It is useful to have frequent reminders that people often resort to deception to peddle their beliefs. The book The 1619 Project Myth by Phillip W. Magness is highly valuable in that regard, as it devastates the historical accuracy of “The 1619 Project” published by The New York Times.
That long magazine piece was the brainchild of one of its writers, Nikole Hannah-Jones, who used it to make her breathtaking claim that the true date of America’s founding was not 1776, but rather 1619, the year when the first slaves were landed in North America.
Why say that?
The answer is that, like so many “progressives,” Nikole Hannah-Jones wants to undermine the idea that the United States was founded to increase the people’s freedom and replace it with the notion that the nation’s founding was rooted in slavery and oppression. The American Revolution was fought, in her telling, to preserve slavery, which the colonists feared was going to be ended by the British government. Moreover, she and several of her co-authors maintained, the effects of slavery are still with us. What better way to get people to think of America as a terrible nation that’s in need of radical (or revolutionary) transformation?
Almost immediately after its publication, “The 1619 Project” came under fire from scholars (and not just those on the political right) who found its claims to be unsupported, implausible, and misleading. Among the first was economic historian Phillip W. Magness, now a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute. He wrote several critical essays about different aspects of the Project, which he compiled into a book in 2020. Now, with more time to reflect on the issues and respond to recent spin-offs from the Project, he has put out a new version. It’s a demolition job of the first magnitude.
Magness writes, “Each new permutation of Hannah-Jones’s work has veered more heavily into political advocacy, taking greater liberties with evidence in the process.” But, faced with a mountain of counter-argument, the New York Times has only made one carefully hidden concession about the doubtful claims in it, while Hannah-Jones and her major contributing author, Professor Matthew Desmond, avoid serious confrontations with those who criticize their work and resort to ad hominem attacks.
The book is more than a point-by-point refutation of the claims in the Project. In it, readers also learn a lot about the history of capitalism in America that they probably would not find anywhere else. Here’s just one example.
While Hannah-Jones and her collaborators want to make people believe that slavery and capitalism were somehow in league in early America, that’s the opposite of the truth. Magness recounts the story of the Tappan brothers of New York City. They were successful merchants who opposed slavery. In 1834, they invited Rev. Samuel Cornish, a black American and abolitionist, to their Sunday worship service. That led to a mob attack on their business and homes, as pro-slavery New Yorkers called their gesture of solidarity an invitation to a slave revolt. Between mob violence and a boycott against them, the Tappans were nearly ruined. But, just when all seemed lost, Lewis Tappan came up with a brilliant plan to revive his business by offering to deal on credit with trusted associates in the abolitionist movement. The result was the New York Mercantile Agency, the forerunner of Dun & Bradstreet. Capitalism and slavery were friends? Nothing could be further from the truth.
Or consider the thesis, advanced by Prof. Desmond, that the American economy was extremely dependent on cotton produced by slavery — so dependent that it was really the driving force behind the nation’s early growth. Magness demonstrates that his claim is not remotely supported by the evidence, then turns the tables by informing the readers that one of the foremost advocates of slavery in antebellum America was one George Fitzhugh, who ranted against the ideas of Adam Smith and other free-market advocates. Fitzhugh declared that the South “must throw Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo & Co. in the fire.”
In short, the philosophy of capitalism was utterly incompatible with slavery, and the pro-slavery crowd knew it. Of course, you will hear none of that from Hannah-Jones or her supporters.
Another revealing spin-off from the 1619 Project is how it affected the American Historical Association (AHA). The president of the AHA, James Sweet, had the temerity to cast doubt on the truthfulness of the claims in a tweet, writing, “As journalism, it is powerful and effective, but is it history?”
Sweet quickly learned that one is not permitted to ask questions about something so important to the left as this. Magness writes, “Incensed at even the mildest suggestion that politicization was undermining the integrity of historical scholarship, the activist wing of the history profession showed up at the AHA’s thread and began demanding Sweet’s cancellation.” So great was the uproar that Sweet felt the need to issue a groveling apology for having “caused harm” with his tweet. The activists did not bother to engage with Sweet and defend the 1619 Project — they just wanted to see him punished for his apostasy.
If there was ever the slightest doubt as to the political purpose of the 1619 Project, it was erased when Hannah-Jones, in the subsequent Hulu TV series based upon it, called for the nation to pay reparations for slavery. That idea has long been dismissed by scholars of all races as unjust and economically ruinous. Nevertheless, she blithely stated that reparations were needed to atone for our racist past and, to explain how we could pay for the trillions it would cost, told viewers that the government can afford anything it wants just by printing enough money. How do we know that? Because a few crank economists who subscribe to Modern Monetary Theory say so. Thus, the 1619 Project combines false history with ludicrous economics to promote the statist agenda.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn that the American education establishment has been eager to embrace the 1619 Project and bring its materials into school and college classrooms. The leftists who say that the Project is just about teaching students some neglected aspects of American history are simply lying — the materials in it are deceptive rather than informative.
Magness’s book will be of use to parents or officials who don’t want students to be indoctrinated with propaganda meant to sow hatred for the country and mislead students about capitalism.
The next time you hear anything positive about the 1619 Project, reach for Magness’s excellent book.