Slavery was not under threat from the British. In fact, Britain didn’t free the slaves in its overseas colonies until 1833—57 years later, after the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, the subject of slavery was hotly debated at the Constitutional Convention, but that was after the war was won.
2. Slavery made America rich.
Slavery made some Americans rich—true enough. Eli Yale, for example, made a fortune in the slave trade. He donated money and land for the university that is named after him. But the institution of slavery didn’t make America rich. In fact, the slave system badly slowed the economic development of half the country.
As economist Thomas Sowell points out, in 1860, just one year before the Civil War began, the South had only one-sixth as many factories as the North. Almost 90% of the country’s skilled, well-paid laborers and professionals were based in the North. Banking, railroads, manufacturing—all were concentrated in the North. The South was an economic backwater.
And the cost of abolishing slavery was enormous—not merely in terms of dollars (Lincoln borrowed billions to pay for it), but also in terms of human life: 360,000 Union soldiers died in order to free 4 million slaves. That works out to about one soldier in blue for every ten slaves freed. It’s hard to look at that butcher’s bill and conclude that the nation turned a profit from slavery.
And many things have happened since 1865. In the almost 200 years since the Civil War, the population of the country has grown almost 900% and our national GDP has increased 12,000%. Slavery did not make America rich.
3. Racism is an unchangeable part of America.
This argument is more philosophical than scholarly, but it undergirds the entire 1619 Project. It’s also pernicious because it suggests that the United States is an inherently racist country that can’t overcome its flaws. Yet that’s exactly what it’s done.
Today, America is the most successful multi-racial country in history, the only white majority country to elect a black President—twice. Of course, progress has not always been smooth. There have been terrible setbacks. But to compare American attitudes about race today to America a hundred years ago, let alone to 1619, is absurd.
Here’s a fact that should be better known: Two million black Africans have come to America as legal immigrants—from countries like Nigeria—in the last 50 years, and have become one of the most successful groups in the country. Why would these folks move to what is often called an evil, racist country? Because, unlike many people lucky enough to be born here, they know that America is a land of opportunity for everyone.
It’s also only fair to note that while blacks have heroically fought for our rights, often against great odds, we haven’t done it alone. A vast number of decent whites have also advanced the cause of racial equality. To cite one of countless examples, the U.S. Senate that passed the landmark Civil Rights Act in 1964 contained 98 whites and two men of color (and they were Asian).
The great black leaders of the past—Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King—never lost faith in America’s promise that all people are created equal. None of them believed that racism was America’s defining characteristic.
They were right.
Shortly after The 1619 Project was published, a group of distinguished historians—almost all on the left—wrote a public letter condemning the work. They called it a “displacement of historical understanding by ideology.”
They were right, too.
I’m Wilfred Reilly, associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, for Prager University.
Stay up to date on our latest releases
PragerU is changing the minds of millions worldwide. Help us keep our videos FREE!
Help support our mission
To make a donation over the phone, call (833) PragerU
At $35 or more you’ll be a PragerUnited Member
- Free merch every quarter
- Insider updates
- Free Annual Membership Sticker
Prager University is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Tax ID: 27-1763901. Your contribution is fully tax-deductible in the USA.