In the perspective of the 1619 project, Robert Spencer points out (thanks to Ed Driscoll) that in saying in 2014 that “It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing”, Pete Buttigieg
demonstrated both his abject ignorance of the history of America’s founding and the utter failure of the American educational system to teach that history. No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters.Related: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History
Buttigieg, the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is 37 years old; he reportedly attended Catholic schools, not public schools, in his youth. At this point, however, that is a distinction with barely a difference: both Catholic and public schools generally teach the spirit of the age, and that spirit dictates that the Founding Fathers, when not ignored altogether, should be presented as white male slave owners without any redeeming qualities.If Buttigieg had received anything resembling a decent education, he would have learned about a fellow named Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States. Jefferson was a slaveholder, and that is likely to be all that young Mayor Pete was taught about him. But reality is seldom simple and cut-and-dried. As president in 1807, Jefferson promoted the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves, which outlawed the importation of slaves after January 1, 1808. Jefferson hoped that it would lead to the outlawing of slavery altogether, as he stated in his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1806:… The “Father of the Constitution” was another dead white male Mayor Pete may or may not have heard of: James Madison, who earned that nickname by being the principal architect of both the Constitution as it was originally written and the Bill of Rights (that’s the first ten amendments to the Constitution, Pete). Madison (yes, another slave owner) supported the prohibition on the importation of slaves, but was impatient with the delay of getting it going.“I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe.”
“It were doubtless to be wished,” Madison wrote in 1788, “that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation.” He explained that“it ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!”Once again, this sounds as if James Madison understood perfectly well that slavery was a bad thing. To be sure, there were some among the Founding Fathers who didn’t understand that, and anti-slavery forces at the Constitutional Convention had to make the hard choice between accepting slavery, hoping to end it in the near future, and dividing the United Colonies into two or more states, which would weaken them all. They chose the former, but that doesn’t mean that Jefferson, Madison, and many others, notably the irascible and fantastic John Adams, didn’t understand the evil of slavery.If by some bizarre turn of events Pete Buttigieg becomes president of the United States, he would likely not be the first product of our shoddy, heavily politicized, and frankly anti-American educational system to enter the Oval Office without any understanding of or appreciation for the greatness of the office he now occupied, and its illustrious history. The first was Barack Hussein Obama. How many more such presidents can the free republic that Jefferson, Madison, and the rest bequeathed to us afford to have?
• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project
• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project
• Clayborne Carson: Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619
• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret
• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”
• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"
• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory
• Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise
• Leslie Harris on 1619: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies
• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and ’70s
• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century
• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833
• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"
• 1619: Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"
• Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …
• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding
• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History
• Anti-Americanism in the Age of the Coronavirus, the NBA, and 1619