Nikole Hannah-Jones: 1619 Project Incorrect

In the latest issue of National Review, we take a deeper look at The New York Times Magazine 1619 Project and the history of American slavery. An additional word is in order on how the book version of the 1619 Project (released in November 2021) digs in on the most controversial claim by its lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones.

To recap ground that will be familiar to readers who have followed the 1619 Project and its issues with the truth: Hannah-Jones now-infamously claimed of the American Revolution 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.” Hannah-Jones, who is not a historian, wrote this despite being warned in advance by the historian who reviewed the essay that it was insupportable. She has dug in ever since, even after the Times had to massage the language of that sentence with a “clarification” that it dared not call a correction. Why, other than being personally disinclined to give an inch to good-faith criticism, has Hannah-Jones remained unshakably devoted to indicting the American Revolution and the founding principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence? Because attacking the American Founding is central to her narrative aims.

In the latest issue of National Review, we take a deeper look at The New York Times Magazine 1619 Project and the history of American slavery. An additional word is in order on how the book version of the 1619 Project (released in November 2021) digs in on the most controversial claim by its lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones.

To recap ground that will be familiar to readers who have followed the 1619 Project and its issues with the truth: Hannah-Jones now-infamously claimed of the American Revolution 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.” Hannah-Jones, who is not a historian, wrote this despite being warned in advance by the historian who reviewed the essay that it was insupportable. She has dug in ever since, even after the Times had to massage the language of that sentence with a “clarification” that it dared not call a correction. Why, other than being personally disinclined to give an inch to good-faith criticism, has Hannah-Jones remained unshakably devoted to indicting the American Revolution and the founding principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence? Because attacking the American Founding is central to her narrative aims.