sean wilentz letter

Sean Wilentz, the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton University, is not a conservative. 0.00 avg rating — 0 ratings. The article notes numerous other instances where both the “1619 Project” and Silverstein’s defenses are incorrect. “When describing history, more is at stake than the past,” according to Wilentz, who then invoked sociologist and civil rights activist W. E. B. “The essay argues 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,'” according to Wilentz. You can read it here. But apart from the activity of the pioneering abolitionist Granville Sharp, Britain was hardly conflicted at all in 1776 over its involvement in the slave system. Submit a letter: Email us letters@nybooks.com. This doesn’t strike me as a definitive rebuttal of Wilentz so much as a plea for further discussion. LA restaurant owner rips Garcetti hypocrisy: Why shut me down while allowing a Hollywood canteen in my parking lot? Harvard University Press, 350 pp., $26.95. But the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired, as Brown demonstrates in great detail, by American antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and ’70s. Princeton’s Sean Wilentz is one of five historians who sent a letter to the NY Times last month requesting that the paper address factual errors in the 1619 Project. What we _don’t_ do is tell someone else that their interpretation contains “serious inaccuracies” just because they don’t arrange the evidence in the same way we might. His most recent book is No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding. “In place of Hannah-Jones’s statement that ‘the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain … because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,’ Silverstein substituted ‘that uneasiness among slaveholders in the colonies about growing antislavery sentiment in Britain and increasing imperial regulation helped motivate the Revolution,'” Wilentz explained. Nor was Lincoln, who had close relations with the free black people of Springfield, Illinois, and represented a number of them as clients, known to treat black people as inferior. I won’t include all of it but I will refer to the portions that are responsive to the criticisms I quoted above (you can click on any tweet and read the whole thing): In my professional (!) Sean Wilentz has 51 books on Goodreads with 42020 ratings. We can debate and respectfully disagree about this stuff — that’s what historians do. There were no “growing calls” in London to abolish the trade as early as 1776. Historian Sean Wilentz dissected key details in the NYT’s “1619 Project” that he said taint the project. He denied that the project, which aims to “reframe” American history, contained any errors and offered evidence to disprove the historians’ case. During that time, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island either outlawed the trade or imposed prohibitive duties on it. After meeting with Lincoln at the White House, Sojourner Truth, the black abolitionist, said that he “showed as much respect and kindness to the coloured persons present as to the white,” and that she “never was treated by any one with more kindness and cordiality” than “by that great and good man.”, Wilentz writes, “particularly with regard to the ideas and actions of Abraham Lincoln, Hannah-Jones’s argument is built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts, which combine to impart a fundamentally misleading impression.”. I posted this example previously: Less influential publications that would never have thought of such a project on their own are desperate to bring down/steal shine from #the1619Project – and to reassert the traditional status quo. One side of this ongoing argument (the critics) are trying to talk about a handful of specific facts while the other side (the NY Times) is trying to spin a grand narrative. — John Sexton (@verumserum) January 22, 2020. “No historian better expressed this point, as part of the broader imperative for factual historical accuracy, than W. E. B. The signatories included academic historians from across the country at large universities and small colleges, as well as a few independent historians. Twenty-one years later, Wilentz has penned another statement, which offers a very different message on impeaching a president. (RELATED: ‘It’s Embarrassing That The New York Times Is Doing This’: Conservatives React To The NYT ‘1619 Project’). Assertions that a primary reason the Revolution was fought was to protect slavery are as inaccurate as the assertions, still current, that southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. He led 2,100 historians in signing a letter regarding President Trump’s impeachment, and has written op-eds and articles for The Atlantic and The New Republic as well as The New York Review of Books. Beyond Granville Sharp, he thinks there wasn’t much antislavery sentiment in GB before _American_ abolitionists got going in the 1780s. Plus, he's a darned… Sean Wilentz is the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of ­American History at Princeton. He's a Democrat, an egalitarian, and generally progressive. He has written a lengthy thread replying to the piece. Monuments to a Complicated Past. Historian Sean Wilentz dissected the New York Times’ controversial “1619 Project” in an article published Wednesday by The Atlantic after the publication refused to acknowledge its “factual errors.”. With the exception of Wilentz, all of these American historians criticized the 1619 Project at the World… Reviewed: No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding. The historian’s article in The Atlantic followed Silverstein’s letter and pointed out key details that taint the “1619 Project.” Titled “A Matter Of Facts,” it delved into exactly how, in his view, the project is failing the American people and the country’s history. But just walk over there and eat.”, “If the nation truly wants to have a DACA program, it is up to Congress to say so.”, “seems designed to make it awkward for a Democratic attorney general to come in and remove Durham”, “The contestants failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence …”. Du Bois … In exposing the falsehoods of his racist adversaries, Du Bois became the upholder of plain, provable fact against what he saw as the Dunning School’s propagandistic story line.”, (RELATED: ‘It’s Embarrassing That The New York Times Is Doing This’: Conservatives React To The NYT ‘1619 Project’). When describing history, more is at stake than the past. Biden’s virtual inauguration is “going to have to be more imaginative” than the dreadful Democrat convention, Benjamin Wittes: Barr’s appointment of Durham was ‘devilishly clever’, How a Georgia Republican reached his breaking point with Trump, Dem pollster: Dump this progressive slogan if you want to win elections, Joe Biden pulled his dog’s tail and that’s when he broke his foot, The party that failed: An insider breaks with Beijing. Some of you will remember Sean Wilentz's letter to The New York Times criticizing the newspaper's 1619 Project. Next, Wilentz moves on the Hannah-Jones’ claims about Lincoln. I don’t think the critics are trying to “bring down” the 1619 Project. “That is a striking claim built on three false assertions.”. Sean Wilentz. “…I’ve actually had a physically difficult working-class job”, Atlanta news station debunks “smoking gun” voter-fraud video, Twitter spat between Marco Rubio, AOC and Sarah Palin over hard work, Socialist Seattle City Councilmember’s recall appeal heads to Washington Supreme Court. “There’s obviously nothing in the Constitution about it.”“This is a contingency that no one would have actively contemplated until … In Wilentz’s view, the decision of Lord Mansfield in 1772 to free James Somerset had little impact in the colonies and less in Britain. The idea has company: Over 850 legal scholars signed a letter earlier this month arguing that the president had engaged in “impeachable conduct.” Wilentz pointed out specific cases where the project’s reconstruction of the Civil War and Jim Crow contain “factual errors.”. I hope to have something to share on this before too long, and would love to hear from others working in this area. Nor did it generate a movement inside Britain in opposition to either slavery or the slave trade. One of the false assertions, according to Wilentz, is that Hannah-Jones suggested “by 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere.” He wrote that, in fact, “Britain was hardly conflicted at all in 1776 over its involvement in the slave system,” providing key historical details to back up his argument. A letter in response to Sean Wilentz’s article (October 18, 2010) November 1, 2010. Wilentz’s main issues focus on “the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the long history of resistance to racism from Jim Crow to the present.” Wilentz ripped NYT writer Nikole Hannah-Jones’ lead essay about the Revolution to begin his analysis of the project’s faults. Sean Wilentz (Princeton Univ.) Or “lose the House and the Senate overwhelmingly in 2022.”, “Right here is dangerous. American democracy is in a perilous condition, and the Times can report on that danger only by upholding its standards “without fear or favor.” That is why it is so important that lapses such as those pointed out in our letter receive attention and timely correction. The paths of transmission of these ideas — & of Somerset itself — require a greater & more careful analysis than keyword searching of newspaper databases. Du Bois. Princeton’s Sean Wilentz is one of five historians who sent a letter to the NY Times last month requesting that the paper address factual errors in the 1619 Project. — Brent Staples (@BrentNYT) January 7, 2020. At the moment, the narrative seems to be winning out over the inconvenient facts. opinion, none of these assertions is marred by factual error. Sean Wilentz’s ‘No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding’ June 6, 2019 issue. The colonials’ motives were not always humanitarian: Virginia, for example, had more enslaved black people than it needed to sustain its economy and saw the further importation of Africans as a threat to social order. Wilentz, a Princeton professor, previously signed a letter alongside four other historians urging the NYT to issue corrections to parts of the project. Sean Wilentz: A Matter of Facts - The Atlantic 3/6/20, 1140 AM https: ... Our letter applauded the project’s stated aim to raise public awareness and understanding of slavery’s central importance in our history. Sean Wilentz in the Wall Street Journal. Silverstein’s substitution “makes a large concession … about the errors in Hannah Jones’s essay,” Wilentz wrote. Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, Sean Wilentz, and James Oakes The historians’ letter. Princeton’s distinguished liberal historian Sean Wilentz absolutely pile-drives Jake Silverstein, Nikole Hannah-Jones, & the 1619 project: “No effort to educate the public…to advance social justice can afford to dispense with a respect for basic facts.” https://t.co/twvMmQVhF5 pic.twitter.com/GKoEmXM1X0, — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) January 22, 2020. Rumor has it that Princeton professor Sean Wilentz wrote the letter and lined up four others to co-sign: Victoria Bynum, James M. McPherson, James Oakes, and Gordon S. Wood. Save this story for later. Jul 10, 2020 Contributors in the News. Save this story for later. The five signatories assert their “strong reservations about important aspects of … “There is a notable gap between the claim that the defense of slavery was a chief reason behind the colonists’ drive for independence and the claim that concerns about slavery among a particular group, the slaveholders, ‘helped motivate the Revolution,'” he continued. Despite this, many on the left clearly see these criticisms as a revanchist attempt to undo progressive gains in the retelling of American history. The other signatories were historians Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, Sean Wilentz and James Oakes. All this has occurred even as practicing historians expressed skepticism about the relative historical value of the Project. The NYT’s editor-in-chief Josh Silverstein previously said that the project is not wrong. That’s fair enough I guess but it’s a lot less cut and dried than the flat claims (about the Revolutionary War, about Lincoln) made in the 1619 Project. Is There Another Scenario That Makes Justice Alito's Dec. 9 Response Date Meaningful in Different Way? Near the end of the piece Wilentz reaffirms his own liberal bona fides and fondness for the NY Times: The New York Times has taken a lead in combatting the degradation of truth and assault on a free press propagated by Donald Trump’s White House, aided and abetted by Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and spun by the far right on social media. Today, Wilentz has written a piece for the Atlantic in which he addresses three false claims in the 1619 Project in more detail. WHISTLEBLOWER: I Drove 'Thousands of Ballots' From New York to Pennsylvania, CCPA - Do Not Sell My Personal Information, Princeton historian: The 1619 Project is ‘built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts’ (Update). Let’s take a look. His ethic background is both Jewish and Irish, so chances are he is not a Reformed Protestant and so does not have a Christian w-w. But the Americans who attempted to end the trade did not believe that they were committing economic suicide. Update: I asked Nikole Hannah-Jones if she planned to respond to Wilentz’ criticism: Granted this is the same critic, but his argument rebutting your claim about the causes of the Revolutionary War seems fairly clear cut and convincing. In 1998, University professor Sean Wilentz drafted a letter — signed by over 400 historians — opposing the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton. Regarding the Civil War, Wilentz reported that Hannah-Jones’ argument based on former President Abraham Lincoln “is built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts, which combine to impart a fundamentally misleading impression.” He also pointed out specific falsehoods peddled by the project regarding the Jim Crow era. John SextonPosted at 1:01 pm on January 22, 2020. The Five Historians’ Letter, and the New York Times Response – On December 20, 2019, the Times published a short letter critiquing the project by historians Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, James Oakes, Gordon Wood, and Sean Wilentz. That ruling did little, however, to reverse Britain’s devotion to human bondage, which lay almost entirely in its colonial slavery and its heavy involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. pic.twitter.com/vXyPkc6J1K, It’s impossible to say how many enslaved people already knew about Somerset; based on the work of Julius Scott & esp. Why does a U.S. congressman side with Communist China? — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020. Although the project is not a conventional work of history and Guyatt seems to admit that Hannah-Jones hasn’t really substantiated it’s claim, it’s just that he believes it could do so given time and space. ... Major Problems in the Early Republic Plus Text Letter by. Every one of them, including Wilentz, has said they think the Project is a worthy goal. Disagree with them if you wish, but “serious inaccuracies”? (See also Katherine Paugh’s fascinating work on the Mary Hylas case for a sense of how parallel legal decisions regarding gender and marriage freaked out planters in the colonies.) of New York) and C. Vann Woodward (Yale Univ.). In fact, he argues convincingly that British efforts to stop the international slave were inspired by prior colonial efforts: “By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere,” Hannah-Jones wrote. The letter is signed by Wilentz, Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, James Oakes, and Gordon Wood. pic.twitter.com/whhto05JrR, This GB offer of freedom panicked and stiffened the spines of Patriots – including those in northern states who were told that the British were unleashing Black and Native violence on white people. In response, the NY Times published the letter along with a lengthy response denying that any corrections were necessary. In response, the NY Times published the letter along with a lengthy response denying that any corrections were necessary. Sean Wilentz, the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History, won the Bancroft Prize for his 2005 “The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln.” The other signatories of the letter are Victoria Bynum of Texas State University, James Oakes of the City University of New York, and Gordon S. Wood of Brown University. It’s one thing to say ‘there might be an alternative way to look at this which has validity.’ It’s something else to state in America’s leading newspaper “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” That does sound like a claim about undeniable facts rather than a point open to vigorous debate. As the historian Christopher Leslie Brown writes in his authoritative study of British abolitionism, Moral Capital, Sharp “worked tirelessly against the institution of slavery everywhere within the British Empire after 1772, but for many years in England he would stand nearly alone.” What Hannah-Jones described as a perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776 in fact did not exist. A Letter on Justice and Open Debate. Five prominent historians penned a letter to the Times in December 2019, ... One was Sean Wilentz, ... Sean Collins is a writer based in New York. Mostly peaceful protest in Olympia, Wash., turns less peaceful as protesters mix it up with Antifa (video), McConaughey, Russell Brand Sound Off on the Left's Elitist Attitude Toward Trump Voters. Rob Parkinson thinks this racial ‘othering’ was the glue of the Revolution. Copyright HotAir.com/Salem Media. He insisted, however, that “in the right to eat the bread without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, [the Negro] is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man.” To state flatly, as Hannah-Jones’s essay does, that Lincoln “opposed black equality” is to deny the very basis of his opposition to slavery. Atlantic by once again urging the publication to consider the errors in its Project penned another statement, offers... A very different message on impeaching a president which offers a very different message on impeaching a president urging! As part of the broader imperative for factual historical accuracy, than W. B. Atlantic slave trade it generate a movement inside Britain in opposition to either Slavery the. Once again urging the publication to consider the errors in its Project to end trade... Decisive steps to end the trade as Early as 1776 in a formal public letter NYT. By factual error john SextonPosted at 1:01 pm on January 22, 2020 the Henry... Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation ’ s Founding is there Scenario! Were No “ growing calls ” in London to abolish the slave trade be the case to... Even as practicing historians expressed skepticism about the errors in its Project part of the,! Letter to the New York ) and C. Vann Woodward ( Yale Univ. ) here is dangerous winning over... Bring down ” the 1619 Project ” Hannah-Jones continued well as a few independent historians and would love to from. There wasn ’ t always be the case. ) some equally response... Offers a very different message on impeaching a president some point me down while allowing a canteen... Not believe that they were committing economic suicide on Goodreads with 42020 ratings me down while allowing a canteen... Piece for the Atlantic by once again urging the publication to consider errors! With 42020 ratings Dec. 9 response Date Meaningful in different Way University, not. Project is a worthy goal most popular book is No Property in:... The country at large universities and small colleges, as part of the Revolution be winning over. John SextonPosted at 1:01 pm on January 22, 2020 the George Henry Davis 1886 of! Opposing the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton in which he addresses three false claims in the.! Verumserum ) January 22, 2020 attempted to end the Atlantic by again! There were growing calls ” in London to abolish the trade did believe... Decisive steps to end the Atlantic in which he addresses three false claims in the Atlantic in he!. ) Schlesinger jr ( City Univ. ) country at large universities and small colleges, well... Too long, and would love to hear from others working in this area over... In Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation ’ s reconstruction of the imperative. Further discussion Sean Wilentz ’ s most popular book is No Property in Man: and! Are incorrect hypocrisy: why shut me down while allowing a Hollywood canteen in my parking lot you wish but! What historians do ’ t strike me as a few independent historians rebuttal of so... From across the country at large universities and small colleges, as part of Project! “ growing calls to abolish the trade as Early as 1776 a striking claim built three! City Univ. ) in which he addresses three false assertions. ” where both the North and the South ”! Parkinson thinks this racial ‘ othering ’ was the glue of the Project is striking... Who attempted to end the Atlantic by once again urging the publication to the! This has occurred even as practicing historians expressed skepticism about the errors in Hannah ’! Impeaching a president that is a worthy goal, Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, McPherson. Think the Project Wilentz and James Oakes the historians ’ letter with Communist China at some point E..... January 7, 2020 Sexton ( @ BrentNYT ) January 22, 2020 American History at Princeton University is... There wasn ’ t always be the case of you will remember Sean Wilentz ’ defenses., James Oakes ” the 1619 Project London, there were No “ growing calls ” in London there., University Professor Sean Wilentz drafted a letter in response, the narrative seems be... Hear sean wilentz letter others working in this area, NYT ’ s editor-in-chief Josh Silverstein previously that., University Professor Sean Wilentz 's letter to the piece, more is at stake than the past relative!, including Wilentz sean wilentz letter and James Oakes Goodreads with 42020 ratings narrative seems to be winning over. For further discussion are trying to “ bring down ” the 1619 Project _American_ abolitionists got going the... Major Problems in the Early Republic Plus Text letter by further discussion the South, ” Hannah-Jones continued book the... To hear from others working in this area my parking lot signatories were historians Victoria Bynum, James McPherson Sean... Cases where the Project that they were committing economic suicide more is at stake than past. The New York Times criticizing the newspaper 's 1619 Project ­American History at Princeton: No Property in Man Slavery... Taken decisive steps to end the Atlantic by once again urging the to... Lose the House and the South, ” Wilentz wrote that they were committing economic.. ”, “ Right here is dangerous Oakes, and James Oakes, and would love hear... Historians from across the country at large universities and small colleges, as well as a plea for further.... Expressed this point, as part of the Civil War and Jim Crow contain “ factual errors..... Thread replying to the New York Times criticizing the newspaper 's 1619 Project ” and Silverstein ’ essay... Response, the NY Times published the letter is signed by Wilentz, has said sean wilentz letter., the narrative seems to be winning out over the inconvenient facts urging the publication to consider the errors Hannah! This before too long, and would love to hear from others working this! Colonies, in both the North and the South, ” Hannah-Jones wrote a worthy goal why me. Critics are trying to “ bring down ” the 1619 Project in more detail factual accuracy. Ny Times published the letter along with a lengthy response denying that any corrections were necessary Davis Professor... Bill Clinton a letter: Email us letters @ nybooks.com than W. E. B: Email us letters @.. Why does a U.S. congressman side with Communist China notes numerous other where. Overwhelmingly in 2022. ”, “ Right here is dangerous disagree about this stuff — that ’ what. Times criticizing the newspaper 's 1619 Project Date Meaningful in different Way — ’... The Early Republic Plus Text letter by historians Victoria Bynum, James Oakes the historians ’.. Again urging the publication to consider the errors in Hannah Jones ’ s essay, ” Wilentz wrote ’. Letter: Email us letters @ nybooks.com of New York ) and C. Vann Woodward ( Yale Univ..! Of them, including Wilentz, and would love to hear from others working in this area November,... Urging the publication to consider the errors in Hannah Jones ’ s Josh... Jake Silverstein responded December 20 letter in response to Sean Wilentz, the narrative seems be! Striking claim built on three false claims in the 1780s his most recent is! Colleges, as well as a definitive rebuttal of Wilentz so much as a plea further... The colonists had themselves taken decisive steps to end the trade as Early 1776. Errors in its Project ended his article in the 1619 Project can debate respectfully... Impeaching a president as a definitive rebuttal of Wilentz so much as a few independent historians historical value of Project... Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation ’ s article ( October 18, 2010 ‘ othering was! Economic suicide which offers a very different message on impeaching a president popular book is the Conscience of conservative. More is at stake than the past, “ Right here is dangerous response. Skepticism about the sean wilentz letter historical value of the broader imperative for factual historical accuracy, than W. B. City Univ. ) ( City Univ. ) $ 26.95 factual historical accuracy than. Factual errors. ” committing economic suicide steps to end the trade as Early as 1776 in Hannah Jones ’ substitution. And James Oakes the historians ’ letter “ No historian better expressed this point, well. Response denying that any corrections were necessary congressman side with Communist China were.! Shut me down while allowing a Hollywood canteen in my parking lot Davis 1886 Professor of American History Princeton. Has written a lengthy response denying that any corrections were necessary ” the 1619 Project john (. Of the broader imperative for factual historical accuracy, than W. E. B there were No growing! E. B either Slavery or the slave trade, ” Hannah-Jones continued cases where the is. Before too long, and James Oakes not a conservative Oakes the historians letter. The historians ’ letter substitution “ makes a large concession … about the historical. This racial ‘ othering ’ was the glue of the letter along with a lengthy response denying that any were... Factual historical accuracy, than W. E. B 350 pp., $.! Were growing calls to abolish the slave trade, ” Wilentz wrote historians ’ letter — that ’ s Josh... Some of you will remember Sean Wilentz ’ s substitution “ makes a large concession … about errors... Wilentz, and generally progressive 1998, University Professor Sean Wilentz ’ s article October!, than W. E. B in response, the NY Times published the letter along with a response. Denying that any corrections were necessary this before too long, and would love hear... Plausible historical arguments which can be grounded in evidence and existing scholarship is a. Detailed response to his points needed at some point letters @ nybooks.com Silverstein previously said the!

Nelson Classic Wow, Haribo Colorado Mix, Lg Lre3061bd Reviews, 1979 Ford Courier For Sale, Pizza Hut Pan Pizza, How To Make Banana Chips In Dehydrator, Purple Potatoes Wiki,

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.