Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching ‘1619 Project’

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The bigger issue, and the one posed by creatures like Tom Cotton is really the question people dance around publicly "are we really better off for having all these slaves." "It was "necessary" to have slaves to get the constitution" (BS btw) "But wouldn't we be better off if there'd just been a way to get rid of all the blacks back then, and just be done with it."

It was politically necessary to not follow an abolitionist path at the time of the Declaration of Independence
purely because we were dependant on support from Southern slave holding states at the time.
From all I've read the Southern states were fully ready to turn their backs on the idea of a united and free
America IF slavery was abolished.

So it's absolutely proper to claim slavery was a political necessity if we wanted the American union and
independence from England.
Of course the abolitionist movement stayed strong and picked up support even as the industrial revolution
cut out the legs from under the agrarian South. Those are the facts.

 

[Slade3200]

There's really nothing to be discussed. The author gives only a partial truth to Lincoln's reasons for issuing the EP. She never acknowledges that he called for extending suffrage to all blacks.

I realize she's pushing back against the notions that whites fully accepted extending full rights to blacks even in 1865, and more importantly that America was actually founded upon the notion that "all men are created equal." But she's no more honest than Cotton.

Well she is bringing a different perspective and experience of history. Just as a case can be made that the history that we were all taught didn’t include much of the stuff in 1619 project. Does that make our history books false and full of lies? I don’t think so.

I also don’t think she ever proposed to give a comprehensive and complete version of history... she would still be writing if that was the case. But she saw gaps and elements in our history that have been lost and not recognized that she wanted to shine a light on.

so besides not being comprehensive would you say that she was presenting lies and false hoods from what you read?

Well I'd say our history is false if we just say "after the civil war we had the reconstruction amendments which provided full equal rights to blacks." It was not that simple. I think that at the time of Lee's surrender, most northerners were not at all in favor of joining hands in egalitarian solidarity to the former black slaves, who had no skills beyond farm labor and were illiterate.

Possibly all national histories are false in that they have to compress the full plentiful fruit of opinions on issues of a particular time into something more digestible. But she devotes literally a page to Lincoln's supposed moral faults on equality to express the historical fact that those in the late 18th and early 19the centuries who favored manumission, and later termed abolition, began with most favoring sending blacks somewhere else, and only later came around to accepting the pragmatic fact that there was nowhere else for them. Lincoln did not believe that in 1865, and he literally died after his speech favoring full suffrage for blacks. She LIES BY OMISSSION and intentionally obscures the factual record. For reasons of her own, she has to apply 21st century sensitivities to probably the greatest American ever, and certainly the greatest of the 19th century.

And on page 24

Anti- black racism runs in the
very DNA of this country, as does
the belief, so well articulated by
Lincoln, that black people are the
obstacle to national unity.
page 21
-----

I think that's snarky. I don't think Lincoln ever really expressed that. There's no debate that America developed differently that say …. England or France … after 1776, and that the presence of blacks as Americans and racism is one reason. The US is also "exceptional" in that people, of ALL colors, from everywhere want to come here. It is easier to start one's own business and be able to succeed by one's own efforts.

As for popular history, I'd say one would be better served by the recent documentary on Grant, which devoted over an hour to the failure of Reconstruction.

The bigger issue, and the one posed by creatures like Tom Cotton is really the question people dance around publicly "are we really better off for having all these slaves." "It was "necessary" to have slaves to get the constitution" (BS btw) "But wouldn't we be better off if there'd just been a way to get rid of all the blacks back then, and just be done with it."

I think that's the question that the nation may have a chance to address in the 21st century. Assuming we don't spend ourselves into being Greece

Good points... I had that line about the DNA as one of my flags as well. I went back to see if Lincoln’s actual words really reflected that. This line does support such an argument:

‘‘Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals?’’ ‘‘My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.’’

Don't get me wrong I think Abe Lincoln was an amazing president and did incredible things for black people. I was surprised to read about the recolonization meeting and see some of the language that he used. I understand it was different times and I'm not going to call for his statues to be taken down or anything. However, learning about that stuff does give more context and perspective about what it was like in those times. I don't think this is a bad thing to learn about and I certainly don't think it is a lie to write about it. I didn't read her section like it was an attack on Lincoln, we all know what he did to free slaves and much of what she included were his actual words, including his feelings about the evils of slavery. But he was also a pragmatist and knew that even if slavery was abolished the pathway to equality for blacks in the USA was still a long ways away. Considering this fact how can you not say that racism wasn't in the DNA of our country? Its a harsh statement but I can't really say that it is false. Can you?

 

[Slade3200]

You don’t seem to deal with anything at all. You speak ignorantly about things you don’t know anything about and then take no initiative to explain yourself or learn about the subject matter. It begs the question... what are you doing here? Just looking to vent or gain reenforcement from an echo chamber?

Id think that if you were truly concerned about using the 1619 project in schools then you would learn about what it actually said. And if you’re going to claim that there are lies then I’d think you’d take a minute to learn what those lies are. You don’t seem interested in any of that. So how can anybody take you seriously?

If by "anybody" you mean yourself or others of your ilk I think it's a given you will not take me "seriously".
That doesn't bother me and I would only be concerned if you found something commendable in my posts.

The thread issue, which I guess you "forgot" was about legislation to counter the radical left and the NY Times pushing this politicized radical BLM version of history in our classrooms.

Based on everything I've read and seen, including who is for pushing this on impressionable kids
and those against the scheme, leads me to believe it is more of the same rank anti American crap we've seen
in California using history books, by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomskey, for example to indoctrinate.

Go find someone who will waste their time exchanging posts with you. I will resist that urge.

You have no credibility to call it a scheme because you don't know and can't cite any examples of things you are calling lies. You are basing your option on articles that other write that support your political position. Thats weak and it makes you a puppet. If you want to be taken seriously then learn about what your talking about. If you are going to reference historians then understand their points and be able to reference and discuss specifics. Take notes from bendog. He and I see things differently but we can actually have a discussion about it because he took the initiative to read the work.

 

[Crixus]

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times‘s 1619 Project in public schools.

The bill—titled the Saving American History Act of 2020—would require secretaries from the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture to cut federal funding to schools choosing to implement the 1619 Project into their curriculum. The amount of funds cut from public schools would depend on teaching and planning costs for the 1619 Project curriculum. Federal funding for low-income and special-needs students would not be affected by the bill.

"The New York Times’s 1619 Project is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded," Cotton said. "Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage."

Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching '1619 Project'

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

Bj's pull quote


Catching much traction in progressive circles, the project has not been immune to criticism. Several of the nation’s top historians drafted a letter in December 2019 to express their "reservations" about the project’s historical veracity.

"It still strikes me as amazing why the New York Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support," said Gordon Wood, a National Humanities Medal recipient at Brown University.

Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching '1619 Project'

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

So cutting the funds so won't have any affect on the 1619 project reaching it's target audience? If not, why bother with a bill? This is why voting for the lesser of two evils is stupid and lazy. This is typical of the political elite. Mr.Cotton has done nothing of any significance. The bill probably won't pass anyway, and it will be forgotten after 2020 elections.

 

[Crixus]

Why is 1619 leftist propaganda?

Because the USA was founded in 1776...not 1619.

So schools don't teach anything about early colonization in America?

Looking at my kids stuff not really. You said you got kids. Crack some of their books. The stuff is bland. Nothing to scary, I figure it's like that so the teacher can fill in the gaps.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You have no credibility to call it a scheme because you don't know and can't cite any examples of things you are calling lies. You are basing your option on articles that other write that support your political position. Thats weak and it makes you a puppet. If you want to be taken seriously then learn about what your talking about. If you are going to reference historians then understand their points and be able to reference and discuss specifics. Take notes from @bendog. He and I see things differently but we can actually have a discussion about it because he took the initiative to read the work.

Thanks, dad. When I get around to it I will read some of the NY Times sponsored agitprop though I already know based on the NY Times and the black critical theory author they hired what their product is all about.

 

[Slade3200]

You have no credibility to call it a scheme because you don't know and can't cite any examples of things you are calling lies. You are basing your option on articles that other write that support your political position. Thats weak and it makes you a puppet. If you want to be taken seriously then learn about what your talking about. If you are going to reference historians then understand their points and be able to reference and discuss specifics. Take notes from @bendog. He and I see things differently but we can actually have a discussion about it because he took the initiative to read the work.

Thanks, dad. When I get around to it I will read some of the NY Times sponsored agitprop though I already know based on the NY Times and the black critical theory author they hired what their product is all about.

Ok Mr know it all... In the meantime keep spouting your ignorance pretending you know things that you really know nothing about. What a joke

 

[Slade3200]

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times‘s 1619 Project in public schools.

The bill—titled the Saving American History Act of 2020—would require secretaries from the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture to cut federal funding to schools choosing to implement the 1619 Project into their curriculum. The amount of funds cut from public schools would depend on teaching and planning costs for the 1619 Project curriculum. Federal funding for low-income and special-needs students would not be affected by the bill.

"The New York Times’s 1619 Project is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded," Cotton said. "Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage."

Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching '1619 Project'

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

Bj's pull quote


Catching much traction in progressive circles, the project has not been immune to criticism. Several of the nation’s top historians drafted a letter in December 2019 to express their "reservations" about the project’s historical veracity.

"It still strikes me as amazing why the New York Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support," said Gordon Wood, a National Humanities Medal recipient at Brown University.

Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching '1619 Project'

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

So cutting the funds so won't have any affect on the 1619 project reaching it's target audience? If not, why bother with a bill? This is why voting for the lesser of two evils is stupid and lazy. This is typical of the political elite. Mr.Cotton has done nothing of any significance. The bill probably won't pass anyway, and it will be forgotten after 2020 elections.

The bill is a waste of time and shows how phony Mr Cotton is as a so called conservative. That joker needs to be voted out of office ASAP

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ok Mr know it all... In the meantime keep spouting your ignorance pretending you know things that you really know nothing about. What a joke

Good luck to you too. I know what the New York times is all about and I know about Nikole Hannah-Jones.
She is a race hustler and deals in Louis Farrakhan style racial polemics and bizarre race based nonsense.

"On June 25, 2020, the conservative website The Federalist published a letter that Hannah-Jones had submitted to The Observer, Notre Dame's student newspaper, in 1995. In the letter, Hannah-Jones calls the "white race" the "biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world," and argues that "Christopher Columbus and those like him were no different then [sic] Hitler." The letter also invokes the fringe theory that the Olmecs of ancient Mesoamerica were of partially African origin."
Not even a word how blacks designed and engineered the pyramids? Disappointing.

 

[bendog]

You don’t seem to deal with anything at all. You speak ignorantly about things you don’t know anything about and then take no initiative to explain yourself or learn about the subject matter. It begs the question... what are you doing here? Just looking to vent or gain reenforcement from an echo chamber?

Id think that if you were truly concerned about using the 1619 project in schools then you would learn about what it actually said. And if you’re going to claim that there are lies then I’d think you’d take a minute to learn what those lies are. You don’t seem interested in any of that. So how can anybody take you seriously?

If by "anybody" you mean yourself or others of your ilk I think it's a given you will not take me "seriously".
That doesn't bother me and I would only be concerned if you found something commendable in my posts.

The thread issue, which I guess you "forgot" was about legislation to counter the radical left and the NY Times pushing this politicized radical BLM version of history in our classrooms.

Based on everything I've read and seen, including who is for pushing this on impressionable kids
and those against the scheme, leads me to believe it is more of the same rank anti American crap we've seen
in California using history books, by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomskey, for example to indoctrinate.

Go find someone who will waste their time exchanging posts with you. I will resist that urge.

I'm not sure Tom Cotton's attack on reformation (-: in education is the same as historical criticism of the 1619 project. I don't see that people like professor McPherson are opposed to reexamining.

The NYT editor's take was "
s The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life." (I'm not sure I'm allowed to link to the NYT)

I personally think entirely rewriting the history, even to correct it, is a fool's errand. But examining how a specific statute got erected where, and WHY, is different. One might ask whether Thurgood Marshall was the first black on the Supreme Court, and which earlier black candidates might have been qualified. One might ask why - specifically, Louis Armstrong wasn't allowed to pay with his friend Jack Teagarden. Not just because places were racist, but why specifically was something so innocuous a threat.

Maybe more fundamentally, people like Tom Cotton (who's the shortlist for future nativist/populist whites for the presidency) are mightily threatened by the concept that America maybe was NOT based on ALLMENARECREATEDEQUAL. If blacks are a fully human beings as we whites are …. America was not founded on that notion UNLESS WE DEFINE HUMAN DIFFERENTLY THAN WE DID IN 1787.

And if that's true, is it a surprise that blacks have not assimilated as well as say …. Asians (who were also legally discriminated against) or Irish? What should, or can, we do?

How do Millennials or Generation Z view racial and religious diversity in marriage and child rearing? Is that different than older people?

Do minorities view govt differently than whites. Or Asians. Or latino/Hispanics?

 

[Slade3200]

Ok Mr know it all... In the meantime keep spouting your ignorance pretending you know things that you really know nothing about. What a joke

Good luck to you too. I know what the New York times is all about and I know about Nikole Hannah-Jones.
She is a race hustler and deals in Louis Farrakhan style racial polemics and bizarre race based nonsense.

"On June 25, 2020, the conservative website The Federalist published a letter that Hannah-Jones had submitted to The Observer, Notre Dame's student newspaper, in 1995. In the letter, Hannah-Jones calls the "white race" the "biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world," and argues that "Christopher Columbus and those like him were no different then [sic] Hitler." The letter also invokes the fringe theory that the Olmecs of ancient Mesoamerica were of partially African origin."
Not even a word how blacks designed and engineered the pyramids? Disappointing.

Again you seem limited to personal attacks written by right wing publications. Have you actually ever read the work? Don’t your own fact checking?

i read the 1619 passage about Lincoln after you mentioned it. Three things flagged me as over the line statements. I then fact checked them. I was hoping to discuss but you don’t seem interested in details so what are we doing here?

 

[bendog]

The bigger issue, and the one posed by creatures like Tom Cotton is really the question people dance around publicly "are we really better off for having all these slaves." "It was "necessary" to have slaves to get the constitution" (BS btw) "But wouldn't we be better off if there'd just been a way to get rid of all the blacks back then, and just be done with it."

So it's absolutely proper to claim slavery was a political necessity if we wanted the American union and
independence from England.
Of course the abolitionist movement stayed strong and picked up support even as the industrial revolution
cut out the legs from under the agrarian South. Those are the facts.

Tom Cotton didn't say slavery was a "pollical necessity."

"
It was politically necessary to not follow an abolitionist path at the time of the Declaration of Independence
purely because we were dependant on support from Southern slave holding states at the time.
From all I've read the Southern states were fully ready to turn their backs on the idea of a united and free
America IF slavery was abolished."

You may have hit the nail on the head there. The Founders who did not own slaves were OK with an America that was not "free."

 

[Slade3200]

You don’t seem to deal with anything at all. You speak ignorantly about things you don’t know anything about and then take no initiative to explain yourself or learn about the subject matter. It begs the question... what are you doing here? Just looking to vent or gain reenforcement from an echo chamber?

Id think that if you were truly concerned about using the 1619 project in schools then you would learn about what it actually said. And if you’re going to claim that there are lies then I’d think you’d take a minute to learn what those lies are. You don’t seem interested in any of that. So how can anybody take you seriously?

If by "anybody" you mean yourself or others of your ilk I think it's a given you will not take me "seriously".
That doesn't bother me and I would only be concerned if you found something commendable in my posts.

The thread issue, which I guess you "forgot" was about legislation to counter the radical left and the NY Times pushing this politicized radical BLM version of history in our classrooms.

Based on everything I've read and seen, including who is for pushing this on impressionable kids
and those against the scheme, leads me to believe it is more of the same rank anti American crap we've seen
in California using history books, by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomskey, for example to indoctrinate.

Go find someone who will waste their time exchanging posts with you. I will resist that urge.

I'm not sure Tom Cotton's attack on reformation (-: in education is the same as historical criticism of the 1619 project. I don't see that people like professor McPherson are opposed to reexamining.

The NYT editor's take was "
s The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life." (I'm not sure I'm allowed to link to the NYT)

I personally think entirely rewriting the history, even to correct it, is a fool's errand. But examining how a specific statute got erected where, and WHY, is different. One might ask whether Thurgood Marshall was the first black on the Supreme Court, and which earlier black candidates might have been qualified. One might ask why - specifically, Louis Armstrong wasn't allowed to pay with his friend Jack Teagarden. Not just because places were racist, but why specifically was something so innocuous a threat.

Maybe more fundamentally, people like Tom Cotton (who's the shortlist for future nativist/populist whites for the presidency) are mightily threatened by the concept that America maybe was NOT based on ALLMENARECREATEDEQUAL. If blacks are a fully human beings as we whites are …. America was not founded on that notion UNLESS WE DEFINE HUMAN DIFFERENTLY THAN WE DID IN 1787.

And if that's true, is it a surprise that blacks have not assimilated as well as say …. Asians (who were also legally discriminated against) or Irish? What should, or can, we do?

How do Millennials or Generation Z view racial and religious diversity in marriage and child rearing? Is that different than older people?

Do minorities view govt differently than whites. Or Asians. Or latino/Hispanics?

Well said

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Tom Cotton didn't say slavery was a "pollical necessity."

He called it a "necessary evil". I think it's nit picking to get hung up on this point.

"It was politically necessary to not follow an abolitionist path at the time of the Declaration of Independence
purely because we were dependant on support from Southern slave holding states at the time.
From all I've read the Southern states were fully ready to turn their backs on the idea of a united and free
America IF slavery was abolished."

You may have hit the nail on the head there. The Founders who did not own slaves were OK with an America that was not "free."

And I think here it's also a mistake to ascribe to all Founders who weren't slave holders the notion that they were "ok" with America living with slavery.
They may have well decided they couldn't change the mind of slave states so they would live with a free
nation with this problem that they would bear until the time they could change things. Your claim is
presumptuous and overly broad.

Maybe some founders were but you cannot possibly know they all were.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Again you seem limited to personal attacks written by right wing publications. Have you actually ever read the work? Don’t your own fact checking?

i read the 1619 passage about Lincoln after you mentioned it. Three things flagged me as over the line statements. I then fact checked them. I was hoping to discuss but you don’t seem interested in details so what are we doing here?

Do you mean what are you doing here? I will discuss these things or other things when I decide I want to
and in my own way. Not under your prompting like a prissy schoolmarm with raging PMS.
Get bent, Jack!

 

[bendog]

There's really nothing to be discussed. The author gives only a partial truth to Lincoln's reasons for issuing the EP. She never acknowledges that he called for extending suffrage to all blacks.

I realize she's pushing back against the notions that whites fully accepted extending full rights to blacks even in 1865, and more importantly that America was actually founded upon the notion that "all men are created equal." But she's no more honest than Cotton.

Well she is bringing a different perspective and experience of history. Just as a case can be made that the history that we were all taught didn’t include much of the stuff in 1619 project. Does that make our history books false and full of lies? I don’t think so.

I also don’t think she ever proposed to give a comprehensive and complete version of history... she would still be writing if that was the case. But she saw gaps and elements in our history that have been lost and not recognized that she wanted to shine a light on.

so besides not being comprehensive would you say that she was presenting lies and false hoods from what you read?

Well I'd say our history is false if we just say "after the civil war we had the reconstruction amendments which provided full equal rights to blacks." It was not that simple. I think that at the time of Lee's surrender, most northerners were not at all in favor of joining hands in egalitarian solidarity to the former black slaves, who had no skills beyond farm labor and were illiterate.

Possibly all national histories are false in that they have to compress the full plentiful fruit of opinions on issues of a particular time into something more digestible. But she devotes literally a page to Lincoln's supposed moral faults on equality to express the historical fact that those in the late 18th and early 19the centuries who favored manumission, and later termed abolition, began with most favoring sending blacks somewhere else, and only later came around to accepting the pragmatic fact that there was nowhere else for them. Lincoln did not believe that in 1865, and he literally died after his speech favoring full suffrage for blacks. She LIES BY OMISSSION and intentionally obscures the factual record. For reasons of her own, she has to apply 21st century sensitivities to probably the greatest American ever, and certainly the greatest of the 19th century.

And on page 24

Anti- black racism runs in the
very DNA of this country, as does
the belief, so well articulated by
Lincoln, that black people are the
obstacle to national unity.
page 21
-----

I think that's snarky. I don't think Lincoln ever really expressed that. There's no debate that America developed differently that say …. England or France … after 1776, and that the presence of blacks as Americans and racism is one reason. The US is also "exceptional" in that people, of ALL colors, from everywhere want to come here. It is easier to start one's own business and be able to succeed by one's own efforts.

As for popular history, I'd say one would be better served by the recent documentary on Grant, which devoted over an hour to the failure of Reconstruction.

The bigger issue, and the one posed by creatures like Tom Cotton is really the question people dance around publicly "are we really better off for having all these slaves." "It was "necessary" to have slaves to get the constitution" (BS btw) "But wouldn't we be better off if there'd just been a way to get rid of all the blacks back then, and just be done with it."

I think that's the question that the nation may have a chance to address in the 21st century. Assuming we don't spend ourselves into being Greece

Good points... I had that line about the DNA as one of my flags as well. I went back to see if Lincoln’s actual words really reflected that. This line does support such an argument:

‘‘Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals?’’ ‘‘My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.’’

Don't get me wrong I think Abe Lincoln was an amazing president and did incredible things for black people. I was surprised to read about the recolonization meeting and see some of the language that he used. I understand it was different times and I'm not going to call for his statues to be taken down or anything. However, learning about that stuff does give more context and perspective about what it was like in those times. I don't think this is a bad thing to learn about and I certainly don't think it is a lie to write about it. I didn't read her section like it was an attack on Lincoln, we all know what he did to free slaves and much of what she included were his actual words, including his feelings about the evils of slavery. But he was also a pragmatist and knew that even if slavery was abolished the pathway to equality for blacks in the USA was still a long ways away. Considering this fact how can you not say that racism wasn't in the DNA of our country? Its a harsh statement but I can't really say that it is false. Can you?

No diss at all intended, but I don't see what discussing the specifics would do. She selects quotes selectively, and that was the historical criticism, and by folks better than me.

It's not a historical certainty that by the time of the EP Lincoln still saw recolonization as a possibility or even morally worth considering. Her quotes from the meeting two years after the EP assume Lincoln said all that was on his mind or lacked a ironic mockery, when those whom he asked about recolonization said they'd have to think on it. "Take your time, no hurry." LOL Lincoln was rather famous for asking for divergent opinions and expecting honest answers on issues, while not offering his own.

By the time of his assassination, there was no mention of recolonization, and Lincoln was fully supportive of some suffrage. In his last speech he supports Louisiana's plan a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. " Which is more radical than we'd think today, because that was ahead "of the curve."

I didn't read further than the first essay, and pretty much skimmed after she'd finished with Lincoln. I realize that Lincoln "the great emancipator" is a myth, and it's objectionable to her. but simply mischaracterizing the other direction is not acceptable, to me.

Thanks again for the link. I may read some of the other essays.

The NYT defended by saying "we're reporter/writers, not historians." Fine, leave history alone then. (-:

 

[bendog]

Tom Cotton didn't say slavery was a "pollical necessity."

He called it a "necessary evil". I think it's nit picking to get hung up on this point.

"It was politically necessary to not follow an abolitionist path at the time of the Declaration of Independence
purely because we were dependant on support from Southern slave holding states at the time.
From all I've read the Southern states were fully ready to turn their backs on the idea of a united and free
America IF slavery was abolished."

You may have hit the nail on the head there. The Founders who did not own slaves were OK with an America that was not "free."

And I think here it's also a mistake to ascribe to all Founders who weren't slave holders the notion that they were "ok" with America living with slavery.
They may have well decided they couldn't change the mind of slave states so they would live with a free
nation with this problem that they would bear until the time they could change things. Your claim is
presumptuous and overly broad.

Why was it necessary? Was it acceptable even in 1787 to form a nation with freedom for whites while enslaving whites? I don't think so. Not by a long shot.

Tom Cotton's also (in the next sentence) saying the Founders had some means or belief in ending slavery. ANd that is a lie.

"so they would live with a free nation." But you see blacks were not free, so to accept slavery for blacks not "all men" were created equal unless blacks were less human than whites, or at least those founders say their rights as superior to the blacks."

And that imo is why the Tom Cottons can'd abide 1619. For it's faults and the writers's agenda, it's logically inescapable that even the non-slave founders "found" their rights were superior to blacks, and all men were NOT created equal …. unless blacks weren't men.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The NYT defended by saying "we're reporter/writers, not historians." Fine, leave history alone then. (-:

Agree. The Times is simply leaving a disingenuous escape hatch for themselves so they can have things all ways.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why was it necessary? Was it acceptable even in 1787 to form a nation with freedom for whites while enslaving whites? I don't think so. Not by a long shot.

And yet whites were enslaved as indentured servants
after 1787. Children like Annie Oakley in Ohio were essentially indentured slaves right off the top
of my head. She can't be the only one.

Passage to the New World was given often in return for indentured service.

Necessary evil and political necessity...they are one in the same thing as I see it.

Tom Cotton's also (in the next sentence) saying the Founders had some means or belief in ending slavery. ANd that is a lie.

Are you certain? Not a single one of the founders wished to abolish slavery?
That's a bold claim to make.

 

[Slade3200]

Again you seem limited to personal attacks written by right wing publications. Have you actually ever read the work? Don’t your own fact checking?

i read the 1619 passage about Lincoln after you mentioned it. Three things flagged me as over the line statements. I then fact checked them. I was hoping to discuss but you don’t seem interested in details so what are we doing here?

Do you mean what are you doing here? I will discuss these things or other things when I decide I want to
and in my own way. Not under your prompting like a prissy schoolmarm with raging PMS.
Get bent, Jack!

What am I doing here? I’m here to talk about details. It’s too bad I need to weed through the empty trolling insults and seemingly endless subject changes and diversions to get there.