The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Genuine Historians Denounce NYT's "1619" Project
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times Magazine:

Letter to the Editor: Historians Critique The 1619 Project, and We Respond
Five historians wrote to us with their reservations. Our editor in chief replies.

Published Dec. 20, 2019
Updated Dec. 21, 2019, 4:42 p.m. ET

The letter below will be published in the Dec. 29 issue of The New York Times Magazine.

RE: The 1619 Project

We write as historians to express our strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project. The project is intended to offer a new version of American history in which slavery and white supremacy become the dominant organizing themes. The Times has announced ambitious plans to make the project available to schools in the form of curriculums and related instructional material.

We applaud all efforts to address the enduring centrality of slavery and racism to our history. Some of us have devoted our entire professional lives to those efforts, and all of us have worked hard to advance them. Raising profound, unsettling questions about slavery and the nation’s past and present, as The 1619 Project does, is a praiseworthy and urgent public service. Nevertheless, we are dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it.

These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or “framing.” They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds — that they are the objections of only “white historians” — has affirmed that displacement.

On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false.

Myself, I kind of like the NYT’s crackpot theory more than do the five distinguished (but white) historians.

My personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution is that it was motivated less by the urge to keep blacks down than by the urge to conquer the North American continent from the American Indians and their European allies.

You can see something like this in the evolution of Ben Franklin’s thought. In 1751 he wrote a massively important immigration restrictionist pamphlet entitled Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, in which he asserted that even without immigration, the population of the American colonies, which were largely confined at the time to the narrow strip east of the Appalachian crest, would continue to double every 20 or 25 years due to the low population density of the colonies causing high wages and low land prices, which led to marriage being earlier and more universal in America than in crowded Europe.

Franklin’s estimate of the American colonists’ vigorous natural growth hit Enlightenment intellectuals like a bombshell. Previously, European thinkers had tended to assume that growth of biological species tended to peter out as material things tended to get tired and worn out with use. Population growth in Western Europe had been slow, so the example of population growing inexorably in British America, as put forward by the distinguished and well-informed American, came as a shock.

Franklin’s implicit idea that population would instead expand relentlessly until limited by resources, competition, or grim self-restraint galvanized both Malthus and Darwin — we have Darwin’s copy of Malthus in which he underlined Malthus’s citation of Dr. Franklin.

So, because as countless realtors have explained: “Real estate, they ain’t making anymore of it,” Franklin called for limiting immigration to America to merely the inhabitants of the British Isles.

Franklin published his pamphlet in 1754, when suddenly the English colonies in America started making more real estate to fill up.

That year the young George Washington got into a firefight with French and Indian troops where the Appalachian boundary with the vast Midwest was least distinct: in western Pennsylvania at the headwaters of the Ohio River where Pittsburgh now stands.

This set off the French & Indian War, which became the global Seven Years War (World War Zero). By 1760, Franklin had lost interest in immigration restriction and instead had become the most brilliant demographic theorist of empire. In a 1760 pamphlet, he pointed out that the great American midwest comprised the world’s largest expanse of little exploited fertile territory, and that whichever empire controlled it in 1900 would likely have the manpower to rule the world in the 20th Century. The key strategic steps to the English-speaking ruling the world were to not let the French have control over the two rivers that granted access to the middle of North America: the St. Lawrence at the Rock of Quebec and the Mississippi at New Orleans.

The government of England followed Franklin’s advice on not giving up Quebec, but George III’s Tory-leaning ministers were less sympathetic to the expansionist-minded American colonists, whose greed for land had helped get Britain in an almost ruinously expensive war, which, luckily, they’d won. So the Proclamation of 1763 put a hold, in theory, on settlement west of the Appalachians. And in general King George III’s government was unsympathetic toward Franklin’s vision of a British Empire in 1900 where the weight of political power would be in North America rather than in Britain through force of number, especially because of the lack of aristocrats in America.

George III’s government tried to bring the rambunctious colonists under more control so they wouldn’t start more world wars do to their expansionism. And the Crown disdained giving political representation in Westminster to the swelling population of America, fearing its huge numbers of yeomen and religious dissenters would overwhelm institutions such as aristocracy and the Established Church.

So, my crackpot theory of the Revolution is that it had more to do with the American desire to beat up on the poor Indians and take their land, and that the Crown was reluctant to help the colonists do that.

But because I have my own personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution, I’m not all that dismissive or hostile toward the NYT having their own personal crackpot theory either.

Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.” …

The 1619 Project has not been presented as the views of individual writers — views that in some cases, as on the supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices, have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability and have been seriously challenged by other historians. Instead, the project is offered as an authoritative account that bears the imprimatur and credibility of The New York Times. Those connected with the project have assured the public that its materials were shaped by a panel of historians and have been scrupulously fact-checked. Yet the process remains opaque. The names of only some of the historians involved have been released, and the extent of their involvement as “consultants” and fact checkers remains vague. The selective transparency deepens our concern.

We ask that The Times, according to its own high standards of accuracy and truth, issue prominent corrections of all the errors and distortions presented in The 1619 Project. We also ask for the removal of these mistakes from any materials destined for use in schools, as well as in all further publications, including books bearing the name of The New York Times. We ask finally that The Times reveal fully the process through which the historical materials were and continue to be assembled, checked and authenticated.

Sincerely,

Victoria Bynum, distinguished emerita professor of history, Texas State University;

Bynum is the author of The Free State of Jones that was made into a 2016 movie starring Matthew McConaughey.

James M. McPherson, George Henry Davis 1886 emeritus professor of American history, Princeton University;

“He received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. McPherson was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003…”

James Oakes, distinguished professor, the Graduate Center, the City University of New York;

Author of The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics.

Sean Wilentz, George Henry Davis 1886 professor of American history, Princeton University;

Wilentz sees himself as reviving the pro-Democratic Party tradition of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who vindicated Jefferson and Jackson.

Gordon S. Wood, Alva O. Wade University emeritus professor and emeritus professor of history, Brown University.

“He is a recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for History for The Radicalism of the American Revolution”

These are big name historians, but they are all white.

The New York Times responds:

Editor’s response:

Since The 1619 Project was published in August, we have received a great deal of feedback from readers, many of them educators, academics and historians. …

The letter from Professors Bynum, McPherson, Oakes, Wilentz and Wood differs from the previous critiques we have received in that it contains the first major request for correction. We are familiar with the objections of the letter writers, as four of them have been interviewed in recent months by the World Socialist Web Site.

The World Socialist Web Site tends to publish some solid history-related opinionizing from a pedantic leftwing perspective. For example, I find their reviews of history-based movies to be helpful. They tend to feature an anti-identity politics, old-fashioned workers of the world unite point of view.

Here are the WSWS’s interviews with Gordon Wood, James McPherson, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes. Here’s an interview with black political scientist Adolph Reed Jr. as well.

We’re glad for a chance to respond directly to some of their objections.

… While we welcome criticism, we don’t believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted.

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. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is? In the case of the persistent racism and inequality that plague this country, the answer to that question led us inexorably into the past — and not just for this project. The project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, a staff writer at the magazine, has consistently used history to inform her journalism, primarily in her work on educational segregation (work for which she has been recognized with numerous honors, including a MacArthur Fellowship).

Basically, it’s The Bell Curve question once again: If we utterly rule out of consideration all the facts and logic in The Bell Curve, then how can we explain why only 7 blacks passed the Stuyvesant HS entrance exam in 2019, despite decades of massive spending to uplift black performance? As each year brings us further into the Post-1960s future, the answer for why blacks aren’t achieving more must lie far in the past, such as in 1619.

But of course the answer can’t lie even further back than 1619, such as in 1618 or in the t ens of thousands of years when, as geneticist David Reich has pointed out, humanity was split into two basic large populations: the Out-of-Africans and the Still-in-Africans.

It just can’t, because looking further back than 1619 would diminish the guilt that could be imposed upon white Americans to give their money to black Americans.

Though we may not be historians, we take seriously the responsibility of accurately presenting history to readers of The New York Times. The letter writers express concern about a “closed process” and an opaque “panel of historians,” so I’d like to make clear the steps we took. We did not assemble a formal panel for this project. Instead, during the early stages of development, we consulted with numerous scholars of African-American history and related fields, in a group meeting at The Times as well as in a series of individual conversations. (Five of those who initially consulted with us — Mehrsa Baradaran of the University of California, Irvine;

She’s an Iran-born law professor, author of How the Other Half Banks.

Matthew Desmond

He’s a white sociologist, author of a book on how evil landlords evict saintly tenants.

and Kevin M. Kruse, both of Princeton University

Kruse, who is white, is an actual professor of history, but his field is 20th Century conservatism. He is the author of White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism.

; and Tiya Miles

Miles, who is black, is a professor of history. “Miles offers courses on African American women, Native American women, abolitionist women, and “Black Indian” histories and identities.” Her books tend to be about black women who are descended from Indian princesses.

and Khalil G. Muhammad, both of Harvard University

He is a black historian who writes about race and crime.

— went on to publish articles in the issue.)

So, while the World Socialist Web Site has assembled a far more distinguished and relevant set of American historians, the New York Times’s crew has more Grievance Studies Diversity Pokemon Points.

… Valuable critiques may come from many sources. The letter misperceives our attitudes when it charges that we dismiss objections on racial grounds. This appears to be a reference not to anything published in The 1619 Project itself, but rather to a November Twitter post from Hannah-Jones in which she questioned whether “white historians” have always produced objective accounts of American history. As is so often the case on Twitter, context is important. In this instance, Hannah-Jones was responding to a post, since deleted, from another user claiming that many “white historians” objected to the project but were hesitant to speak up. In her reply, she was trying to make the point that for the most part, the history of this country has been told by white historians (some of whom, as in the case of the Dunning School, which grossly miseducated Americans about the history of Reconstruction for much of the 20th century, produced accounts that were deeply flawed), and that to truly understand the fullness and complexity of our nation’s story, we need a greater variety of voices doing the telling. …

Sincerely,
Jake Silverstein
Editor in chief

But as you may recall, the New York Times’ editor Dean Baque t let slip in August the actual intent of the 1619 project when he explained that it was intended to do what the Times’ flopped RussiaGate conspiracy theory failed to do: Get Trump!

Baquet: We had a couple of significant missteps, and I know you’re concerned about them, and I am, too. But there’s something larger at play here. This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s. It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well. Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story. I’d love your help with that. As Audra Burch said when I talked to her this weekend, this one is a story about what it means to be an American in 2019. It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred, but it is also a story that requires imaginative use of all our muscles to write about race and class in a deeper way than we have in years. In the coming weeks, we’ll be assigning some new people to politics who can offer different ways of looking at the world. We’ll also ask reporters to write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions. I really want your help in navigating this story.

But I also want to [inaudible] this as a forum to say something about who we are and what we stand for. We are an independent news organization, one of the few remaining. And that means there will be stories and journalism of all kinds that will upset our readers and even some of you. I’m not talking about true errors. In those cases, we should listen, own up to them, admit them, show some humility—but not wallow in them—and move on. What I’m saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden. They sometimes want us to pretend that he was not elected president, but he was elected president. And our job is to figure out why, and how, and to hold the administration to account. If you’re independent, that’s what you do. The same newspaper that this week will publish the 1619 Project, the most ambitious examination of the legacy of slavery ever undertaken in [inaudible] newspaper, to try to understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump.

… Baquet: OK. I mean, let me go back a little bit for one second to just repeat what I said in my in my short preamble about coverage. Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.

The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?

I think that we’ve got to change. I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.

This is no longer a story where the Washington bureau every week nails some giant story by [Washington correspondent] Mike Schmidt that says that Donald Trump or Don McGahn did this. That will remain part of the story, but this is a different story now. This is a story that’s going to call on different muscles for us. The next few weeks, we’re gonna have to figure out what those muscles are.

 
Hide 153 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sincerely,
    Jake Silverstein
    Editor in chief

    Surprise!!

    • Agree: Thulean Friend
    • Replies: @Jane Plain
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Sean Wilentz.

    Gotcha!!

    Not to mention most of WSWS.

  2. “In a 1760 pamphlet, he pointed out that great American midwest comprised the world’s largest expanse of unexploited fertile territory and whichever empire controlled it in 1900 would likely have the manpower to rule the world in the 20th Century.”

    What’s the name of this pamphlet? I’d be quite interested in reading it

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Andy

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

  3. Will Jake Silverstein do a deep dive into the identity of all the slave traders?

    • LOL: Mr McKenna
  4. The northern colonies were pretty anti-slavery by 1776, but Virginia and the Carolinas were pro-Tory. They only joined the cause of the Revolution after Lord Dunsmore issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775. The thought of 100,000 armed former slaves roaming the countryside didn’t sit well with these Southern colonists and so they joined in the Revolution.

    I wrote a blog post about this, mostly cribbed from other sources, that some might find interesting.

    https://colrebsez.blogspot.com/2017/08/preservation-of-slavery-major-reason.html

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @ColRebSez


    The northern colonies were pretty anti-slavery by 1776, but Virginia and the Carolinas were pro-Tory. They only joined the cause of the Revolution after Lord Dunsmore issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775. The thought of 100,000 armed former slaves roaming the countryside didn’t sit well with these Southern colonists and so they joined in the Revolution.
     
    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @ColRebSez

    , @Bert
    @ColRebSez

    Totally incorrect. The Rice Kings in coastal South Carolina , owners' of most of the slaves in the colony, were united in 1775 in favor of independence. See Buchanan's "Road to Guilford Courthouse." And they carried that message to the more inland colonists.

    The Scot-Irish of the Carolina Piedmont were strongly pro-independence and with their own relentless campaign against Tories and the British army drove the latter out of the Carolinas. The Mecklenberg Resolves was their de-facto declaration of independence more than a year prior to the explicit one made in Philadelphia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecklenburg_Resolves

    Your story is wholly wrong and apparently in service of The Anti-White Narrative.

  5. Yes the British conveniently offered freedom to North American slaves while they were importing magnitudes more Africans to their hellhole sugar plantations in the Caribbean.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    @B36

    Yep, the Brits didn't end slavery in the Caribbean until 1833. And when it did end they compensated 46,000 slave owners, not the slaves. It was the largest bailout in British history until the bailout of the banks in 2009.

    Not only did the slaves receive nothing, under another clause of the act they were compelled to provide 45 hours of unpaid labor each week for their former masters, for a further four years after their supposed liberation.

    The Brits definitely wanted to end slavery in the 13 colonies, not because they were anti-slavery but because they saw a growing economic threat that needed to be crushed.

    , @Louis Renault
    @B36

    If only those people in Africa had not enslaved all those other people ...

  6. 1. I wonder if editor Silverstein knows he’s the kind of person Steve wrote about in “Carved Upon the Landscape”?
    2. How would Hannah-Jones react to an article that said the big difference in outcomes between white and black Americans since 1965 has been blacks acting like Africans rather than Americans?

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @Redneck farmer

    She wouldn't react to it, because she would never read it. People like her, of whatever color, refuse to read people on their enemies' lists, or who write for "enemy" publications.

    Back in 1995, when Chronicles magazine published my first exposé on so-called Ebonics, I brought one of my two comp copies to a white relative by marriage. Not only did the good progressive "intellectual" not take or read it, he pushed it away on the table with a fingernail, as if it were contaminated.

    Very few people read their enemies' works. Most who do are from the Dissident Right.

    Some interns and operatives for places like the SPLC, ADL, RWW, etc., scan works by their enemies, but they are just hunting for quotes they can chop up for "ransom note racism" fundraising letters.

    , @Art Deco
    @Redneck farmer

    How would Hannah-Jones react to an article that said the big difference in outcomes between white and black Americans since 1965 has been blacks acting like Africans rather than Americans?

    If she's numerate and broadly familiar with the social data on the black population, she'd think that was a strange thing to say. Black Americans are very seldom cultivators or herdsmen and seldom employed in the in-town 'informal economy' you see in the third world. They are ordinary wage earners, with a modest crew of salaried employees thrown in. Their real incomes are about 10x what's typical in an African household. Literacy and public health have improved a great deal in tropical Africa over the last 60 years. However, life expectancy at birth among black Americans still exceeds that among Africans by about 15 years and adult illiteracy is vastly less common (< 2% v. 40%). Fertility rates among blacks in America are less than half of those prevailing among African blacks (and at replacement levels). Islam, animism, and syncretism (common in Africa) are eccentric or unknown among blacks in the United States. African languages are unknown among blacks in the United States. Familial patronage networks which have a professional man's 2d cousins into him for money and references are unknown among black Americans. Black Americans do commonly give their children ugly ersatz African names, but that's not acting like an African, as actual Africans favor European names, Arab names, or names derived from African tribal languages.

  7. Yes the British offered conditional freedom to North American slaves while importing magnitudes more Africans to their hellhole sugar plantations in the Caribbean.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @B36

    Ah, David Ricardo in action: let every black person enjoy that degree of freedom which best suits his geographical position in the Empire given potential economic growth.

  8. To me, it’s pretty clear the American Revolution was more or less as advertised.

    It was a consequence of the diffusion of enlightenment ideas combined with the resentment of American colonists long accustomed to functional if not formal independence at the attempts of the British government to assert its authority after over a century of more or less benign neglect. Absent enlightment ideology, the American Revolution would never have gotten beyond inarticulate unrest. Absent a population accustomed to the absence of external authority, it never would have occurred to anyone to revolt; it’s not as if the British were making outrageous demands.

    It wasn’t some deep-laid plot to do in the American Indians. Still less, of course, did it owe anything to any fears concerning a coming abolition of slavery. In context, that last would require virtually complete ignorance to advocate.

    It’s really sad how low the Times has sunk. It’s become an embarassment.

    • Agree: Herbert West
    • Replies: @Coag
    @Colin Wright


    it’s not as if the British were making outrageous demands.
     
    The Quebec Act was certainly outrageous, and arguably the most intolerable of the Intolerable Acts. Recall it extended the boundaries of Quebec, French law, and Catholic established religion to the Ohio River and trampled on the land rights and settlement plans of every colony north of Virginia (who all claimed the entire continent to the Pacific Ocean) and its intent was to prevent the intrepid Anglo settlers from moving west and provoking the Indians, by granting the vast land to the more lethargic French colonists.

    It wasn’t some deep-laid plot to do in the American Indians.
     
    It was definitely an open and honest plot to do in the Indians. Vae victis.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Lot
    @Colin Wright

    The Declaration mentions every possible grievance, the restrictions on Western settlements included.

    The authors wanted as many people to join them as possible, so if there were a group aggrieved against the British, they got a line.

    I think the settlement restrictions were relatively unimportant because they were not enforced that well and there was still plenty of cheap eastern land. As evidence of this, Ohio in 1800, after it was opened to settlement for a while, had only 45,000 whites, and that was by far the most in the Old Northwest.

    Western settlement restrictions didn’t directly benefit the king either like taxes did, so it was also one of the easier concessions he likely would have made later.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    , @iffen
    @Colin Wright

    It’s become an embarassment.

    To whom, Colin?

    Are you embarassed?

    I'm not.

    Is the Times embarrassed?

    Who are these embarassed people?

  9. @Andy
    "In a 1760 pamphlet, he pointed out that great American midwest comprised the world’s largest expanse of unexploited fertile territory and whichever empire controlled it in 1900 would likely have the manpower to rule the world in the 20th Century."

    What's the name of this pamphlet? I'd be quite interested in reading it

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    Wasn't the 1750's Ben Franklin pointing out (correctly) that unless immigration was restricted, there would be no more land for . . .

    the second sons in families?

    I mean, primogeniture laws guaranteed that the eldest sons were all set in the American colonies, but what about the younger sons? How were they going to make a living if they could not settle further west on their own farms? Wasn't that Franklin's main point?

    You are correct to point out that the prospect of actually moving to new lands west of the Appalachians changed Franklin's thinking by 1760, but to me, this is not "greed for land". Instead, it is the perfectly normal and human desire to have a place of one's own, a place on which to settle and raise a family.

    This push westward was not solely driven by families concerned with the welfare of their sons, but also concerned with their daughters - if the young men - especially the younger sons! - can't move west (and are locked out of the available land on the east coast), then who are the young women going to marry?

    In these very understandable concerns (timeless, universal, and probably encoded in our DNA) I see nothing that could be described as "Americans desire to beat up poor Indians and take their land."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  10. [NYT]: How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time?

    Reminds me of the Baath Socialist party meetings under Saddam Hussein. Delegates would shout that Saddam’s purges had not gone far enough; that he was too lenient; more must be done to purify things.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  11. Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.”

    Talk about an egregiously stupid notion. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade ended because of White Protestants in Britain and the USA. White Protestants in the USA abolished slavery. White Jews funded the NAACP and provided critical support in the fight against Jim Crow.

    • Replies: @Louis Renault
    @syonredux

    How many black regiments were there at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and all the others?

    , @International Jew
    @syonredux

    And Jake Silverstein steps in to defend Nikole Hannah-Jones who may or may not be capable of composing a letter like that.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  12. Philosophy professor at Yale

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    I would encourage everyone here to read this bastard’s twitter feed. A particularly chilling example:

    https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1208496614438035456?s=20

    This is why 1619 is backed by Pulitzer and Smithsonian and is being distributed to high schools throughout the country. This is the sense in which Steve speaks of those dying from opioid abuse as a conquered people.

    This is the voice of the conquerors. Well past time we all, left, right, and center, figured out a way to hang together or this son of bitch and his colleagues will have no compunction whatsoever stringing is up separately.

    Replies: @Lot, @Thea, @nebulafox, @bomag

  13. The Gray Lady is not merely left-leaning and slanted, it is full-on leftist World Socialist Web Site Leftist Maoist. By its own admission here. And since the NYT is a mouthpiece of the Deep State we can infer what the deep state has in mind for us: a boot stamping on a human face forever.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @trelane

    It’s not World Socialists. The World Socialists stand against them. It’s worse, far worse.

    https://twitter.com/GilmoreGlenda/status/1208148395271098369?s=20

    , @Pop Warner
    @trelane

    It's a Jewish supremacist daily paper, nothing more. They'll be left wing Maoists if it advances jewish interests.

  14. @ColRebSez
    The northern colonies were pretty anti-slavery by 1776, but Virginia and the Carolinas were pro-Tory. They only joined the cause of the Revolution after Lord Dunsmore issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775. The thought of 100,000 armed former slaves roaming the countryside didn't sit well with these Southern colonists and so they joined in the Revolution.

    I wrote a blog post about this, mostly cribbed from other sources, that some might find interesting.

    https://colrebsez.blogspot.com/2017/08/preservation-of-slavery-major-reason.html

    Replies: @syonredux, @Bert

    The northern colonies were pretty anti-slavery by 1776, but Virginia and the Carolinas were pro-Tory. They only joined the cause of the Revolution after Lord Dunsmore issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775. The thought of 100,000 armed former slaves roaming the countryside didn’t sit well with these Southern colonists and so they joined in the Revolution.

    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @syonredux

    Washington rebelled because his rise in The British Army, and thus British Society, was capped by his colonist status. Steve’s crackpot (sic) theory is largely accurate.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @ColRebSez
    @syonredux


    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.
     
    He really had not "lost control," particularly in the Carolinas and rural Virginia. He was pissed and wanted to teach the colonists a lesson. But once he started teaching that lesson he unified the Southern colonies in support of the Revolution.

    Replies: @syonredux

  15. We are headed for civil war because of decades of subversion. Distinguishing between the hypnotized cultists and the actual qualified historians is meaningless because of the numbers and positions of the cultists. In Virginia people are recognizing that the Constitution-attacking attorney general has a track record of only enforcing those laws he likes (we could call that the “Obama school of law”), but that hardly means anything as he openly violently threatens everybody in the state who does not live in his neighborhood. It’s not enough to see that they’te madmen because these are madmen with legal, governmental, military and academic authority. How many white people are going to die because of the New York Times’ race-hate agitprop? However many it is, their deaths will not be reported in the New York Times, except in dishonest memory holing as random, meaningless, or robberies.

  16. @B36
    Yes the British conveniently offered freedom to North American slaves while they were importing magnitudes more Africans to their hellhole sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
    https://people.uwec.edu/ivogeler/w111/slaves1.jpg

    Replies: @Bragadocious, @Louis Renault

    Yep, the Brits didn’t end slavery in the Caribbean until 1833. And when it did end they compensated 46,000 slave owners, not the slaves. It was the largest bailout in British history until the bailout of the banks in 2009.

    Not only did the slaves receive nothing, under another clause of the act they were compelled to provide 45 hours of unpaid labor each week for their former masters, for a further four years after their supposed liberation.

    The Brits definitely wanted to end slavery in the 13 colonies, not because they were anti-slavery but because they saw a growing economic threat that needed to be crushed.

  17. @B36
    Yes the British offered conditional freedom to North American slaves while importing magnitudes more Africans to their hellhole sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
    https://people.uwec.edu/ivogeler/w111/slaves1.jpg

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Ah, David Ricardo in action: let every black person enjoy that degree of freedom which best suits his geographical position in the Empire given potential economic growth.

  18. @Colin Wright
    To me, it's pretty clear the American Revolution was more or less as advertised.

    It was a consequence of the diffusion of enlightenment ideas combined with the resentment of American colonists long accustomed to functional if not formal independence at the attempts of the British government to assert its authority after over a century of more or less benign neglect. Absent enlightment ideology, the American Revolution would never have gotten beyond inarticulate unrest. Absent a population accustomed to the absence of external authority, it never would have occurred to anyone to revolt; it's not as if the British were making outrageous demands.

    It wasn't some deep-laid plot to do in the American Indians. Still less, of course, did it owe anything to any fears concerning a coming abolition of slavery. In context, that last would require virtually complete ignorance to advocate.

    It's really sad how low the Times has sunk. It's become an embarassment.

    Replies: @Coag, @Lot, @iffen

    it’s not as if the British were making outrageous demands.

    The Quebec Act was certainly outrageous, and arguably the most intolerable of the Intolerable Acts. Recall it extended the boundaries of Quebec, French law, and Catholic established religion to the Ohio River and trampled on the land rights and settlement plans of every colony north of Virginia (who all claimed the entire continent to the Pacific Ocean) and its intent was to prevent the intrepid Anglo settlers from moving west and provoking the Indians, by granting the vast land to the more lethargic French colonists.

    It wasn’t some deep-laid plot to do in the American Indians.

    It was definitely an open and honest plot to do in the Indians. Vae victis.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Coag

    The Quebec act said that the British wouldn't do to the Quebecois what they had done to the Acadiens (Cajuns) who as a result had fled to Louisiana from what became the Maritime Provinces.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

  19. @trelane
    The Gray Lady is not merely left-leaning and slanted, it is full-on leftist World Socialist Web Site Leftist Maoist. By its own admission here. And since the NYT is a mouthpiece of the Deep State we can infer what the deep state has in mind for us: a boot stamping on a human face forever.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Pop Warner

    It’s not World Socialists. The World Socialists stand against them. It’s worse, far worse.

  20. WSWS is all over Hannah-Jones for taking oil industry money https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/18/shell-d18.html

  21. @syonredux
    @ColRebSez


    The northern colonies were pretty anti-slavery by 1776, but Virginia and the Carolinas were pro-Tory. They only joined the cause of the Revolution after Lord Dunsmore issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775. The thought of 100,000 armed former slaves roaming the countryside didn’t sit well with these Southern colonists and so they joined in the Revolution.
     
    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @ColRebSez

    Washington rebelled because his rise in The British Army, and thus British Society, was capped by his colonist status. Steve’s crackpot (sic) theory is largely accurate.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Desiderius

    That would be his rise in the part of the British army, largely consisting of Colonists, which was defending the colonies from the French and Indians.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  22. The government of England followed Franklin’s advice on not giving up Quebec, but George III’s Tory-leaning ministers were less sympathetic to the expansionist-minded American colonists, whose greed for land had helped get Britain in an almost ruinously expensive war, which, luckily, they’d won

    The Seven Years War included every major European power and a mess of minor ones. It wasn’t a function of land disputes between British and French pioneers.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Art Deco

    It was convenient for the Brits to say so when they tried to raise taxes.

  23. “That year the young George Washington got into a firefight with French and Indian troops where the Appalachian boundary with the vast Midwest was least distinct: in western Pennsylvania at the headwaters of the Ohio River where Pittsburgh now stands.”

    One of the subplots of Cecil B. DeMille’s Unconquered (1947), taking place in 1763, is where George Washington, having commissioned Mason and Dixon to survey the land known as Western PA, wanted the small town of Ft. Pitt (modern day Pittsburgh) to be included in Northern VA. Meanwhile a traitor, a judas, wants the entire fur empire in the Ohio territories (Modern day OH, MI, etc), and so tries to stir up Indian uprisings among the Seneccas, Shawnees, Delewares, Ottawas, and the Mohawks, to be led by Pontiac.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phrYEKv0rmw

  24. They tell you its purpose:

    It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

    and they tell you who it was written for:

    “As much as I hope white readers will read it and have their minds blown, I hope that black people will read it, and feel a sense of ownership over this country and a sense of pride in our resilience,” Ms. Hannah-Jones said. “I hope to reframe the way we see ourselves in America.”

    Do you wish to argue “history” with someone who explicitly states her non-historical objectives?

    Why is she and other black Americans not entitled to their own history?

    Why should the NYT not be allowed to push a partisan point of view of their choosing? Is this the first time anyone has noticed that they do this?

  25. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1208241169366441984

    Philosophy professor at Yale
     

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I would encourage everyone here to read this bastard’s twitter feed. A particularly chilling example:

    This is why 1619 is backed by Pulitzer and Smithsonian and is being distributed to high schools throughout the country. This is the sense in which Steve speaks of those dying from opioid abuse as a conquered people.

    This is the voice of the conquerors. Well past time we all, left, right, and center, figured out a way to hang together or this son of bitch and his colleagues will have no compunction whatsoever stringing is up separately.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Desiderius

    Here’s how a NYT employee assigned to the 1619 project describes herself on twitter:

    “ Reporter
    @nytmag
    covering race from 1619-present//AKA The Beyoncé of Journalism//Co-founder http://idabwellssociety.org //smart and thuggish//#1619Project”

    Even 5 years ago I don’t think the Times allowed its news staff to be self-promoting political hacks like this.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Ed

    , @Thea
    @Desiderius

    Chilling indeed. The suffering of white families is of no concern to him yet he is white and has a family. He might want to review what happened to the original revolutionaries of the French Revolution.

    Replies: @Flip, @Ben tillman

    , @nebulafox
    @Desiderius

    These... these people are psychotic. I can understand the ridiculous desire to relive 1968 from people too young to have experienced it on the Left, even if I hold it in a mixture of amusement and contempt.

    But 1939? How narcissistic, how self-centered do you have to be to compare the world today to 1939, with a barely concealed tone of *longing*? All so that you can pretend you are somehow equivalent to the Polish Underground fighting for cultural survival against Hitler?

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ!

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @bomag
    @Desiderius

    A sort-of silver lining here is that the mask is off; he openly states that he is a leftist who wants to crush all who don't align with his views.

    We don't have to wade through protests that he is reasonable and is concerned about the greater good.

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara

  26. Yes, I think you are right about the Americans being unhappy about the British blocking their westward expansion.

    Benjamin Franklin would certainly have approved of Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Flip

    The Founding Fathers up through Lincoln loved projecting the future population of the United States.

    Replies: @S

  27. @Colin Wright
    To me, it's pretty clear the American Revolution was more or less as advertised.

    It was a consequence of the diffusion of enlightenment ideas combined with the resentment of American colonists long accustomed to functional if not formal independence at the attempts of the British government to assert its authority after over a century of more or less benign neglect. Absent enlightment ideology, the American Revolution would never have gotten beyond inarticulate unrest. Absent a population accustomed to the absence of external authority, it never would have occurred to anyone to revolt; it's not as if the British were making outrageous demands.

    It wasn't some deep-laid plot to do in the American Indians. Still less, of course, did it owe anything to any fears concerning a coming abolition of slavery. In context, that last would require virtually complete ignorance to advocate.

    It's really sad how low the Times has sunk. It's become an embarassment.

    Replies: @Coag, @Lot, @iffen

    The Declaration mentions every possible grievance, the restrictions on Western settlements included.

    The authors wanted as many people to join them as possible, so if there were a group aggrieved against the British, they got a line.

    I think the settlement restrictions were relatively unimportant because they were not enforced that well and there was still plenty of cheap eastern land. As evidence of this, Ohio in 1800, after it was opened to settlement for a while, had only 45,000 whites, and that was by far the most in the Old Northwest.

    Western settlement restrictions didn’t directly benefit the king either like taxes did, so it was also one of the easier concessions he likely would have made later.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Lot

    There was still an Indian problem in Ohio in 1800, but even then, 3 years later, we had added 15,000 people, and became a state.

    Replies: @Lot

  28. @Flip
    Yes, I think you are right about the Americans being unhappy about the British blocking their westward expansion.

    Benjamin Franklin would certainly have approved of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    The Founding Fathers up through Lincoln loved projecting the future population of the United States.

    • Replies: @S
    @Steve Sailer


    The Founding Fathers up through Lincoln loved projecting the future population of the United States.
     
    Quite true.

    Below is an excerpt of an open letter published in 1775 addressed to 'American soldiery' where the future population of the United States is projected in the year 2000 to be well over a billion people. Happily this was something of an over projection. ;-)

    [Note the reference to Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac on the newspaper's masthead.]

    Let us stretch our ideas to the year 2000, and our computation furnishes us with the number of one thousand five hundred and thirty six millions…


    https://secure-images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/11.93.2006/image012.jpg

    http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/11.93.2006/image019.jpg

    http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/216396?list_url=/list?qsearch_method

  29. @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    I would encourage everyone here to read this bastard’s twitter feed. A particularly chilling example:

    https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1208496614438035456?s=20

    This is why 1619 is backed by Pulitzer and Smithsonian and is being distributed to high schools throughout the country. This is the sense in which Steve speaks of those dying from opioid abuse as a conquered people.

    This is the voice of the conquerors. Well past time we all, left, right, and center, figured out a way to hang together or this son of bitch and his colleagues will have no compunction whatsoever stringing is up separately.

    Replies: @Lot, @Thea, @nebulafox, @bomag

    Here’s how a NYT employee assigned to the 1619 project describes herself on twitter:

    “ Reporter
    @nytmag
    covering race from 1619-present//AKA The Beyoncé of Journalism//Co-founder http://idabwellssociety.org //smart and thuggish//#1619Project”

    Even 5 years ago I don’t think the Times allowed its news staff to be self-promoting political hacks like this.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    @Lot

    Yes, but on the bright side the Times also declared this:


    It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred
     
    So it's just a matter of time before they turn their piercing gaze toward the mirror, right?
    , @Ed
    @Lot

    The NYT editor, a genteel creole from Louisiana, has lost control of the newsroom. The Woke rule there now and as a result standards are falling all over.

  30. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "That year the young George Washington got into a firefight with French and Indian troops where the Appalachian boundary with the vast Midwest was least distinct: in western Pennsylvania at the headwaters of the Ohio River where Pittsburgh now stands."

    One of the subplots of Cecil B. DeMille's Unconquered (1947), taking place in 1763, is where George Washington, having commissioned Mason and Dixon to survey the land known as Western PA, wanted the small town of Ft. Pitt (modern day Pittsburgh) to be included in Northern VA. Meanwhile a traitor, a judas, wants the entire fur empire in the Ohio territories (Modern day OH, MI, etc), and so tries to stir up Indian uprisings among the Seneccas, Shawnees, Delewares, Ottawas, and the Mohawks, to be led by Pontiac.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  31. @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    I would encourage everyone here to read this bastard’s twitter feed. A particularly chilling example:

    https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1208496614438035456?s=20

    This is why 1619 is backed by Pulitzer and Smithsonian and is being distributed to high schools throughout the country. This is the sense in which Steve speaks of those dying from opioid abuse as a conquered people.

    This is the voice of the conquerors. Well past time we all, left, right, and center, figured out a way to hang together or this son of bitch and his colleagues will have no compunction whatsoever stringing is up separately.

    Replies: @Lot, @Thea, @nebulafox, @bomag

    Chilling indeed. The suffering of white families is of no concern to him yet he is white and has a family. He might want to review what happened to the original revolutionaries of the French Revolution.

    • Replies: @Flip
    @Thea


    He might want to review what happened to the original revolutionaries of the French Revolution.
     
    Or what Stalin did to most of the original Bolsheviks.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Ben tillman
    @Thea

    Is he white? Seems highly unlikely.

  32. @Coag
    @Colin Wright


    it’s not as if the British were making outrageous demands.
     
    The Quebec Act was certainly outrageous, and arguably the most intolerable of the Intolerable Acts. Recall it extended the boundaries of Quebec, French law, and Catholic established religion to the Ohio River and trampled on the land rights and settlement plans of every colony north of Virginia (who all claimed the entire continent to the Pacific Ocean) and its intent was to prevent the intrepid Anglo settlers from moving west and provoking the Indians, by granting the vast land to the more lethargic French colonists.

    It wasn’t some deep-laid plot to do in the American Indians.
     
    It was definitely an open and honest plot to do in the Indians. Vae victis.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    The Quebec act said that the British wouldn’t do to the Quebecois what they had done to the Acadiens (Cajuns) who as a result had fled to Louisiana from what became the Maritime Provinces.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @Hibernian

    Correction: not "fled to" but involuntarily "transported to"!

  33. I love REVOLUTION.

    My crackpot theory is the British Empire shouldn’t have messed with Tony Montana.

  34. @Desiderius
    @syonredux

    Washington rebelled because his rise in The British Army, and thus British Society, was capped by his colonist status. Steve’s crackpot (sic) theory is largely accurate.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    That would be his rise in the part of the British army, largely consisting of Colonists, which was defending the colonies from the French and Indians.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Hibernian

    Indeed so. And it chapped his hide to no end that he was prohibited from rising to the rank necessary to win the hand of Fairfax's daughter due to his colonial status while dillweeds from the Mother Country were promoted ahead of him.

    The usual. He was not of course alone. Franklin was right and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later. Pity that sooner probably triggered a premature and thus abortive French Revolution.

    Replies: @syonredux

  35. @Thea
    @Desiderius

    Chilling indeed. The suffering of white families is of no concern to him yet he is white and has a family. He might want to review what happened to the original revolutionaries of the French Revolution.

    Replies: @Flip, @Ben tillman

    He might want to review what happened to the original revolutionaries of the French Revolution.

    Or what Stalin did to most of the original Bolsheviks.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Flip

    This guy's a Gletkin. He's not going to review a goddamned thing. His entire lot in life is to do exactly what he's told and not one thing more, and he relishes it.

  36. Many of my ancestors were Revolutionary War heroes, including a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.

    Different people fought the Revolution for different reasons.

    In the frontier, the war was clearly to get more Indian Land. There is a reason why tribes which had supported the French in the French and Indian War sided with the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812.

    In other areas, the war was different. There was an enormous disparity of wealth, and the British were making a fortune off the Americans.

    While it is true many slave owners sided with the Revolution, many also sided with the British. After the Revolution many Loyalists took their slaves with them to the Caribbean. For example, some of the building in Nassau in the Bahamas are copied from the style of buildings in the Carolinas.

    Basically the colonials felt the Brits were getting rich off of them, and were restricting their ability to make a living, including their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Paleo Liberal

    "...a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists."

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Hibernian
    @Paleo Liberal

    "...a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists."

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

    , @Hibernian
    @Paleo Liberal

    "...a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists."

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    , @Art Deco
    @Paleo Liberal

    to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    You cannot 'steal' something when there is no regime of ownership.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain

    , @bomag
    @Paleo Liberal


    ...their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.
     
    Most land was bought and traded for under terms of the time.

    The ability here was the settler's efforts to develop the land and tie it into trade networks.

    Don't buy into the Leftist meme that any wealth beyond subsistence living is acquired through theft.
  37. That’s two separate posts, really, Steve, your theory that I don’t know enough to argue about, and this stupidity from the 1619 project. I find it embarrassing to be on the side of World Socialists, but I favor truth over this Orwellian Ministry of Truth crap that I see from this NYT 1619 thing.

    I really didn’t know that things were getting this bad. We may have to homeschool to avoid my getting into a battle with a school district. The amount of pure purposeful lying going on is getting to Book of Revelation levels. That’s not a good sign.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I generally feel sympathetic to the World Socialists. (Despite being of a more paleoconservative bent.) I’m currently reading Paul Gottfried’s “The Strange Death of Marxism.” It’s a sad tale on how many European socialist/communist parties got either killed (metaphorically) or synthesized by Bill Clinton type Neo-Liberal/Third Way/Identity Politics. (Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.) Many socialists are still heartbroken that former friends and colleagues “joined the corporate enemy.” That Cultural Marxism is a unholy monstrous perversion that needs to be destroyed.

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Qov0MMOlL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://youtu.be/KvTDvcEGHVE

    Replies: @S

  38. @Hibernian
    @Desiderius

    That would be his rise in the part of the British army, largely consisting of Colonists, which was defending the colonies from the French and Indians.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Indeed so. And it chapped his hide to no end that he was prohibited from rising to the rank necessary to win the hand of Fairfax’s daughter due to his colonial status while dillweeds from the Mother Country were promoted ahead of him.

    The usual. He was not of course alone. Franklin was right and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later. Pity that sooner probably triggered a premature and thus abortive French Revolution.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Desiderius


    . Franklin was right and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later.
     
    Population of the 13 Colonies in 1776: Approx 2.5 million

    By the 1770s, London could no longer "bigfoot" the colonies. Some solution had to be reached, either Franklin's notion about representation in an "imperial parliament" or some kind of ( avant la lettre ) commonwealth status. Since neither of these solutions materialized, war was inevitable.
  39. I only know of Gordon Wood because he was cited in the “Harvard bar” dialogue in Good Will Hunting:

    That’s gonna last until next year — you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @cmpx

    Weirdest "heated argument with Dean Winters's even weirder brother" scene evah

  40. @Flip
    @Thea


    He might want to review what happened to the original revolutionaries of the French Revolution.
     
    Or what Stalin did to most of the original Bolsheviks.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    This guy’s a Gletkin. He’s not going to review a goddamned thing. His entire lot in life is to do exactly what he’s told and not one thing more, and he relishes it.

  41. @Colin Wright
    To me, it's pretty clear the American Revolution was more or less as advertised.

    It was a consequence of the diffusion of enlightenment ideas combined with the resentment of American colonists long accustomed to functional if not formal independence at the attempts of the British government to assert its authority after over a century of more or less benign neglect. Absent enlightment ideology, the American Revolution would never have gotten beyond inarticulate unrest. Absent a population accustomed to the absence of external authority, it never would have occurred to anyone to revolt; it's not as if the British were making outrageous demands.

    It wasn't some deep-laid plot to do in the American Indians. Still less, of course, did it owe anything to any fears concerning a coming abolition of slavery. In context, that last would require virtually complete ignorance to advocate.

    It's really sad how low the Times has sunk. It's become an embarassment.

    Replies: @Coag, @Lot, @iffen

    It’s become an embarassment.

    To whom, Colin?

    Are you embarassed?

    I’m not.

    Is the Times embarrassed?

    Who are these embarassed people?

  42. @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    I would encourage everyone here to read this bastard’s twitter feed. A particularly chilling example:

    https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1208496614438035456?s=20

    This is why 1619 is backed by Pulitzer and Smithsonian and is being distributed to high schools throughout the country. This is the sense in which Steve speaks of those dying from opioid abuse as a conquered people.

    This is the voice of the conquerors. Well past time we all, left, right, and center, figured out a way to hang together or this son of bitch and his colleagues will have no compunction whatsoever stringing is up separately.

    Replies: @Lot, @Thea, @nebulafox, @bomag

    These… these people are psychotic. I can understand the ridiculous desire to relive 1968 from people too young to have experienced it on the Left, even if I hold it in a mixture of amusement and contempt.

    But 1939? How narcissistic, how self-centered do you have to be to compare the world today to 1939, with a barely concealed tone of *longing*? All so that you can pretend you are somehow equivalent to the Polish Underground fighting for cultural survival against Hitler?

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ!

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @nebulafox

    Not the Underground, the Comintern. Not survival, dominance.

    This guy is utterly drunk with illegitimate power.

  43. @nebulafox
    @Desiderius

    These... these people are psychotic. I can understand the ridiculous desire to relive 1968 from people too young to have experienced it on the Left, even if I hold it in a mixture of amusement and contempt.

    But 1939? How narcissistic, how self-centered do you have to be to compare the world today to 1939, with a barely concealed tone of *longing*? All so that you can pretend you are somehow equivalent to the Polish Underground fighting for cultural survival against Hitler?

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ!

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Not the Underground, the Comintern. Not survival, dominance.

    This guy is utterly drunk with illegitimate power.

  44. @B36
    Yes the British conveniently offered freedom to North American slaves while they were importing magnitudes more Africans to their hellhole sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
    https://people.uwec.edu/ivogeler/w111/slaves1.jpg

    Replies: @Bragadocious, @Louis Renault

    If only those people in Africa had not enslaved all those other people …

  45. @Desiderius
    @Hibernian

    Indeed so. And it chapped his hide to no end that he was prohibited from rising to the rank necessary to win the hand of Fairfax's daughter due to his colonial status while dillweeds from the Mother Country were promoted ahead of him.

    The usual. He was not of course alone. Franklin was right and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later. Pity that sooner probably triggered a premature and thus abortive French Revolution.

    Replies: @syonredux

    . Franklin was right and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later.

    Population of the 13 Colonies in 1776: Approx 2.5 million

    By the 1770s, London could no longer “bigfoot” the colonies. Some solution had to be reached, either Franklin’s notion about representation in an “imperial parliament” or some kind of ( avant la lettre ) commonwealth status. Since neither of these solutions materialized, war was inevitable.

  46. @syonredux

    Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.”
     
    Talk about an egregiously stupid notion. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade ended because of White Protestants in Britain and the USA. White Protestants in the USA abolished slavery. White Jews funded the NAACP and provided critical support in the fight against Jim Crow.

    Replies: @Louis Renault, @International Jew

    How many black regiments were there at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and all the others?

  47. Gotta love a newspaper that decides what the story is going to be and then does its best to create it.

    It is reminiscent of a line from Fahrenheit 451: A little boy sees some firemen drive up and get out of their truck. He says to his mother, “Look Mommy, firemen! There’s going to be a fire!”

    Then the men set fire to a pile of books.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  48. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? —Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.

    Franklyn like many of the elite at that time and for long after had no idea how vast an area lay between the East coast and the West Coast. They greatly underestimated its extent.

    My personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution is that it was motivated less by the urge to keep blacks down than by the urge to conquer the North American continent from the American Indians and their European allies.

    The Founding Fathers were heavily speculating in land futures but the British deemed the territories belonged to the Indians. Post Revolution, George Washington was the inventor of blockbusting, and the first millionaire.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Sean


    If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? —Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.
     
    Johnson's stupidest passage. He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent...

    The Founding Fathers were heavily speculating in land futures but the British deemed the territories belonged to the Indians.
     
    The Brits just didn't want to have deal with a full-scale Indian war ( cf Pontiac's Rebellion). As the history of Canada shows,even if the Revolution never happened, the lands west of the Appalachians would still have been taken from the Amerinds.

    Replies: @Sean, @iffen

  49. Just wait. There will be a Hollywood movie about a group of black women who calculated cannonball trajectories and made the American Revolution possible.

    • Agree: ic1000
  50. For any readers without the time to read this lengthy entry, I’ll sum it up in one word: Repatriation.

  51. Regarding the pre-1960s milestones, don’t forget Emmett Till!

  52. @Paleo Liberal
    Many of my ancestors were Revolutionary War heroes, including a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.

    Different people fought the Revolution for different reasons.

    In the frontier, the war was clearly to get more Indian Land. There is a reason why tribes which had supported the French in the French and Indian War sided with the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812.

    In other areas, the war was different. There was an enormous disparity of wealth, and the British were making a fortune off the Americans.

    While it is true many slave owners sided with the Revolution, many also sided with the British. After the Revolution many Loyalists took their slaves with them to the Caribbean. For example, some of the building in Nassau in the Bahamas are copied from the style of buildings in the Carolinas.

    Basically the colonials felt the Brits were getting rich off of them, and were restricting their ability to make a living, including their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Art Deco, @bomag

    “…a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.”

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Hibernian

    Sorry for the triple post. I ran into a technical problem. I thought multiple posts were filtered out.

  53. The idea that the Revolution was intended to perpetuate slavery is completely and absurdly false. In his original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson ripped on George III for the slave trade:

    ….he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…

    As the last sentence indicates, one of the chief complaints the colonists had was the inability to control the slave trade, because the Crown was making too much money off it. Colonists were afraid that they would get outnumbered by slaves and face a rebellion (such as what happened in Haiti in 1802. Indeed, the Constitution of 1787 allowed states to have a 20-year exemption from Federal power over immigration, because the Anti-Federalists in the Southern states were afraid the new Federal government would flood them with too many blacks the way the Crown had).

    Jefferson then ripped into George III for trying to incite slave rebellions against the Patriots after combat began in 1775:

    …and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

    The French and Indian War did indeed have a direct impact on the Revolution — but not because of Manifest Destiny. There were two major effects of the French and Indian War: a) The Crown believed that the colonists should pay for the war, prompting the levy of exorbitant taxes that the colonists protested against for a decade, from 1765-1775, and b) the French and Indian War resulted in the first permanent garrisoning of regular British Army units in North America after 150+ years of colonial self-defense through the militia system.

    After the war ended, the troops remained, and the Crown began to use them as law-enforcement in the face of the anti-tax protests. The final straw was the declaration of martial law in Boston by Gen. Gage as punishment for the Boston Tea Party.

    Part of Gage’s crackdown was to enact gun confiscation from the militias… and they shot back rather than surrender their guns.

    The NYT’s “1619 Project” is completely FOS.

    • Replies: @Dube
    @Dr. X

    Well done, Dr. X, from Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration:


    ….he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…
     
    What's to be done is confront the emerging propaganda assault in School District and State Education Board actions, with rebuttals such as the above.

    The five historians make the most alert and salient of their action demands with the following:

    We also ask for the removal of these mistakes from any materials destined for use in schools....
     
    This struggle for history can be conducted successfully from the folding chairs of some District School Board meetings. Who here will prepare to show up?

    Replies: @Dr. X

    , @Mr McKenna
    @Dr. X

    Lexicographical aside: According to the Library of Congress, Jefferson really didn't know when or where to use an apostrophe. What amazes me is that this error (so common today) was common then and yet with all this passage of time it hasn't become 'legitimate'. Mr Reg Cæsar can probably explain. I sure can't.

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Anon
    @Dr. X

    You can't expect blacks to understand white history. They aren't interested in it at all and can't be bothered to learn complicated issues or get their facts straight. If it's not about them, they turn their brains off. Blacks have never had the curiosity about other cultures that whites have.

    , @Hank Yobo
    @Dr. X

    Perhaps everyone should read John Shy's book, Toward Lexington, as well as Jack Sosin's, Whitehall and the Wilderness. Both works have demythologized events between 1763 and 1775.

  54. @Paleo Liberal
    Many of my ancestors were Revolutionary War heroes, including a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.

    Different people fought the Revolution for different reasons.

    In the frontier, the war was clearly to get more Indian Land. There is a reason why tribes which had supported the French in the French and Indian War sided with the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812.

    In other areas, the war was different. There was an enormous disparity of wealth, and the British were making a fortune off the Americans.

    While it is true many slave owners sided with the Revolution, many also sided with the British. After the Revolution many Loyalists took their slaves with them to the Caribbean. For example, some of the building in Nassau in the Bahamas are copied from the style of buildings in the Carolinas.

    Basically the colonials felt the Brits were getting rich off of them, and were restricting their ability to make a living, including their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Art Deco, @bomag

    “…a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.”

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

  55. @Paleo Liberal
    Many of my ancestors were Revolutionary War heroes, including a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.

    Different people fought the Revolution for different reasons.

    In the frontier, the war was clearly to get more Indian Land. There is a reason why tribes which had supported the French in the French and Indian War sided with the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812.

    In other areas, the war was different. There was an enormous disparity of wealth, and the British were making a fortune off the Americans.

    While it is true many slave owners sided with the Revolution, many also sided with the British. After the Revolution many Loyalists took their slaves with them to the Caribbean. For example, some of the building in Nassau in the Bahamas are copied from the style of buildings in the Carolinas.

    Basically the colonials felt the Brits were getting rich off of them, and were restricting their ability to make a living, including their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Art Deco, @bomag

    “…a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.”

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Hibernian

    No, she was pure Indian.

    She became a chief at the ripe old age of 17, a widow with two children. She took up the rifle of her slain first husband, Kingfisher, and used it to lead Cherokee warriors in battle to defeat the Creeks who had just killed her husband. Her Cherokee name sounds kind of like Nancy, and her second husband was a white guy named Ward. I am descended from her daughter Katie, one of the two kids she had with Kingfisher.

    At the time the Cherokee had both men and women chiefs. Sometimes there were conflicts. During the Revolution, her cousin, the War Chief Dragging Canoe sided with the British, while Nancy Ward sided with the Americans. Tons of conflict. Eventually Dragging Canoe left with his followers to form his own tribe, the Chicamagua. The remaining Cherokee were friendly to she whites; the Chicamagua hostile. In other words, the question as to how to handle foreign invaders was sufficient to split the tribe. Things got worse after that. There was a decades long civil war between the Treaty and anti-Treaty parties. The first man killed was a Treaty Party ancestor of mine, the great-grandson of Chief Nancy. To this day, descendants of the Treaty Party are looked down on by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

  56. @Sean

    If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? —Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.
     
    Franklyn like many of the elite at that time and for long after had no idea how vast an area lay between the East coast and the West Coast. They greatly underestimated its extent.

    My personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution is that it was motivated less by the urge to keep blacks down than by the urge to conquer the North American continent from the American Indians and their European allies.
     
    The Founding Fathers were heavily speculating in land futures but the British deemed the territories belonged to the Indians. Post Revolution, George Washington was the inventor of blockbusting, and the first millionaire.

    Replies: @syonredux

    If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? —Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.

    Johnson’s stupidest passage. He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent…

    The Founding Fathers were heavily speculating in land futures but the British deemed the territories belonged to the Indians.

    The Brits just didn’t want to have deal with a full-scale Indian war ( cf Pontiac’s Rebellion). As the history of Canada shows,even if the Revolution never happened, the lands west of the Appalachians would still have been taken from the Amerinds.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @syonredux

    Happy enough to pay taxes when they needed the British Army to defend them from the French, but after the French threat was removed by a great British victory (in which the commanders on both sides died) suddenly the gun nuts did not want to pay. They were also bigots.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

    The Quebec Act of 1774 (French: Acte de Québec) (the Act), formally known as the British North America (Quebec) Act 1774,[1] was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The Act's principal components were:

    The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
    Reference to the Protestant faith was removed from the oath of allegiance.
    It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
     

    Obviously a Papist plot.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_General_Wolfe#/media/File:Benjamin_West_005.jpg

    The faithful Indian is realising there is going to be precious little gratitude from the Americans. It's a bit like the Kurds.


    http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/2311
    Major James Walsh of the North-West Mounted Police met with Sitting Bull and told him that the Sioux would now have to obey the queen’s laws and in return they would receive the queen’s protection. He warned the Sioux that they were not to return to the United States to hunt or to steal. Historian Robert Larson reports:

    “The Mounted Police were usually fair in their judgments; indeed, some of them, including Walsh, honesty believed that the Lakotas had been badly treated below the Canadian border.”

    Sitting Bull agreed to the terms offered by Walsh and declared his intent to remain in Canada.
     

    British fair play wins every time..

    Sitting Bull responded to the Americans by telling of his affection for Canada and even pausing to shake hands again with the Canadians. He concluded:

    “You come here to tell us lies, but we don’t want to hear them. Go back home where you came from.”

    Among those who addressed the American delegation was The One that Speaks Once, the wife of Bear that Scatters:

    “These are the people that I am going to stay with and raise my children with.”

    The Americans were insulted and offended by allowing a woman to speak to them in council.
     

    Replies: @syonredux, @RVBlake

    , @iffen
    @syonredux

    He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent…

    Only because they were completely dependent upon the British for protection against their slaves, which, because of the ample white population, the American colonists were not.

    Replies: @syonredux

  57. @syonredux
    @Sean


    If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? —Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.
     
    Johnson's stupidest passage. He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent...

    The Founding Fathers were heavily speculating in land futures but the British deemed the territories belonged to the Indians.
     
    The Brits just didn't want to have deal with a full-scale Indian war ( cf Pontiac's Rebellion). As the history of Canada shows,even if the Revolution never happened, the lands west of the Appalachians would still have been taken from the Amerinds.

    Replies: @Sean, @iffen

    Happy enough to pay taxes when they needed the British Army to defend them from the French, but after the French threat was removed by a great British victory (in which the commanders on both sides died) suddenly the gun nuts did not want to pay. They were also bigots.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

    The Quebec Act of 1774 (French: Acte de Québec) (the Act), formally known as the British North America (Quebec) Act 1774,[1] was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The Act’s principal components were:

    The province’s territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
    Reference to the Protestant faith was removed from the oath of allegiance.
    It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.

    Obviously a Papist plot.

    The faithful Indian is realising there is going to be precious little gratitude from the Americans. It’s a bit like the Kurds.

    http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/2311
    Major James Walsh of the North-West Mounted Police met with Sitting Bull and told him that the Sioux would now have to obey the queen’s laws and in return they would receive the queen’s protection. He warned the Sioux that they were not to return to the United States to hunt or to steal. Historian Robert Larson reports:

    “The Mounted Police were usually fair in their judgments; indeed, some of them, including Walsh, honesty believed that the Lakotas had been badly treated below the Canadian border.”

    Sitting Bull agreed to the terms offered by Walsh and declared his intent to remain in Canada.

    British fair play wins every time..

    Sitting Bull responded to the Americans by telling of his affection for Canada and even pausing to shake hands again with the Canadians. He concluded:

    “You come here to tell us lies, but we don’t want to hear them. Go back home where you came from.”

    Among those who addressed the American delegation was The One that Speaks Once, the wife of Bear that Scatters:

    “These are the people that I am going to stay with and raise my children with.”

    The Americans were insulted and offended by allowing a woman to speak to them in council.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Sean


    Happy enough to pay taxes when they needed the British Army to defend them from the French, but after the French threat was removed by a great British victory (in which the commanders on both sides died) suddenly the gun nuts did not want to pay.
     
    Without the French bogeyman, London could no longer make the colonials toe the line.

    British fair play wins every time..
     
    You mean like how Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia are independant Amerind nations?


    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/here-is-what-sir-john-a-macdonald-did-to-indigenous-people


    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/when-canada-used-hunger-to-clear-the-west/article13316877/
    , @RVBlake
    @Sean

    British fair play wins every time... The "British fair play" that saw them forcibly remove the French Acadian farmers from their homes in the Maritime Provinces in 1755 and ship them to the Thirteen Colonies, Britain, and France. Many died enroute of disease and shipwreck.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo

  58. @Thea
    @Desiderius

    Chilling indeed. The suffering of white families is of no concern to him yet he is white and has a family. He might want to review what happened to the original revolutionaries of the French Revolution.

    Replies: @Flip, @Ben tillman

    Is he white? Seems highly unlikely.

  59. And the Crown disdained giving political representation in Westminster to the swelling population of America, fearing its huge numbers of yeomen and religious dissenters would overwhelm institutions such as aristocracy and the Established Church.

    Americans also didn’t want representation in Westminster, both because sending American legislators on such a long, time-consuming journey for every session was totally impractical, and because they already had their own legislatures which, in their conception, held the same rights within the colonies as Parliament in Britain. American negotiators were sent to Britain with explicit instructions to refuse any offer of representation in Westminster if it were given.

    The earliest colonial charters mention the duty of obedience to the king, but little or nothing about Parliament (it comes up more often in the later charters, mostly in the context of navigation and trade law). Queen Anne began her reign as monarch over three nominally independent countries with their own separate legislatures (though the Irish parliament was less functionally free than that of Scotland and England), as well as Lord Proprietor of the Isle of Man with its Tynwald, so the idea of the local Virginia and Massachusetts legislatures being the equals of Westminster wasn’t so far-fetched. Thus Jefferson’s complaint in the Declaration, which contemptuously refuses to even call Parliament by name:

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation

    One irony of the 1619 project is that its adherents are basically reiterating the King Cotton thesis trumpeted by pro-secession 19th-century Democrats, which wildly overexaggerated the centrality of Southern slave-grown cotton to the American and world economy. In reality, both America and Europe prospered just fine without cotton from Dixie.

  60. 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. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists….

    My questions are: How many people still do what the journalists of 60 years ago did? Should those folks still be called “journalists” or should the people who work on things like the 1619 Project be called something other than journalists? Reporting on bridges collapsing and trying to get the world to revolve around your morality seem like very different things.

  61. @Hibernian
    @Coag

    The Quebec act said that the British wouldn't do to the Quebecois what they had done to the Acadiens (Cajuns) who as a result had fled to Louisiana from what became the Maritime Provinces.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    Correction: not “fled to” but involuntarily “transported to”!

  62. @Sean
    @syonredux

    Happy enough to pay taxes when they needed the British Army to defend them from the French, but after the French threat was removed by a great British victory (in which the commanders on both sides died) suddenly the gun nuts did not want to pay. They were also bigots.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

    The Quebec Act of 1774 (French: Acte de Québec) (the Act), formally known as the British North America (Quebec) Act 1774,[1] was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The Act's principal components were:

    The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
    Reference to the Protestant faith was removed from the oath of allegiance.
    It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
     

    Obviously a Papist plot.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_General_Wolfe#/media/File:Benjamin_West_005.jpg

    The faithful Indian is realising there is going to be precious little gratitude from the Americans. It's a bit like the Kurds.


    http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/2311
    Major James Walsh of the North-West Mounted Police met with Sitting Bull and told him that the Sioux would now have to obey the queen’s laws and in return they would receive the queen’s protection. He warned the Sioux that they were not to return to the United States to hunt or to steal. Historian Robert Larson reports:

    “The Mounted Police were usually fair in their judgments; indeed, some of them, including Walsh, honesty believed that the Lakotas had been badly treated below the Canadian border.”

    Sitting Bull agreed to the terms offered by Walsh and declared his intent to remain in Canada.
     

    British fair play wins every time..

    Sitting Bull responded to the Americans by telling of his affection for Canada and even pausing to shake hands again with the Canadians. He concluded:

    “You come here to tell us lies, but we don’t want to hear them. Go back home where you came from.”

    Among those who addressed the American delegation was The One that Speaks Once, the wife of Bear that Scatters:

    “These are the people that I am going to stay with and raise my children with.”

    The Americans were insulted and offended by allowing a woman to speak to them in council.
     

    Replies: @syonredux, @RVBlake

    Happy enough to pay taxes when they needed the British Army to defend them from the French, but after the French threat was removed by a great British victory (in which the commanders on both sides died) suddenly the gun nuts did not want to pay.

    Without the French bogeyman, London could no longer make the colonials toe the line.

    British fair play wins every time..

    You mean like how Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia are independant Amerind nations?

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/here-is-what-sir-john-a-macdonald-did-to-indigenous-people

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/when-canada-used-hunger-to-clear-the-west/article13316877/

    • Agree: RVBlake
  63. @syonredux
    @ColRebSez


    The northern colonies were pretty anti-slavery by 1776, but Virginia and the Carolinas were pro-Tory. They only joined the cause of the Revolution after Lord Dunsmore issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775. The thought of 100,000 armed former slaves roaming the countryside didn’t sit well with these Southern colonists and so they joined in the Revolution.
     
    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @ColRebSez

    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.

    He really had not “lost control,” particularly in the Carolinas and rural Virginia. He was pissed and wanted to teach the colonists a lesson. But once he started teaching that lesson he unified the Southern colonies in support of the Revolution.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @ColRebSez


    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.

    He really had not “lost control,” particularly in the Carolinas and rural Virginia.
     
    This doesn't sound like a guy who's in control.....

    Lacking in diplomatic skills, Dunmore tried to govern without consulting the House of Burgesses of the Colonial Assembly for more than a year, which exacerbated an already tense situation.[5]

     


    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.
     

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech delivered at St. John's Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]
     

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia's militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor's wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.
     

    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor's Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against "a certain Patrick Henry... and a Number of deluded Followers" who had organised "an Independent Company... and put themselves in a Posture of War."[7]
     

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.
     
    And all of that happened before the Proclamation came out in November of 1775....


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore

    But once he started teaching that lesson he unified the Southern colonies in support of the Revolution.
     
    They seemed pretty pro-Independence prior to the Proclamation.....


    North Carolina:


    Royal governor Josiah Martin had a rough time of it....

    After his home was attacked by Whigs on 24 April 1775, he sent his family to his in-laws' home in New York and took refuge on board the sloop-of-war HMS Cruizer, transferring his headquarters to Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River. When the Mecklenburg Resolves were published in May 1775, Martin transmitted a copy to England,[4] which he described as "setting up a system of rule and regulation subversive of his majesty's government." Martin then requested a supply of arms and ammunition from General Thomas Gage in Boston.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Martin


    South Carolina:

    Royal Governor Lord William Campbell was in bad shape....

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.
     

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.[1]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell
  64. Hannah-Jones grew up in Waterloo, Iowa, born to father Milton Hannah, who is African-American, and mother Cheryl A. Novotny, who is of Czech and English descent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikole_Hannah-Jones

    https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2009/01/two_faces_of_the_black_america.html

    Is Hannah-Jones mad because she didn’t luck out in the genetic lottery and looks more like black dad than white mom?

    Now the New York Times wants to crown her queen of the blacks AND spread her poison to school children.

  65. “Hannah-Jones is unsparing in her condemnation of the moral failings of the democratic revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries. She can barely contain her contempt for those who failed to leap out of the historical epoch in which they lived and embrace the rhetoric of 21st century middle-class identity politics. But the unforgiving code of ethics she imposes upon the historic figures of the past does not seem to apply to herself. Her own personal moral compass does not seem to be in working order.”

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/18/shell-d18.html

  66. @syonredux

    Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.”
     
    Talk about an egregiously stupid notion. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade ended because of White Protestants in Britain and the USA. White Protestants in the USA abolished slavery. White Jews funded the NAACP and provided critical support in the fight against Jim Crow.

    Replies: @Louis Renault, @International Jew

    And Jake Silverstein steps in to defend Nikole Hannah-Jones who may or may not be capable of composing a letter like that.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @International Jew

    https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1199155544600326146

  67. Victoria Bynum, distinguished emerita professor of history, Texas State University;

    She takes on Tiny’s hero, Chuck Blow:

    When I began college I was a divorced mother on welfare…

    Of course, I have been influenced by any number of theories, and those influences show throughout my books. Obviously, Marxist theory influences my analysis of class, whereas postmodernism influences my deconstructionist approach to racial identity…

    While my overarching thesis statements reflect theoretical influences, my commitment is to historical truth as I perceive it through my own careful analysis of evidence. Within this process, I have little patience for “identity politics.” As much as I hate the phrase “political correctness” when applied to liberals and leftists by racists and right-wing extremists, I have come to recognize identity politics—as recently demonstrated by Charles Blow of the New York Times—as another pernicious form of political correctness that uses hot-button phrases connected to discrete historical victims (in this case, slaves) to shut down any discourse that threatens that particular victim with a shared stage (say, poor whites)…

    The manner in which Blow attacked my work was dishonest. Specifically, he presented a certain passage from my book that, if read outside its context, appeared to be a deliberate effort on my part to avoid using the word “rape.” In fact, I was referring to actual laws passed within Southern states that forbade interracial contact between whites and blacks. Those laws existed precisely because such contact was common.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/12/byn1-j12.html

    There is a Bynum Hall at UNC Chapel Hill, the birthplace of Tar Heel basketball. It’s offices now.

  68. @Hibernian
    @Paleo Liberal

    "...a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists."

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    No, she was pure Indian.

    She became a chief at the ripe old age of 17, a widow with two children. She took up the rifle of her slain first husband, Kingfisher, and used it to lead Cherokee warriors in battle to defeat the Creeks who had just killed her husband. Her Cherokee name sounds kind of like Nancy, and her second husband was a white guy named Ward. I am descended from her daughter Katie, one of the two kids she had with Kingfisher.

    At the time the Cherokee had both men and women chiefs. Sometimes there were conflicts. During the Revolution, her cousin, the War Chief Dragging Canoe sided with the British, while Nancy Ward sided with the Americans. Tons of conflict. Eventually Dragging Canoe left with his followers to form his own tribe, the Chicamagua. The remaining Cherokee were friendly to she whites; the Chicamagua hostile. In other words, the question as to how to handle foreign invaders was sufficient to split the tribe. Things got worse after that. There was a decades long civil war between the Treaty and anti-Treaty parties. The first man killed was a Treaty Party ancestor of mine, the great-grandson of Chief Nancy. To this day, descendants of the Treaty Party are looked down on by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

  69. I think the 1776 Revolution was about Americans wanting to be their own country, free from British interference that they increasingly didn’t trust. But I have no problem with the NYT’s crackpot theory in a way.

    In some sense, 1776 was just a secession from the British union just like 1861 was a secession from the US union. One won (and is therefor good) and one lost (and is therefore bad).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @RichardTaylor

    It was a gradual shift to an independent American identity: in the 1760s, men like Washington and Franklin did view themselves very much as Englishmen. That's why things like taxation with representation didn't set well with them. They were being denied the born rights that Englishmen were supposed to have. There's an underlying connection here with the English Civil War: the freeborn rights that were being debated in the Putney Debates were the same rights the colonists didn't think they were getting.

    BTW: Washington could have *very* easily decided to pull an Oliver Cromwell if he wanted to, during and after the revolution. They didn't call him the American Cincinnatus for nothing. Probably took on even more resonance in the 1790s when you contrast the American experience with France descending into outright Caesarism.

    >In some sense, 1776 was just a secession from the British union just like 1861 was a secession from the US union. One won (and is therefor good) and one lost (and is therefore bad).

    One was to defend liberty against a ham-handed colonial government who repeatedly refused to extend proper rights to the colonials, no matter how much hypocrisy was involved when it came to the treatments of slaves and natives. The other was to artificially preserve an archaic, immoral system from modernity while hypocritically using the resources of the rest of the nation to do so. The two are not equivalent.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy

  70. @Dr. X
    The idea that the Revolution was intended to perpetuate slavery is completely and absurdly false. In his original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson ripped on George III for the slave trade:

    ....he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce...

     

    As the last sentence indicates, one of the chief complaints the colonists had was the inability to control the slave trade, because the Crown was making too much money off it. Colonists were afraid that they would get outnumbered by slaves and face a rebellion (such as what happened in Haiti in 1802. Indeed, the Constitution of 1787 allowed states to have a 20-year exemption from Federal power over immigration, because the Anti-Federalists in the Southern states were afraid the new Federal government would flood them with too many blacks the way the Crown had).

    Jefferson then ripped into George III for trying to incite slave rebellions against the Patriots after combat began in 1775:

    ...and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
     
    The French and Indian War did indeed have a direct impact on the Revolution -- but not because of Manifest Destiny. There were two major effects of the French and Indian War: a) The Crown believed that the colonists should pay for the war, prompting the levy of exorbitant taxes that the colonists protested against for a decade, from 1765-1775, and b) the French and Indian War resulted in the first permanent garrisoning of regular British Army units in North America after 150+ years of colonial self-defense through the militia system.

    After the war ended, the troops remained, and the Crown began to use them as law-enforcement in the face of the anti-tax protests. The final straw was the declaration of martial law in Boston by Gen. Gage as punishment for the Boston Tea Party.

    Part of Gage's crackdown was to enact gun confiscation from the militias... and they shot back rather than surrender their guns.

    The NYT's "1619 Project" is completely FOS.

    Replies: @Dube, @Mr McKenna, @Anon, @Hank Yobo

    Well done, Dr. X, from Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration:

    ….he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…

    What’s to be done is confront the emerging propaganda assault in School District and State Education Board actions, with rebuttals such as the above.

    The five historians make the most alert and salient of their action demands with the following:

    We also ask for the removal of these mistakes from any materials destined for use in schools….

    This struggle for history can be conducted successfully from the folding chairs of some District School Board meetings. Who here will prepare to show up?

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @Dube

    I used to teach this in college but I got canned.

    They have to keep the propaganda machine running....

  71. @Lot
    @Desiderius

    Here’s how a NYT employee assigned to the 1619 project describes herself on twitter:

    “ Reporter
    @nytmag
    covering race from 1619-present//AKA The Beyoncé of Journalism//Co-founder http://idabwellssociety.org //smart and thuggish//#1619Project”

    Even 5 years ago I don’t think the Times allowed its news staff to be self-promoting political hacks like this.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Ed

    Yes, but on the bright side the Times also declared this:

    It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred

    So it’s just a matter of time before they turn their piercing gaze toward the mirror, right?

  72. @Dr. X
    The idea that the Revolution was intended to perpetuate slavery is completely and absurdly false. In his original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson ripped on George III for the slave trade:

    ....he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce...

     

    As the last sentence indicates, one of the chief complaints the colonists had was the inability to control the slave trade, because the Crown was making too much money off it. Colonists were afraid that they would get outnumbered by slaves and face a rebellion (such as what happened in Haiti in 1802. Indeed, the Constitution of 1787 allowed states to have a 20-year exemption from Federal power over immigration, because the Anti-Federalists in the Southern states were afraid the new Federal government would flood them with too many blacks the way the Crown had).

    Jefferson then ripped into George III for trying to incite slave rebellions against the Patriots after combat began in 1775:

    ...and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
     
    The French and Indian War did indeed have a direct impact on the Revolution -- but not because of Manifest Destiny. There were two major effects of the French and Indian War: a) The Crown believed that the colonists should pay for the war, prompting the levy of exorbitant taxes that the colonists protested against for a decade, from 1765-1775, and b) the French and Indian War resulted in the first permanent garrisoning of regular British Army units in North America after 150+ years of colonial self-defense through the militia system.

    After the war ended, the troops remained, and the Crown began to use them as law-enforcement in the face of the anti-tax protests. The final straw was the declaration of martial law in Boston by Gen. Gage as punishment for the Boston Tea Party.

    Part of Gage's crackdown was to enact gun confiscation from the militias... and they shot back rather than surrender their guns.

    The NYT's "1619 Project" is completely FOS.

    Replies: @Dube, @Mr McKenna, @Anon, @Hank Yobo

    Lexicographical aside: According to the Library of Congress, Jefferson really didn’t know when or where to use an apostrophe. What amazes me is that this error (so common today) was common then and yet with all this passage of time it hasn’t become ‘legitimate’. Mr Reg Cæsar can probably explain. I sure can’t.

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Mr McKenna

    An apostrophe is used to alert the reader that there is an "s" approaching.

  73. @ColRebSez
    @syonredux


    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.
     
    He really had not "lost control," particularly in the Carolinas and rural Virginia. He was pissed and wanted to teach the colonists a lesson. But once he started teaching that lesson he unified the Southern colonies in support of the Revolution.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Cart before horse. Dunmore issued his famous Proclamation freeing the slaves of rebels because he had lost control of Virginia.

    He really had not “lost control,” particularly in the Carolinas and rural Virginia.

    This doesn’t sound like a guy who’s in control…..

    Lacking in diplomatic skills, Dunmore tried to govern without consulting the House of Burgesses of the Colonial Assembly for more than a year, which exacerbated an already tense situation.[5]

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech delivered at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia’s militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor’s wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.

    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor’s Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against “a certain Patrick Henry… and a Number of deluded Followers” who had organised “an Independent Company… and put themselves in a Posture of War.“[7]

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.

    And all of that happened before the Proclamation came out in November of 1775….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore

    But once he started teaching that lesson he unified the Southern colonies in support of the Revolution.

    They seemed pretty pro-Independence prior to the Proclamation…..

    North Carolina:

    Royal governor Josiah Martin had a rough time of it….

    After his home was attacked by Whigs on 24 April 1775, he sent his family to his in-laws’ home in New York and took refuge on board the sloop-of-war HMS Cruizer, transferring his headquarters to Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River. When the Mecklenburg Resolves were published in May 1775, Martin transmitted a copy to England,[4] which he described as “setting up a system of rule and regulation subversive of his majesty’s government.” Martin then requested a supply of arms and ammunition from General Thomas Gage in Boston.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Martin

    South Carolina:

    Royal Governor Lord William Campbell was in bad shape….

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell

  74. @Hibernian
    @Paleo Liberal

    "...a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists."

    Queen Regnant?

    With a name like that, was she mixed?

    Frontier era Chicago had Billy Caldwell, AKA Chief Sauganash:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Caldwell

    A Forest Preserve (County Park) on the Northwest Side is called Caldwell Woods. Nearby is a neighborhood, middle to upper middle class, by the name of Sauganash.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Sorry for the triple post. I ran into a technical problem. I thought multiple posts were filtered out.

  75. Anon[265] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X
    The idea that the Revolution was intended to perpetuate slavery is completely and absurdly false. In his original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson ripped on George III for the slave trade:

    ....he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce...

     

    As the last sentence indicates, one of the chief complaints the colonists had was the inability to control the slave trade, because the Crown was making too much money off it. Colonists were afraid that they would get outnumbered by slaves and face a rebellion (such as what happened in Haiti in 1802. Indeed, the Constitution of 1787 allowed states to have a 20-year exemption from Federal power over immigration, because the Anti-Federalists in the Southern states were afraid the new Federal government would flood them with too many blacks the way the Crown had).

    Jefferson then ripped into George III for trying to incite slave rebellions against the Patriots after combat began in 1775:

    ...and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
     
    The French and Indian War did indeed have a direct impact on the Revolution -- but not because of Manifest Destiny. There were two major effects of the French and Indian War: a) The Crown believed that the colonists should pay for the war, prompting the levy of exorbitant taxes that the colonists protested against for a decade, from 1765-1775, and b) the French and Indian War resulted in the first permanent garrisoning of regular British Army units in North America after 150+ years of colonial self-defense through the militia system.

    After the war ended, the troops remained, and the Crown began to use them as law-enforcement in the face of the anti-tax protests. The final straw was the declaration of martial law in Boston by Gen. Gage as punishment for the Boston Tea Party.

    Part of Gage's crackdown was to enact gun confiscation from the militias... and they shot back rather than surrender their guns.

    The NYT's "1619 Project" is completely FOS.

    Replies: @Dube, @Mr McKenna, @Anon, @Hank Yobo

    You can’t expect blacks to understand white history. They aren’t interested in it at all and can’t be bothered to learn complicated issues or get their facts straight. If it’s not about them, they turn their brains off. Blacks have never had the curiosity about other cultures that whites have.

    • Disagree: Desiderius
  76. @Steve Sailer
    @Flip

    The Founding Fathers up through Lincoln loved projecting the future population of the United States.

    Replies: @S

    The Founding Fathers up through Lincoln loved projecting the future population of the United States.

    Quite true.

    Below is an excerpt of an open letter published in 1775 addressed to ‘American soldiery’ where the future population of the United States is projected in the year 2000 to be well over a billion people. Happily this was something of an over projection. 😉

    [Note the reference to Ben Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac on the newspaper’s masthead.]

    Let us stretch our ideas to the year 2000, and our computation furnishes us with the number of one thousand five hundred and thirty six millions…


    http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/216396?list_url=/list?qsearch_method

  77. Anon[265] • Disclaimer says:

    Why haven’t people become aware that Carlos Slim is as much of a corrupt busybody, and does as much damage, as George Soros? Slim, via the propaganda-spewing NYT, makes himself every bit as much of a problem as Soros.

    It ought to be illegal for a foreign national to own a US newspaper. Our national interest and national security are at stake. It should be outlawed.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    @Anon


    Why haven’t people become aware that Carlos Slim is as much of a corrupt busybody, and does as much damage, as (((George Soros)))? Slim, via the propaganda-spewing NYT, makes himself every bit as much of a problem as (((Soros))).
     
    This "Lebanese Mexicans control the NYT" trope that you're attempting to promote is, of course, a long-discredited semitic canard.

    As any educated person knows, the Times has been controlled by the (((Ochs-Sulzberger))) family for more than 120 years (hence the common nickname "Sulzberger Blog"). Note that the NYT has a dual class share structure. It's important to distinguish minority ownership in Class A shares (such as Slim's) from actual control, as the Sulzbergers retain control via their majority ownership of Class B (supervoting) shares regardless.

    The last three publishers of the NYT (over a period of 56 years): Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , and now Arthur Gregg “AG” Sulzberger. Not a single Lebanese Mexican to be seen.


    It ought to be illegal for a foreign national to own a US newspaper.
     
    Sure, it's a good idea to keep our news media under the control of members of the historic American nation, rather than allowing it to be controlled by an alien tribe. But the NYT is not -- as you contend -- controlled by Lebanese Mexicans, but by members of an entirely different Middle Eastern desert tribe.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  78. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Why don’t white people not want with non-whites? For the same reason non-whites don’t want to live with non-whites. If all those Hindus want to get away from Hindus, why should whites want to be with them? This also applies to other non-white groups. If they wanna flee from their own kind, whites should want separation from their kind as well.

  79. @Mr McKenna
    @Dr. X

    Lexicographical aside: According to the Library of Congress, Jefferson really didn't know when or where to use an apostrophe. What amazes me is that this error (so common today) was common then and yet with all this passage of time it hasn't become 'legitimate'. Mr Reg Cæsar can probably explain. I sure can't.

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    An apostrophe is used to alert the reader that there is an “s” approaching.

  80. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s well known that the government of King George issued a proclamation forbidding further white settlement beyond the Appalachians – and that this proclamation really fuelled the ire of the Americans, likely being the strongest motive behind the Revolution.

    But what of the motivation behind the proclamation? What of the possibility that it was inspired by truly humanitarian and equitable considerations?, in that the UK Crown could not deny the justice of the Amerindian claim as to be the ‘rightful’ ‘owners of American soil’, realising the ‘morality’ of their cause in a non Nietzschean equitable way, and thus attempt to mitigate the injury caused to the native inhabitants?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Anonymous

    As others have pointed out, the British didn’t want a full scale war with the Indians.

    And, as others have pointed out, wars with Indians happened in Canada as well as the US. So the proclamation would have at best bought a small amount of time.

    Something interesting I found out when reading a book on the history of Milwaukee— the various Indian wars in Canada and the US Northwest, between tribes as well as between whites and Indians, created a large number of native refugees. Several tribes fled to Wisconsin, especially what is now Milwaukee. To this day, Wisconsin has more recognized tribes than the other Midwest states. It seems Lake Michigan was a rather great barrier against invasion from the East.

  81. @Art Deco
    The government of England followed Franklin’s advice on not giving up Quebec, but George III’s Tory-leaning ministers were less sympathetic to the expansionist-minded American colonists, whose greed for land had helped get Britain in an almost ruinously expensive war, which, luckily, they’d won

    The Seven Years War included every major European power and a mess of minor ones. It wasn't a function of land disputes between British and French pioneers.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    It was convenient for the Brits to say so when they tried to raise taxes.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  82. @Lot
    @Colin Wright

    The Declaration mentions every possible grievance, the restrictions on Western settlements included.

    The authors wanted as many people to join them as possible, so if there were a group aggrieved against the British, they got a line.

    I think the settlement restrictions were relatively unimportant because they were not enforced that well and there was still plenty of cheap eastern land. As evidence of this, Ohio in 1800, after it was opened to settlement for a while, had only 45,000 whites, and that was by far the most in the Old Northwest.

    Western settlement restrictions didn’t directly benefit the king either like taxes did, so it was also one of the easier concessions he likely would have made later.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    There was still an Indian problem in Ohio in 1800, but even then, 3 years later, we had added 15,000 people, and became a state.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Redneck farmer

    Ohio has been ranked 7th in population for a long time, since it was passed by Florida.

    Ohio’s rural population is 3rd, behind Texas and North Carolina.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  83. “the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.”

    Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (also known as Somersett’s case, and in State Trials as v. XX Sommersett v Steuart) is a famous judgment of the Court of King’s Bench in 1772 on labour law and human rights,[1] which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, although the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart

    In 1772 the British rule that slavery is unauthorized in the British heartland and unenforceable by law. What happened in 1776, that date rings a bell? Coincidence? The British would eliminate slavery in the entire British Empire.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    • Replies: @Bert
    @George

    Yes, coincidence because slavery was not ended in the British Empire until 1833, 58 years later.

    Another anti-white troll who believes, without written evidence from 1772-1775, that he can read the slave owners' minds regarding their motives for supporting independence. Steve Sailer's hypothesis of motive makes infinitely more sense.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @George

  84. @syonredux
    @Sean


    If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? —Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.
     
    Johnson's stupidest passage. He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent...

    The Founding Fathers were heavily speculating in land futures but the British deemed the territories belonged to the Indians.
     
    The Brits just didn't want to have deal with a full-scale Indian war ( cf Pontiac's Rebellion). As the history of Canada shows,even if the Revolution never happened, the lands west of the Appalachians would still have been taken from the Amerinds.

    Replies: @Sean, @iffen

    He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent…

    Only because they were completely dependent upon the British for protection against their slaves, which, because of the ample white population, the American colonists were not.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @iffen


    He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent…

    Only because they were completely dependent upon the British for protection against their slaves, which, because of the ample white population, the American colonists were not.
     
    Hence my point about the large White population in the 13 colonies in 1776 being the key factor .
  85. @Sean
    @syonredux

    Happy enough to pay taxes when they needed the British Army to defend them from the French, but after the French threat was removed by a great British victory (in which the commanders on both sides died) suddenly the gun nuts did not want to pay. They were also bigots.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

    The Quebec Act of 1774 (French: Acte de Québec) (the Act), formally known as the British North America (Quebec) Act 1774,[1] was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The Act's principal components were:

    The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
    Reference to the Protestant faith was removed from the oath of allegiance.
    It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
     

    Obviously a Papist plot.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_General_Wolfe#/media/File:Benjamin_West_005.jpg

    The faithful Indian is realising there is going to be precious little gratitude from the Americans. It's a bit like the Kurds.


    http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/2311
    Major James Walsh of the North-West Mounted Police met with Sitting Bull and told him that the Sioux would now have to obey the queen’s laws and in return they would receive the queen’s protection. He warned the Sioux that they were not to return to the United States to hunt or to steal. Historian Robert Larson reports:

    “The Mounted Police were usually fair in their judgments; indeed, some of them, including Walsh, honesty believed that the Lakotas had been badly treated below the Canadian border.”

    Sitting Bull agreed to the terms offered by Walsh and declared his intent to remain in Canada.
     

    British fair play wins every time..

    Sitting Bull responded to the Americans by telling of his affection for Canada and even pausing to shake hands again with the Canadians. He concluded:

    “You come here to tell us lies, but we don’t want to hear them. Go back home where you came from.”

    Among those who addressed the American delegation was The One that Speaks Once, the wife of Bear that Scatters:

    “These are the people that I am going to stay with and raise my children with.”

    The Americans were insulted and offended by allowing a woman to speak to them in council.
     

    Replies: @syonredux, @RVBlake

    British fair play wins every time… The “British fair play” that saw them forcibly remove the French Acadian farmers from their homes in the Maritime Provinces in 1755 and ship them to the Thirteen Colonies, Britain, and France. Many died enroute of disease and shipwreck.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    @RVBlake

    Ah, the Acadians had a choice to remain neutral or take up arms against George II during the 1750's. They chose the later and paid the price. Choices have consequences. British treatment of the Acadians was less severe than that of the Jacobite rebels. And, by the way, the Acadian transports were allowed to return to their homes after the Seven Years' War provided they took the Oath of Allegiance. Many did.

    Replies: @Sean

  86. This whole discussion in the comments about the Revolution and Indians is all well and good but the fact remains that the NYT and respectable society are still doubling down on the
    “black underperformance is because of white racism. period” explanation, even though it basically has to ignore all other ethnic categories in the US to make any sort of sense, when HBD is a much simpler explanation.

    Most of these journalists and editors aren’t STUPID… and that lengthy editor’s response shows some capability for logic and nuance…
    How do they not see this?

    (what annoys me most is that even when the dam finally breaks on this in 5 or 10 or 30 years it will hardly feel like a victory because the backlash is going to cause some rendered ACTUAL racism which will make true some of the things that are now being falsely claimed.)

  87. > We ask that The Times, according to its own high standards of accuracy and truth, issue prominent corrections of all the errors and distortions presented…

    • LOL: ic1000
  88. “Instead, the project is offered as an authoritative account that bears the imprimatur and credibility of The New York Times. “– The Five Historians (on contemporary credibility)

    Pardon me, if among the hundred or so prior reader comments, my snark has been previously articulated in one form or another, but I quit reading right there.

  89. > [Kevin M. Kruse, of Princeton University], who is white, is an actual professor of history, but his field is 20th Century conservatism. He is the author of White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism.

    I thank Steve for a Sapir-Whorf exposition, a few years back.

    White Flight is the action that Whites took, while knowing that it would ruin the opportunity of their Black fellow-citizens to share in the American Dream.

    Ethnic Cleansing is the action that Serbs took, while knowing that it would ruin the lives of their Bosnian Muslim co-citizens.

    Conservative Whites and Christian Serbs, selfish and hateful actors.
    Blacks and Bosnian Muslims, passive and blameless victims.

    In American cities during the 1960s, it.couldn’t.be that ruthless white realtors hired violence-prone blacks to blockbust previously-stable working-class white neighborhoods, in order to generate windfalls through flipping houses.

    Working class whites couldn’t have been the victims of American-style Ethnic Cleansing perpetrated by a High-Low coalition.

    No — Princeton Professor and Project 1619 contributor Keven M. Kruse PhD assures us, that.couldn’t.be.

    ‘Flight’ rhymes with ‘White,’ and is catchy. Clunky ‘Ethnic’ and ‘Cleansing’ only takes place in Eastern Europe. And perhaps in Central Africa, as a legacy of White Colonialism.

  90. @International Jew
    @syonredux

    And Jake Silverstein steps in to defend Nikole Hannah-Jones who may or may not be capable of composing a letter like that.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  91. @Dube
    @Dr. X

    Well done, Dr. X, from Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration:


    ….he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…
     
    What's to be done is confront the emerging propaganda assault in School District and State Education Board actions, with rebuttals such as the above.

    The five historians make the most alert and salient of their action demands with the following:

    We also ask for the removal of these mistakes from any materials destined for use in schools....
     
    This struggle for history can be conducted successfully from the folding chairs of some District School Board meetings. Who here will prepare to show up?

    Replies: @Dr. X

    I used to teach this in college but I got canned.

    They have to keep the propaganda machine running….

  92. Wouldn’t it be better for blacks to create a hero’s narrative rather than a victim? They rewrite history to be that blacks never won anything or saved anyone or developed culture. They were always just passive pawns passed around. Who would like to teach their children that? I suppose it’s better than the linked narrative that whites where always evil, selfish and completely in control.

  93. @Anonymous
    It's well known that the government of King George issued a proclamation forbidding further white settlement beyond the Appalachians - and that this proclamation really fuelled the ire of the Americans, likely being the strongest motive behind the Revolution.

    But what of the motivation behind the proclamation? What of the possibility that it was inspired by truly humanitarian and equitable considerations?, in that the UK Crown could not deny the justice of the Amerindian claim as to be the 'rightful' 'owners of American soil', realising the 'morality' of their cause in a non Nietzschean equitable way, and thus attempt to mitigate the injury caused to the native inhabitants?

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    As others have pointed out, the British didn’t want a full scale war with the Indians.

    And, as others have pointed out, wars with Indians happened in Canada as well as the US. So the proclamation would have at best bought a small amount of time.

    Something interesting I found out when reading a book on the history of Milwaukee— the various Indian wars in Canada and the US Northwest, between tribes as well as between whites and Indians, created a large number of native refugees. Several tribes fled to Wisconsin, especially what is now Milwaukee. To this day, Wisconsin has more recognized tribes than the other Midwest states. It seems Lake Michigan was a rather great barrier against invasion from the East.

  94. I spent 12 years of public school with non stop bleating about black history and the holocaust, and these people actually have the nerve to claim black history is under represented.

  95. @Dr. X
    The idea that the Revolution was intended to perpetuate slavery is completely and absurdly false. In his original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson ripped on George III for the slave trade:

    ....he (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce...

     

    As the last sentence indicates, one of the chief complaints the colonists had was the inability to control the slave trade, because the Crown was making too much money off it. Colonists were afraid that they would get outnumbered by slaves and face a rebellion (such as what happened in Haiti in 1802. Indeed, the Constitution of 1787 allowed states to have a 20-year exemption from Federal power over immigration, because the Anti-Federalists in the Southern states were afraid the new Federal government would flood them with too many blacks the way the Crown had).

    Jefferson then ripped into George III for trying to incite slave rebellions against the Patriots after combat began in 1775:

    ...and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
     
    The French and Indian War did indeed have a direct impact on the Revolution -- but not because of Manifest Destiny. There were two major effects of the French and Indian War: a) The Crown believed that the colonists should pay for the war, prompting the levy of exorbitant taxes that the colonists protested against for a decade, from 1765-1775, and b) the French and Indian War resulted in the first permanent garrisoning of regular British Army units in North America after 150+ years of colonial self-defense through the militia system.

    After the war ended, the troops remained, and the Crown began to use them as law-enforcement in the face of the anti-tax protests. The final straw was the declaration of martial law in Boston by Gen. Gage as punishment for the Boston Tea Party.

    Part of Gage's crackdown was to enact gun confiscation from the militias... and they shot back rather than surrender their guns.

    The NYT's "1619 Project" is completely FOS.

    Replies: @Dube, @Mr McKenna, @Anon, @Hank Yobo

    Perhaps everyone should read John Shy’s book, Toward Lexington, as well as Jack Sosin’s, Whitehall and the Wilderness. Both works have demythologized events between 1763 and 1775.

  96. @Steve Sailer
    @Andy

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

    Steve,

    Wasn’t the 1750’s Ben Franklin pointing out (correctly) that unless immigration was restricted, there would be no more land for . . .

    the second sons in families?

    I mean, primogeniture laws guaranteed that the eldest sons were all set in the American colonies, but what about the younger sons? How were they going to make a living if they could not settle further west on their own farms? Wasn’t that Franklin’s main point?

    You are correct to point out that the prospect of actually moving to new lands west of the Appalachians changed Franklin’s thinking by 1760, but to me, this is not “greed for land”. Instead, it is the perfectly normal and human desire to have a place of one’s own, a place on which to settle and raise a family.

    This push westward was not solely driven by families concerned with the welfare of their sons, but also concerned with their daughters – if the young men – especially the younger sons! – can’t move west (and are locked out of the available land on the east coast), then who are the young women going to marry?

    In these very understandable concerns (timeless, universal, and probably encoded in our DNA) I see nothing that could be described as “Americans desire to beat up poor Indians and take their land.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Paul Jolliffe

    Or 4th and 5th sons: women in Waltham, MA averaged 8.9 babies.

  97. @ColRebSez
    The northern colonies were pretty anti-slavery by 1776, but Virginia and the Carolinas were pro-Tory. They only joined the cause of the Revolution after Lord Dunsmore issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775. The thought of 100,000 armed former slaves roaming the countryside didn't sit well with these Southern colonists and so they joined in the Revolution.

    I wrote a blog post about this, mostly cribbed from other sources, that some might find interesting.

    https://colrebsez.blogspot.com/2017/08/preservation-of-slavery-major-reason.html

    Replies: @syonredux, @Bert

    Totally incorrect. The Rice Kings in coastal South Carolina , owners’ of most of the slaves in the colony, were united in 1775 in favor of independence. See Buchanan’s “Road to Guilford Courthouse.” And they carried that message to the more inland colonists.

    The Scot-Irish of the Carolina Piedmont were strongly pro-independence and with their own relentless campaign against Tories and the British army drove the latter out of the Carolinas. The Mecklenberg Resolves was their de-facto declaration of independence more than a year prior to the explicit one made in Philadelphia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecklenburg_Resolves

    Your story is wholly wrong and apparently in service of The Anti-White Narrative.

  98. @Paleo Liberal
    Many of my ancestors were Revolutionary War heroes, including a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.

    Different people fought the Revolution for different reasons.

    In the frontier, the war was clearly to get more Indian Land. There is a reason why tribes which had supported the French in the French and Indian War sided with the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812.

    In other areas, the war was different. There was an enormous disparity of wealth, and the British were making a fortune off the Americans.

    While it is true many slave owners sided with the Revolution, many also sided with the British. After the Revolution many Loyalists took their slaves with them to the Caribbean. For example, some of the building in Nassau in the Bahamas are copied from the style of buildings in the Carolinas.

    Basically the colonials felt the Brits were getting rich off of them, and were restricting their ability to make a living, including their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Art Deco, @bomag

    to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    You cannot ‘steal’ something when there is no regime of ownership.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    @Art Deco

    Didn't the Crown recognize recognise Aboriginal "ownership" of lands west of the Proclamation Line in 1763?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Jane Plain
    @Art Deco

    Define ownership.

    Do you know that each and every one of the tribes that inhabited what became the United States didn't have an abstract concept of ownership?

    If a people lives in a place for some hundreds of years, hunts there, farms there, etc., that's not ownership?

    , @Jane Plain
    @Art Deco

    Furthermore, if Native tribes had no "regime of ownership" then I don't understand why the US Government struck treaties with them.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp

    Picking one tribe at random, the Choctaw, I learned that nine treaties were signed between 1786 and 1830, which is kind of weird considering that they "owned" nothing.

    You'll be happy to hear that the process resulted in the removal of most of the Choctaw from their native land to Oklahoma, involving the death of about a quarter of their number.

    *****

    With respect to the "genuine historians" objecting to the 1619 Project, there are other historians, presumably just as genuine, who are clashing with them.

  99. The Times, according to its own high standards of accuracy and truth

    Thanks, guys, for making me sneeze-snort out my Cheerios and milk.

  100. @George
    "the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.”

    Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (also known as Somersett's case, and in State Trials as v. XX Sommersett v Steuart) is a famous judgment of the Court of King's Bench in 1772 on labour law and human rights,[1] which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, although the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart

    In 1772 the British rule that slavery is unauthorized in the British heartland and unenforceable by law. What happened in 1776, that date rings a bell? Coincidence? The British would eliminate slavery in the entire British Empire.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    Replies: @Bert

    Yes, coincidence because slavery was not ended in the British Empire until 1833, 58 years later.

    Another anti-white troll who believes, without written evidence from 1772-1775, that he can read the slave owners’ minds regarding their motives for supporting independence. Steve Sailer’s hypothesis of motive makes infinitely more sense.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Bert

    My Go West, Young Nation theory is a motivation that united North and South, slaveowner and abolitionist. I wouldn't totally rule out the Preserve Slavery theory in some situations, but it would be hard to explain how, say, it made Boston the main hub of Independence agitation.

    Counter-example: New York City was the main Loyalist hub and it was a port and its river ran north not west. After the Erie Canal in the 1820s, it benefited hugely from the Westward expansion, but in the 1770s, it was tied to the Atlantic and was less interested in Westward expansion than most other places in America.

    Replies: @Bert, @Sean

    , @George
    @Bert

    "coincidence because slavery was not ended in the British Empire until 1833, 58 years later."

    The argument is that the rich well informed people who operated the slave system understood that the court ruled that at common law slavery was impossible. It is clear to me that slave owners in the Virginia and the Carolinas would have been alarmed. People involved in the finance and shipping of slaves in NY, RI, and CT would have been even more informed and alarmed. These people borrowed money to buy plantations, ships, and slaves.

    Replies: @Bert

  101. @Art Deco
    @Paleo Liberal

    to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    You cannot 'steal' something when there is no regime of ownership.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain

    Didn’t the Crown recognize recognise Aboriginal “ownership” of lands west of the Proclamation Line in 1763?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Hank Yobo

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/proc1763.asp

    I think the money quote is here:

    And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

    "For the use of the said Indians" describes a right of usufruct, not allodial rights (as far as I can tell). The proclamation makes explicit that no settler has a franchise to purchase or take possession of land, but it makes no provision for the survey of the land to adjudicate claims between contending bands of Indians.

    again:

    And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.--

    The reference is to 'hunting grounds' rather than cultivated fields. The allocation of usufruct to the Indians is a default state in the absence of cession or purchase. I'm not seeing in the text any allusion which suggests that it is not at the discretion of the Crown as protector to insist on cession or allow purchase.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo

  102. @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    I would encourage everyone here to read this bastard’s twitter feed. A particularly chilling example:

    https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1208496614438035456?s=20

    This is why 1619 is backed by Pulitzer and Smithsonian and is being distributed to high schools throughout the country. This is the sense in which Steve speaks of those dying from opioid abuse as a conquered people.

    This is the voice of the conquerors. Well past time we all, left, right, and center, figured out a way to hang together or this son of bitch and his colleagues will have no compunction whatsoever stringing is up separately.

    Replies: @Lot, @Thea, @nebulafox, @bomag

    A sort-of silver lining here is that the mask is off; he openly states that he is a leftist who wants to crush all who don’t align with his views.

    We don’t have to wade through protests that he is reasonable and is concerned about the greater good.

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
    @bomag

    And, of course, if he said "I am a National Socialist and..." he'd be fired immediately, tenure or no. An obvious point made over and over, but it needs to be said over and over.

  103. The British didn’t care about American quarrels with Indians on the frontier and Americans didn’t care about British quarrels with the French and others in Europe. Neither side wished to expend lives and money fighting wars that were no of concern to them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous


    The British didn’t care about American quarrels with Indians on the frontier and Americans didn’t care about British quarrels with the French and others in Europe.
     
    True in the abstract, but things got complicated in America. The colonists didn't merely fight Indians as they expanded but rubbed up against French claimed-and-contested territories. Thus, it was just a matter of fighting Indians but threatening French claims in the New World. This put the Brits in a tight spot. Side with Colonialists and anger the French, leading to more wars, or make peace with the French to the displeasure of the colonialists who, while taking land from Indians, were also under constant attack from Indians. In a way, the Indians were like proxies. Anglos used their Indians against the French, and the French used their Indians against the Anglos. This gave both sides plausible deniability. "It wasn't us. The injuns done it." But in fact, the French fended off Anglo/colonial expansion by using their Indians, and Anglos, in turn, used their Indians to harass the French. Indians were like the Kurds and Afghans of them days. It's like, in the abstract, America doesn't care about Kurds, but they are useful proxies in its imperial sake in the Middle East. It's to "Save the Kurds!!" Or, all of a sudden, we realize that Ukrianians are the closest allies next to Israel. Another variation of "our indians" vs "their indians".

    Even though Napoleon eventually sold the Louisiana Territory, did the French have a chance after losing Canada? Because of the French support of the American Revolution and America's sympathies for the French Revolution, the French could have counted on the Americans, but for how long? What if passage to the Louisiana territories were blocked from Canada all the way down to the American south? Then, the French could have gone up through the Mississippi River from way south, but how long before Americans grab that too? If the territory hadn't been sold, there would likely have been some excuse for the Americans to grab it like they did with SW territories later. And that would have soured relations between US and France, even leading to war. So, did Napoleon read the writing on the wall and figure it's better to sell for much needed cash than hold onto land that seemed pretty doomed?

    https://youtu.be/B1A_Yab1UMA

    Replies: @Tex

  104. @Paleo Liberal
    Many of my ancestors were Revolutionary War heroes, including a female Indian chief, Nancy Ward, who went against the male chiefs of the Cherokee and supported the colonists.

    Different people fought the Revolution for different reasons.

    In the frontier, the war was clearly to get more Indian Land. There is a reason why tribes which had supported the French in the French and Indian War sided with the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812.

    In other areas, the war was different. There was an enormous disparity of wealth, and the British were making a fortune off the Americans.

    While it is true many slave owners sided with the Revolution, many also sided with the British. After the Revolution many Loyalists took their slaves with them to the Caribbean. For example, some of the building in Nassau in the Bahamas are copied from the style of buildings in the Carolinas.

    Basically the colonials felt the Brits were getting rich off of them, and were restricting their ability to make a living, including their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Hibernian, @Art Deco, @bomag

    …their ability to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    Most land was bought and traded for under terms of the time.

    The ability here was the settler’s efforts to develop the land and tie it into trade networks.

    Don’t buy into the Leftist meme that any wealth beyond subsistence living is acquired through theft.

  105. @Genrick Yagoda
    Sincerely,
    Jake Silverstein
    Editor in chief

    Surprise!!

    Replies: @Jane Plain

    Sean Wilentz.

    Gotcha!!

    Not to mention most of WSWS.

  106. @Lot
    @Desiderius

    Here’s how a NYT employee assigned to the 1619 project describes herself on twitter:

    “ Reporter
    @nytmag
    covering race from 1619-present//AKA The Beyoncé of Journalism//Co-founder http://idabwellssociety.org //smart and thuggish//#1619Project”

    Even 5 years ago I don’t think the Times allowed its news staff to be self-promoting political hacks like this.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Ed

    The NYT editor, a genteel creole from Louisiana, has lost control of the newsroom. The Woke rule there now and as a result standards are falling all over.

  107. But because I have my own personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution, I’m not all that dismissive or hostile toward the NYT having their own personal crackpot theory either.

    Except that their theory isn’t a crackpot theory. It’s a conspiracy theory meant to demonize an entire class of people – namely conservative whites, especially those of British descent. You might as well call it the Protocols of the Elders of Albion.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Wilkey

    The left’s anti-white hate just keeps getting less euphemistic and more explicit.

    Trending now: “Mayo Pete.” He might be gay and have some Arab-infused Maltese blood, but his targeting older and moderate white Dems is unacceptable.

    Speaking of which, I put in a small Stacy Abrams for VP nominee bet at 8-1. I find her, despite her politics, to be normal and likable for a Dem politician.

    She’s a two-fer and would add racial and geographic balance to any of Biden, Warren, Bernie, and Pete. She’s also been careful to avoid committing to unpopular hard left positions. I also took a small 20-1 bet on Sherrod Brown. He consistently outperforms other Democrats in a swing state. Gary Peters for the same reason I’d consider tossing some money on at 50-1 if the option arises.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  108. as geneticist David Reich has pointed out, humanity was split into two basic large populations: the Out-of-Africans and the Still-in-Africans.

    Not sure about the genetics of it, but historically the best split is probably three ways: Eurasians, Africans, and Everywhere Else. Prior to A.D. 1492. nearly everything of historical importance happened in either Eurasia or a tiny sliver of northeastern Africa. Post-1492 the people living in Everywhere Else – the Americas, Australia & Oceania – were easily overrun, thanks to having been separated from thousands of years of disease transmission. Africa had its own reasons for keeping the Eurasians from overwhelming them.

  109. @Redneck farmer
    @Lot

    There was still an Indian problem in Ohio in 1800, but even then, 3 years later, we had added 15,000 people, and became a state.

    Replies: @Lot

    Ohio has been ranked 7th in population for a long time, since it was passed by Florida.

    Ohio’s rural population is 3rd, behind Texas and North Carolina.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Lot

    We built a centrally-located giant horseshoe to quarantine all the globalists. The rest of us like each other, but not that much, so we enjoy our space.

    Replies: @Lot

  110. @Lot
    @Redneck farmer

    Ohio has been ranked 7th in population for a long time, since it was passed by Florida.

    Ohio’s rural population is 3rd, behind Texas and North Carolina.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    We built a centrally-located giant horseshoe to quarantine all the globalists. The rest of us like each other, but not that much, so we enjoy our space.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Desiderius

    Ohio gave us America’s first extra-globalist, John Glenn.

    Reagan was unbeatable in 1984, but Glenn’s loss to Mondale in the primary was strange. National hero versus failed presidency VP?

    On top of this, The Right Stuff hit theaters in 1983, near perfect timing for him.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Joe Stalin

  111. @Wilkey

    But because I have my own personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution, I’m not all that dismissive or hostile toward the NYT having their own personal crackpot theory either.
     
    Except that their theory isn’t a crackpot theory. It’s a conspiracy theory meant to demonize an entire class of people - namely conservative whites, especially those of British descent. You might as well call it the Protocols of the Elders of Albion.

    Replies: @Lot

    The left’s anti-white hate just keeps getting less euphemistic and more explicit.

    Trending now: “Mayo Pete.” He might be gay and have some Arab-infused Maltese blood, but his targeting older and moderate white Dems is unacceptable.

    Speaking of which, I put in a small Stacy Abrams for VP nominee bet at 8-1. I find her, despite her politics, to be normal and likable for a Dem politician.

    She’s a two-fer and would add racial and geographic balance to any of Biden, Warren, Bernie, and Pete. She’s also been careful to avoid committing to unpopular hard left positions. I also took a small 20-1 bet on Sherrod Brown. He consistently outperforms other Democrats in a swing state. Gary Peters for the same reason I’d consider tossing some money on at 50-1 if the option arises.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Lot

    Stacy continues to believe, or at least continued to believe for a long time, that she really won the Governorship of Georgia.

  112. @Desiderius
    @Lot

    We built a centrally-located giant horseshoe to quarantine all the globalists. The rest of us like each other, but not that much, so we enjoy our space.

    Replies: @Lot

    Ohio gave us America’s first extra-globalist, John Glenn.

    Reagan was unbeatable in 1984, but Glenn’s loss to Mondale in the primary was strange. National hero versus failed presidency VP?

    On top of this, The Right Stuff hit theaters in 1983, near perfect timing for him.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Lot

    See some antique commentary by Michael Kinsley, Fred Barnes, and RM Kaus on how he campaigned for the office in 1984, especially in Iowa. He not only lost to Mondale. He lost to Gary Hart, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Cranston. Barnes said competing in Iowa requires boots on the ground, and he did not organize. Kaus was at the time working for another campaign; he said "we suspect the real puppet-masters are the people working for John Glenn, who reads his speeches verbatim, complete with typos". Kinsley's assessment of him was that he gave inane and vacuous answers to unscripted questions and that whatever his role in the space program, as a politician he was pretty much what Chuck Yeager called the astronauts - spam in a can - "a warm body perched atop a national campaign organization which would function just about as well if he were sound asleep".

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Desiderius

    , @Joe Stalin
    @Lot

    "The Right Stuff" -- When we once reached for the stars.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmIxyRHwsR4

  113. My personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution is that it was motivated less by the urge to keep blacks down than by the urge to conquer the North American continent from the American Indians and their European allies.

    A crackpot theory I hold close to my bosom is that the settlers settled on making each state autonomous taking inspiration from the natives Five Nations League, that united otherwise hostile tribes against any foreign threat. They then cunningly dressed it up in Greek or Roman clothes to hide this fact.

  114. @trelane
    The Gray Lady is not merely left-leaning and slanted, it is full-on leftist World Socialist Web Site Leftist Maoist. By its own admission here. And since the NYT is a mouthpiece of the Deep State we can infer what the deep state has in mind for us: a boot stamping on a human face forever.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Pop Warner

    It’s a Jewish supremacist daily paper, nothing more. They’ll be left wing Maoists if it advances jewish interests.

  115. @Lot
    @Desiderius

    Ohio gave us America’s first extra-globalist, John Glenn.

    Reagan was unbeatable in 1984, but Glenn’s loss to Mondale in the primary was strange. National hero versus failed presidency VP?

    On top of this, The Right Stuff hit theaters in 1983, near perfect timing for him.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Joe Stalin

    See some antique commentary by Michael Kinsley, Fred Barnes, and RM Kaus on how he campaigned for the office in 1984, especially in Iowa. He not only lost to Mondale. He lost to Gary Hart, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Cranston. Barnes said competing in Iowa requires boots on the ground, and he did not organize. Kaus was at the time working for another campaign; he said “we suspect the real puppet-masters are the people working for John Glenn, who reads his speeches verbatim, complete with typos”. Kinsley’s assessment of him was that he gave inane and vacuous answers to unscripted questions and that whatever his role in the space program, as a politician he was pretty much what Chuck Yeager called the astronauts – spam in a can – “a warm body perched atop a national campaign organization which would function just about as well if he were sound asleep”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Art Deco

    Well, that'd be a great critique if the purpose of politicians was oratorical optics, via provision of good quotations trippingly on the tongue to idle journalists and "knowledge workers." We witnessed the reductio ad absurdum of that principle 2009-2016 and the Zucker Bros parody movie of same more lately.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Desiderius
    @Art Deco

    He was better than Metzenbaum. What do we have now - Portman, Brown, and DeWine? Meh.

    At least there's Jordan, and that's not nothing. We've been sending Chabot who seems reasonable.

  116. @Lot
    @Wilkey

    The left’s anti-white hate just keeps getting less euphemistic and more explicit.

    Trending now: “Mayo Pete.” He might be gay and have some Arab-infused Maltese blood, but his targeting older and moderate white Dems is unacceptable.

    Speaking of which, I put in a small Stacy Abrams for VP nominee bet at 8-1. I find her, despite her politics, to be normal and likable for a Dem politician.

    She’s a two-fer and would add racial and geographic balance to any of Biden, Warren, Bernie, and Pete. She’s also been careful to avoid committing to unpopular hard left positions. I also took a small 20-1 bet on Sherrod Brown. He consistently outperforms other Democrats in a swing state. Gary Peters for the same reason I’d consider tossing some money on at 50-1 if the option arises.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Stacy continues to believe, or at least continued to believe for a long time, that she really won the Governorship of Georgia.

  117. @cmpx
    I only know of Gordon Wood because he was cited in the "Harvard bar" dialogue in Good Will Hunting:

    That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
     

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Weirdest “heated argument with Dean Winters’s even weirder brother” scene evah

  118. S says:

    And in general King George III’s government was unsympathetic toward Franklin’s vision of a British Empire in 1900 where the weight of political power would be in North America rather than in Britain through force of number, especially because of the lack of aristocrats in America.

    This is a good and insightful point, but there were others as you’re no doubt aware, namely aristocratic British Whigs, who whilst also loyal to the Empire, were simultaneously at odds with the British Crown in it’s dealings with the North American colonies and it’s colonists.

    And there might be something of a ‘tail wagging the dog’ aspect of the 1776 American Revolution as it has been traditionally taught.

    Fon Belcher is an apparent modern day distant relation of the British North American colonial establishment heavyweight Jonathan Belcher (1682 – 1757). [Jonathan Belcher was the royal governor at various times of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, founded the Ivy League school Princeton University, and was the first North American born British Freemason. Though Fon Belcher doesn’t explicitly state it, he appears likely to be a Freemason as well.]

    According to Fon Belcher in a fascinating article excerpted and linked below, powerful elements of the British Whig party were entirely okay with the center of power of the British Empire moving from England to British North America, and advocated it, provided the colonies ultimately stayed a part of the Empire.

    The effect of that rhetoric was to initiate a shift in the relationship between London, the center of the British empire, and its American periphery. The Great War for Empire [the French and Indian War] was thus a prelude to the American Revolution, and both wars were linked through ideology. The underlying ideology of the Angloamerican imperialists during the Empire War was their Whig Enlightenment agenda to create an American Peripheral Center.

    The 1853 geopolitical book The New Rome, linked and excerpted below (see comment six below OP) from Majority Rights,
    along these same lines states that it is the United States that is to be the true center of power of the British Empire, the 1776 American Revolution being a planned (and only temporary) strategic false split between the US and UK.

    Also as planned, in the future the US and UK are to join back together and form a practically unbeatable united front.

    When that takes place the center of power of the British Empire will then move from England to the United States. [If a person thinks that’s ‘crazy’, this same 1853 book contains the even crazier notions that this future US/UK front will unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth in a drive to conquer Germany. The US/UK’s German conquest mission accomplished, it is to be followed immediately after by a great worldwide struggle between the United States and Russia for global hegemony.]

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 87-88

    ‘The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States…’

    ‘…The realization of an idea higher than could be developed in the mother island, that of the republican democracy, required a temporary segregation of the centre; that task accomplished, it is time to call for a reunion; but the former adjunct [the US] being now no longer merely the geographical centre, but the political and social focus, must take the lead..’

    Though neither Fon Belcher or The New Rome say this, one additional powerful reason for a strategic false split between the US and UK would be a desire by the British to avoid Spain’s unhappy experience of the previous centuries.

    It will be recalled that Spain after the initial discovery of the New World in 1492 had openly (for a time) conquered and consolidated the whole of the continent of South America, Central America, and a large chunk of North America.

    As a result of it’s brazeness Spain was forever having to deal with various combinations and alliances formed against it, ie Spain’s figurative Death Star like empire versus other territory and colony poor European power’s X-wing fighters.

    ‘Spain is too powerful!’ Queen Elizabeth is said to have declared in regards to this.

    Little England, having watched and learned from Spain’s past experience, would not make this same mistake.

    A strategic false split (under cover of the British Whig party inspired 1776 American Revolution) would allow Britain’s ‘former colonists’ to unwittingly conquer and consolidate the heartland of North America for the British Empire ‘on the sly’ as it were, while Europe and the rest of the world slept. Having accomplished this, the US and UK (as pre-planned) would reunite in about 1900.

    Be that as it may, since 1900 and the formation of the ‘special relationship’ at that time, a relationship only just short of an outright political union between the US and the UK, the two powers ever since have done just about everything together, especially so in the area of wars.

    In all this I compare the everyday US citizen’s historic relationship with the British Empire to be very possibly much like an old episode of the famous 1967 British TV series The Prisoner tellingly entitled ‘Many Happy Returns’.

    In it (spoiler alert here) the prisoner ‘#6’ after overcoming both land and sea and thus managing the seemingly impossible task of escape from his island prison, now free, makes his way to London.

    Convincing his sceptical former British intelligence associates there of the reality of this ghastly prison, another seemingly impossible task, he is alloted the use of a RAF fighter jet to pin point the island’s exact location, so as to release it’s other unhappy prisoners, and then to ultimately destroy it.

    Unbeknownst to #6, a rogue element of British intelligence has waylayed the original planned for RAF fighter pilot and taken his place.

    After a lengthy search of the immense ocean, his former island prison is located, and #6 seems on the cusp of realizing his long held dream of destroying the place. It is then that the rogue intelligence officer piloting the plane unexpectedly and unceremoniously ejects #6 to parachute back down to his island prison.

    A prisoner once more, a dejected #6 is then advised his ‘escape’ from the island prison from start to finish had been a wholly orchestrated affair, and that he had never been in reality out of the clutches of the shadowy people in London imprisoning and controlling him. They had simply wanted to observe what he might do and thus gain ‘information’ unwittingly from him.

    Perhaps not dissimilarly, I seriously doubt the British Empire ever had the slightest intention of ever in reality letting it’s rich North American colonies, or it’s colonists for that matter, go.

    http://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

  119. @Art Deco
    @Lot

    See some antique commentary by Michael Kinsley, Fred Barnes, and RM Kaus on how he campaigned for the office in 1984, especially in Iowa. He not only lost to Mondale. He lost to Gary Hart, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Cranston. Barnes said competing in Iowa requires boots on the ground, and he did not organize. Kaus was at the time working for another campaign; he said "we suspect the real puppet-masters are the people working for John Glenn, who reads his speeches verbatim, complete with typos". Kinsley's assessment of him was that he gave inane and vacuous answers to unscripted questions and that whatever his role in the space program, as a politician he was pretty much what Chuck Yeager called the astronauts - spam in a can - "a warm body perched atop a national campaign organization which would function just about as well if he were sound asleep".

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Desiderius

    Well, that’d be a great critique if the purpose of politicians was oratorical optics, via provision of good quotations trippingly on the tongue to idle journalists and “knowledge workers.” We witnessed the reductio ad absurdum of that principle 2009-2016 and the Zucker Bros parody movie of same more lately.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Anonymous

    I'm not saying anything about what the purpose of politicians is. I'm pointing out the man ran a lousy campaign, which is one reason he was quickly dispatched. As you mention 'oratorical optics', Jesse Jackson was the only candidate who was a talented public speaker, though George McGovern was certainly adequate. A critique of the public speaking of Gary Hart and Walter Mondale was also published that year by P.J. O'Rourke. IIRC, the title was "Oh, Shut Up". A deficit of 'oratorical optics' per se was not the reason Glenn lost.

  120. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's two separate posts, really, Steve, your theory that I don't know enough to argue about, and this stupidity from the 1619 project. I find it embarrassing to be on the side of World Socialists, but I favor truth over this Orwellian Ministry of Truth crap that I see from this NYT 1619 thing.

    I really didn't know that things were getting this bad. We may have to homeschool to avoid my getting into a battle with a school district. The amount of pure purposeful lying going on is getting to Book of Revelation levels. That's not a good sign.

    Replies: @Kronos

    I generally feel sympathetic to the World Socialists. (Despite being of a more paleoconservative bent.) I’m currently reading Paul Gottfried’s “The Strange Death of Marxism.” It’s a sad tale on how many European socialist/communist parties got either killed (metaphorically) or synthesized by Bill Clinton type Neo-Liberal/Third Way/Identity Politics. (Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.) Many socialists are still heartbroken that former friends and colleagues “joined the corporate enemy.” That Cultural Marxism is a unholy monstrous perversion that needs to be destroyed.

    • Replies: @S
    @Kronos


    I’m currently reading Paul Gottfried’s “The Strange Death of Marxism.” It’s a sad tale on how many European socialist/communist parties got either killed (metaphorically) or synthesized by Bill Clinton type Neo-Liberal/Third Way/Identity Politics. (Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.)
     
    We might well see a paralleling book entitled 'The Strange Death of Capitalism' should the long projected for economic and political collapse of the United States take place, perhaps sooner than anyone might think.

    Should that happen, I suppose the 'true believers' in either Capitalism or Communism that remain will at least then (ironically) have each other to commiserate with in their shared agony.
  121. @Art Deco
    @Lot

    See some antique commentary by Michael Kinsley, Fred Barnes, and RM Kaus on how he campaigned for the office in 1984, especially in Iowa. He not only lost to Mondale. He lost to Gary Hart, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Cranston. Barnes said competing in Iowa requires boots on the ground, and he did not organize. Kaus was at the time working for another campaign; he said "we suspect the real puppet-masters are the people working for John Glenn, who reads his speeches verbatim, complete with typos". Kinsley's assessment of him was that he gave inane and vacuous answers to unscripted questions and that whatever his role in the space program, as a politician he was pretty much what Chuck Yeager called the astronauts - spam in a can - "a warm body perched atop a national campaign organization which would function just about as well if he were sound asleep".

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Desiderius

    He was better than Metzenbaum. What do we have now – Portman, Brown, and DeWine? Meh.

    At least there’s Jordan, and that’s not nothing. We’ve been sending Chabot who seems reasonable.

  122. @RichardTaylor
    I think the 1776 Revolution was about Americans wanting to be their own country, free from British interference that they increasingly didn't trust. But I have no problem with the NYT's crackpot theory in a way.

    In some sense, 1776 was just a secession from the British union just like 1861 was a secession from the US union. One won (and is therefor good) and one lost (and is therefore bad).

    Replies: @nebulafox

    It was a gradual shift to an independent American identity: in the 1760s, men like Washington and Franklin did view themselves very much as Englishmen. That’s why things like taxation with representation didn’t set well with them. They were being denied the born rights that Englishmen were supposed to have. There’s an underlying connection here with the English Civil War: the freeborn rights that were being debated in the Putney Debates were the same rights the colonists didn’t think they were getting.

    BTW: Washington could have *very* easily decided to pull an Oliver Cromwell if he wanted to, during and after the revolution. They didn’t call him the American Cincinnatus for nothing. Probably took on even more resonance in the 1790s when you contrast the American experience with France descending into outright Caesarism.

    >In some sense, 1776 was just a secession from the British union just like 1861 was a secession from the US union. One won (and is therefor good) and one lost (and is therefore bad).

    One was to defend liberty against a ham-handed colonial government who repeatedly refused to extend proper rights to the colonials, no matter how much hypocrisy was involved when it came to the treatments of slaves and natives. The other was to artificially preserve an archaic, immoral system from modernity while hypocritically using the resources of the rest of the nation to do so. The two are not equivalent.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @nebulafox

    Agreed, The "Revolution" was more a war of independence from an alien power that was increasingly oppressive.

  123. @Kronos
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I generally feel sympathetic to the World Socialists. (Despite being of a more paleoconservative bent.) I’m currently reading Paul Gottfried’s “The Strange Death of Marxism.” It’s a sad tale on how many European socialist/communist parties got either killed (metaphorically) or synthesized by Bill Clinton type Neo-Liberal/Third Way/Identity Politics. (Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.) Many socialists are still heartbroken that former friends and colleagues “joined the corporate enemy.” That Cultural Marxism is a unholy monstrous perversion that needs to be destroyed.

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Qov0MMOlL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://youtu.be/KvTDvcEGHVE

    Replies: @S

    I’m currently reading Paul Gottfried’s “The Strange Death of Marxism.” It’s a sad tale on how many European socialist/communist parties got either killed (metaphorically) or synthesized by Bill Clinton type Neo-Liberal/Third Way/Identity Politics. (Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.)

    We might well see a paralleling book entitled ‘The Strange Death of Capitalism’ should the long projected for economic and political collapse of the United States take place, perhaps sooner than anyone might think.

    Should that happen, I suppose the ‘true believers’ in either Capitalism or Communism that remain will at least then (ironically) have each other to commiserate with in their shared agony.

  124. @Bert
    @George

    Yes, coincidence because slavery was not ended in the British Empire until 1833, 58 years later.

    Another anti-white troll who believes, without written evidence from 1772-1775, that he can read the slave owners' minds regarding their motives for supporting independence. Steve Sailer's hypothesis of motive makes infinitely more sense.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @George

    My Go West, Young Nation theory is a motivation that united North and South, slaveowner and abolitionist. I wouldn’t totally rule out the Preserve Slavery theory in some situations, but it would be hard to explain how, say, it made Boston the main hub of Independence agitation.

    Counter-example: New York City was the main Loyalist hub and it was a port and its river ran north not west. After the Erie Canal in the 1820s, it benefited hugely from the Westward expansion, but in the 1770s, it was tied to the Atlantic and was less interested in Westward expansion than most other places in America.

    • Replies: @Bert
    @Steve Sailer

    Further evidence for the My Go West, Young Nation theory is that the ethnic group most united in seeking independence, the Scots-Irish, was the one that had actively defied the 1763 proclamation by the Crown that trans-Appalachian settlement was prohibited. In the 1760's the Long Hunters were exploring what is now Tennessee and Kentucky. In the early 1770's Scots-Irish settlements were established on upper tributaries of the Tennessee River, the Holston, Nolicuky, and the Watauga, through leases and purchases made directly between the Scots-Irish and the Cherokee. The Wilderness Road was opened from Virginia to Kentucky in 1775 by Daniel Boone.

    Militiamen from the Tennessee settlements recrossed the mountains several times during the crucial year of 1780 to fight the British in North and South Carolina (at Musgrove's Mill, Kings Mountain and other places). The illegal Trans-Appalachian settlements also provided refuge for Elijah Clarke's force from Georgia after that colony was reconquered by the British. The Scots-Irish were the vanguard of expansion in the second half of the 18th century, and numerous observers recognized that they provided disproportionate military support for The Revolution. One writer stated that it was not an American revolution, but a Presbyterian revolution.

    In the 1950's this history was well-known. At that time, misinformation, no propaganda, like the 1619 project would have been laughed at. Not so today when many decades of leftist control of school curricula have replaced history with fable.

    , @Sean
    @Steve Sailer


    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144039X.2012.734114?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=fsla20
    The antislavery activity of the religious fringe of Atlantic Presbyterianism, Covenanters, has been neglected. Covenanters produced longstanding articulations of antislavery rooted in seventeenth-century Scotland. In America, Covenanters created an ignored alternative to traditional paradigms of slavery debates. They were antislavery Biblical literalists. In the American South, their support of the American Colonization Society (ACS) was an attempt to maintain their faith, and they believed the ACS was their brainchild. Everywhere, Covenanters utilized antislavery to maintain connection to their Old World religious traditions
     
    The Covenanters were from South West Scotland, (as were most of the Scots Irish) The enemies of the Scottish Covenanters were the Highlanders who were enforcers for the King. The Rev Ian Paisley, for example, revered the memory of the Covenanters executed for the beliefs and travelled to Scotland to place a wreath on their graves.

    The Ulster Scots Covenanter antislavery and support for the Revolution both harked back to their old conflict with the British state in Scotland and then Ulster, and their anti-Catholicism. To these people the Quebec Act seemed like a Papist plot.

    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-act

    The Province of Quebec was significantly enlarged. No longer limited to the St. Lawrence River Valley, the province’s borders expanded to comprise Labrador, Anticosti Island, Magdalen Islands and a large area to the west of the Thirteen Colonies, including what would become Southern Ontario, the disputed territory of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and even parts of modern-day Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. This territory also included what was then called the “Land of the Indians” that the Royal Proclamation had recognized as Indigenous reserves. The proclamation had banned European settlement on this territory. According to Alan Taylor, the idea was that “Quebec’s authoritarian government” could better prevent the arrival of settlers and land speculators from the Thirteen Colonies onto this land.
     
    The Ulster Scots immigration to New England went to the the borders frontier region where the 'Indian fighting' was carried out by scalphunting expeditions after the bounty on Indians offered by the New England government. Benjamin Franklin complained about the 'Quaker Assembly. of Pennsylvania refusing to use force against the Indians but after Braddock's disastrous defeat trying to take the French Fort Duquesne (now downtown Pittsburgh) Indians decided the the French were winners and in 1755 wreaked havoc along the frontier of settlement , which at that time was the Kittakenney or Blue Ridge range that extend from western Maryland to Northern New Jersey . In the exposed frontier region of Cumberland County mourners at a funeral were killed by Indians who also took the corpse of the deceased woman out her coffin and scalped her. As a result the Pennsylvania province government decreed a bounty on Delaware and Shawnee Indians.

    On April 8, 1756, Governor Robert Morris enacted the Scalp Act. Anyone who brought in a male scalp above age of 12 would be given 150 pieces of eight, ($150), for females above age of 12 or males under the age of 12, they would be paid $130.
     
    I think it is pretty clear that the Quebec Act attempts to protect Indians and allow Catholics full civil rights (no mention of religion in the oath of allegiance) was a greater cause of the American Revolution than a fear that slavery would be abolished.

    The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam
    By Barbara Tuchman
    The Proclamation was hardly welcome news to colonists who were already forming stock companies to promote migration for profit or, like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, obtaining grants of land across the mountains for speculation
     
  125. @Paul Jolliffe
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    Wasn't the 1750's Ben Franklin pointing out (correctly) that unless immigration was restricted, there would be no more land for . . .

    the second sons in families?

    I mean, primogeniture laws guaranteed that the eldest sons were all set in the American colonies, but what about the younger sons? How were they going to make a living if they could not settle further west on their own farms? Wasn't that Franklin's main point?

    You are correct to point out that the prospect of actually moving to new lands west of the Appalachians changed Franklin's thinking by 1760, but to me, this is not "greed for land". Instead, it is the perfectly normal and human desire to have a place of one's own, a place on which to settle and raise a family.

    This push westward was not solely driven by families concerned with the welfare of their sons, but also concerned with their daughters - if the young men - especially the younger sons! - can't move west (and are locked out of the available land on the east coast), then who are the young women going to marry?

    In these very understandable concerns (timeless, universal, and probably encoded in our DNA) I see nothing that could be described as "Americans desire to beat up poor Indians and take their land."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Or 4th and 5th sons: women in Waltham, MA averaged 8.9 babies.

  126. @Hank Yobo
    @Art Deco

    Didn't the Crown recognize recognise Aboriginal "ownership" of lands west of the Proclamation Line in 1763?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/proc1763.asp

    I think the money quote is here:

    And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

    “For the use of the said Indians” describes a right of usufruct, not allodial rights (as far as I can tell). The proclamation makes explicit that no settler has a franchise to purchase or take possession of land, but it makes no provision for the survey of the land to adjudicate claims between contending bands of Indians.

    again:

    And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.–

    The reference is to ‘hunting grounds’ rather than cultivated fields. The allocation of usufruct to the Indians is a default state in the absence of cession or purchase. I’m not seeing in the text any allusion which suggests that it is not at the discretion of the Crown as protector to insist on cession or allow purchase.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    @Art Deco

    Perhaps if you read further you will see that the Crown was only prepared to buy the land if the Aboriginal communities first took the initiative to sell it. The onus was apparently placed upon the Natives to dispose of their lands, not the Crown to acquire it at will. When questions later rose about Aboriginal title to specific areas, the Crown was usually very cognizant about traditional tribal boundaries and areas of influence thanks to their two Superintendents of Indian Affairs. Since the Stadial Development of Mankind was all the rage, the reference to "hunting grounds" should be understood in this intellectual context. Indians were not yet capable of cultivating fields in the European sense.

  127. @Anonymous
    @Art Deco

    Well, that'd be a great critique if the purpose of politicians was oratorical optics, via provision of good quotations trippingly on the tongue to idle journalists and "knowledge workers." We witnessed the reductio ad absurdum of that principle 2009-2016 and the Zucker Bros parody movie of same more lately.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I’m not saying anything about what the purpose of politicians is. I’m pointing out the man ran a lousy campaign, which is one reason he was quickly dispatched. As you mention ‘oratorical optics’, Jesse Jackson was the only candidate who was a talented public speaker, though George McGovern was certainly adequate. A critique of the public speaking of Gary Hart and Walter Mondale was also published that year by P.J. O’Rourke. IIRC, the title was “Oh, Shut Up”. A deficit of ‘oratorical optics’ per se was not the reason Glenn lost.

  128. @Lot
    @Desiderius

    Ohio gave us America’s first extra-globalist, John Glenn.

    Reagan was unbeatable in 1984, but Glenn’s loss to Mondale in the primary was strange. National hero versus failed presidency VP?

    On top of this, The Right Stuff hit theaters in 1983, near perfect timing for him.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Joe Stalin

    “The Right Stuff” — When we once reached for the stars.

  129. @nebulafox
    @RichardTaylor

    It was a gradual shift to an independent American identity: in the 1760s, men like Washington and Franklin did view themselves very much as Englishmen. That's why things like taxation with representation didn't set well with them. They were being denied the born rights that Englishmen were supposed to have. There's an underlying connection here with the English Civil War: the freeborn rights that were being debated in the Putney Debates were the same rights the colonists didn't think they were getting.

    BTW: Washington could have *very* easily decided to pull an Oliver Cromwell if he wanted to, during and after the revolution. They didn't call him the American Cincinnatus for nothing. Probably took on even more resonance in the 1790s when you contrast the American experience with France descending into outright Caesarism.

    >In some sense, 1776 was just a secession from the British union just like 1861 was a secession from the US union. One won (and is therefor good) and one lost (and is therefore bad).

    One was to defend liberty against a ham-handed colonial government who repeatedly refused to extend proper rights to the colonials, no matter how much hypocrisy was involved when it came to the treatments of slaves and natives. The other was to artificially preserve an archaic, immoral system from modernity while hypocritically using the resources of the rest of the nation to do so. The two are not equivalent.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy

    Agreed, The “Revolution” was more a war of independence from an alien power that was increasingly oppressive.

  130. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The British didn't care about American quarrels with Indians on the frontier and Americans didn't care about British quarrels with the French and others in Europe. Neither side wished to expend lives and money fighting wars that were no of concern to them.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The British didn’t care about American quarrels with Indians on the frontier and Americans didn’t care about British quarrels with the French and others in Europe.

    True in the abstract, but things got complicated in America. The colonists didn’t merely fight Indians as they expanded but rubbed up against French claimed-and-contested territories. Thus, it was just a matter of fighting Indians but threatening French claims in the New World. This put the Brits in a tight spot. Side with Colonialists and anger the French, leading to more wars, or make peace with the French to the displeasure of the colonialists who, while taking land from Indians, were also under constant attack from Indians. In a way, the Indians were like proxies. Anglos used their Indians against the French, and the French used their Indians against the Anglos. This gave both sides plausible deniability. “It wasn’t us. The injuns done it.” But in fact, the French fended off Anglo/colonial expansion by using their Indians, and Anglos, in turn, used their Indians to harass the French. Indians were like the Kurds and Afghans of them days. It’s like, in the abstract, America doesn’t care about Kurds, but they are useful proxies in its imperial sake in the Middle East. It’s to “Save the Kurds!!” Or, all of a sudden, we realize that Ukrianians are the closest allies next to Israel. Another variation of “our indians” vs “their indians”.

    Even though Napoleon eventually sold the Louisiana Territory, did the French have a chance after losing Canada? Because of the French support of the American Revolution and America’s sympathies for the French Revolution, the French could have counted on the Americans, but for how long? What if passage to the Louisiana territories were blocked from Canada all the way down to the American south? Then, the French could have gone up through the Mississippi River from way south, but how long before Americans grab that too? If the territory hadn’t been sold, there would likely have been some excuse for the Americans to grab it like they did with SW territories later. And that would have soured relations between US and France, even leading to war. So, did Napoleon read the writing on the wall and figure it’s better to sell for much needed cash than hold onto land that seemed pretty doomed?

    • Replies: @Tex
    @Anonymous


    Even though Napoleon eventually sold the Louisiana Territory, did the French have a chance after losing Canada? Because of the French support of the American Revolution and America’s sympathies for the French Revolution, the French could have counted on the Americans, but for how long? What if passage to the Louisiana territories were blocked from Canada all the way down to the American south? Then, the French could have gone up through the Mississippi River from way south, but how long before Americans grab that too? If the territory hadn’t been sold, there would likely have been some excuse for the Americans to grab it like they did with SW territories later. And that would have soured relations between US and France, even leading to war. So, did Napoleon read the writing on the wall and figure it’s better to sell for much needed cash than hold onto land that seemed pretty doomed?
     
    Napoleon's big problem with Louisiana was that he didn't control it. The Spanish king had ceded it to France, but the Spanish were still running it. Moreover, the required stepping stone to get effective military & economic control was San Domingue (Haiti) now in the hands of rebellious slaves, albeit "loyal" to France.

    Looming over it all was the Royal Navy. France and Britain were at peace for about thirty minutes and as soon as war resumed the Royal Navy would have veto power over anything Bonaparte did more than a mile or so from the French coast.

    When Bonaparte's plans to restore French authority in Haiti collapsed, and war with Britain looming on the horizon, his best bet was to sell Louisiana fast for whatever he could get. It didn't sit well with the Spanish, but they were not in much of a position to object, France and the USA being too strong to take on. The hand over ceremony in New Orleans literally consisted of the Spanish colors being struck, the French Tricolor going up, then down again as the Stars and Stripes went up.

    Had the Spanish retained Louisiana, they would have lost it to the US and rebellious colonists the way they lost the rest of their American empire. Had Napoleon managed to impose his will on Haiti and get effective control of the lower Mississippi makes for some interesting speculation.
  131. @iffen
    @syonredux

    He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent…

    Only because they were completely dependent upon the British for protection against their slaves, which, because of the ample white population, the American colonists were not.

    Replies: @syonredux

    He knew that that the slave-owners in Barbados and Jamaica were quite quiescent…

    Only because they were completely dependent upon the British for protection against their slaves, which, because of the ample white population, the American colonists were not.

    Hence my point about the large White population in the 13 colonies in 1776 being the key factor .

  132. @bomag
    @Desiderius

    A sort-of silver lining here is that the mask is off; he openly states that he is a leftist who wants to crush all who don't align with his views.

    We don't have to wade through protests that he is reasonable and is concerned about the greater good.

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara

    And, of course, if he said “I am a National Socialist and…” he’d be fired immediately, tenure or no. An obvious point made over and over, but it needs to be said over and over.

  133. @RVBlake
    @Sean

    British fair play wins every time... The "British fair play" that saw them forcibly remove the French Acadian farmers from their homes in the Maritime Provinces in 1755 and ship them to the Thirteen Colonies, Britain, and France. Many died enroute of disease and shipwreck.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo

    Ah, the Acadians had a choice to remain neutral or take up arms against George II during the 1750’s. They chose the later and paid the price. Choices have consequences. British treatment of the Acadians was less severe than that of the Jacobite rebels. And, by the way, the Acadian transports were allowed to return to their homes after the Seven Years’ War provided they took the Oath of Allegiance. Many did.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Hank Yobo

    Indeed the Jacobites suffered merciless punitive measures, but not at the hands of Wolfe who was able to secure a great victory because his Highland troops knew of his fair play.


    http://carmichaelwatson.blogspot.com/2010/02/general-wolfe-at-battle-of-culloden.html
    A gentleman of the name of Macleod and his three sons from Glenelg fell at the battle of Culloden. Although severely wound[ed] the father was not yet dead. As Cumberland and his staff were passing Mac-leod slightly moved his head to look at them. “Shoot that damed bugar [sic] looking at me” said Cumberland to an officer beside him. My comission is at the disposal of your Royal Highness but I decline to become a butcher replied the officer. Without noticing heeding the remark Cumberland ordered a soldier near him to shoot that damned bugar [sic] The soldier said that all his lead was done up Take the stock of your gun cowardly bugar [sic] and smash his brains said Cumberland and thus sternly addressed the soldier battered the head and brains of Macleod breaking his gun in the process.

    The officer who declined to shoot Macleod was Wolfe who fell at the battle of Quebec when the Highlanders showed prodigous valour and conquered Canada to the British crown.

     

    Yes the Acadians refused to sign an unconditional oath of allegiance. They could have been sitting pretty

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/french-canadians-unexplained-genetic/

    Moreau et al. (2011) have shown that settlers on the wave front of colonization enjoyed a reproductive advantage over other French Canadians and thus contributed more to the current gene pool. Such settlers also seem to have been selected for higher fertility, according to a study of one French Canadian community. Between 1800 and 1940, the community of Île aux Coudres saw its mean age of first reproduction (AFR) fall by four years, not through a lowering of the mean age of marriage (which remained stable) but through a shortening of the mean interval between marriage and first birth. [...]

    French Canadians are genetically unique for several reasons. ... In France, their ancestors lived almost under steady state conditions: land scarcity, small family size, late marriage for men and women alike, rigid class distinctions, and limited geographic mobility. In Quebec, those limitations were weaker if not absent altogether. Because land was much more plentiful, the opportunities were accordingly greater for marrying younger and having larger families. This freer and less limiting environment foiled attempts to transplant feudalism to Quebec even during the French Regime, with the result that the term paysan never caught on. People called themselves habitants. Finally, in comparison to other French Canadians within the same region, business-minded individuals had more chances for economic betterment in those areas, like eastern Quebec, where competition from American or British merchants was relatively weak.
     

    Replies: @Hank Yobo

  134. @Art Deco
    @Hank Yobo

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/proc1763.asp

    I think the money quote is here:

    And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

    "For the use of the said Indians" describes a right of usufruct, not allodial rights (as far as I can tell). The proclamation makes explicit that no settler has a franchise to purchase or take possession of land, but it makes no provision for the survey of the land to adjudicate claims between contending bands of Indians.

    again:

    And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.--

    The reference is to 'hunting grounds' rather than cultivated fields. The allocation of usufruct to the Indians is a default state in the absence of cession or purchase. I'm not seeing in the text any allusion which suggests that it is not at the discretion of the Crown as protector to insist on cession or allow purchase.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo

    Perhaps if you read further you will see that the Crown was only prepared to buy the land if the Aboriginal communities first took the initiative to sell it. The onus was apparently placed upon the Natives to dispose of their lands, not the Crown to acquire it at will. When questions later rose about Aboriginal title to specific areas, the Crown was usually very cognizant about traditional tribal boundaries and areas of influence thanks to their two Superintendents of Indian Affairs. Since the Stadial Development of Mankind was all the rage, the reference to “hunting grounds” should be understood in this intellectual context. Indians were not yet capable of cultivating fields in the European sense.

  135. Another 18th century writer who described American population growth was Adam Smith in Book One, Chapter 8 of The Wealth of Nations:

    But though North America is not yet so rich as England, it is much more thriving, and advancing with much greater rapidity to the further acquisition of riches. The most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants. In Great Britain, and most other European countries, they are not supposed to double in less than five hundred years. In the British colonies in North America, it has been found, that they double in twenty or five-and-twenty years.1 Nor in the present times is this increase principally owing to the continual importation of new inhabitants, but to the great multiplication of the species. Those who live to old age, it is said, frequently see there from fifty to a hundred, and sometimes many more, descendants from their own body. Labour is there so well rewarded that a numerous family of children, instead of being a burthen is a source of opulence and prosperity to the parents. The labour of each child, before it can leave their house, is computed to be worth a hundred pounds clear gain to them. A young widow with four or five young children, who, among the middling or inferior ranks of people in Europe, would have so little chance for a second husband, is there frequently courted as a sort of fortune. The value of children is the greatest of all encouragements to marriage. We cannot, therefore, [73] wonder that the people in North America should generally marry very young. Notwithstanding the great increase occasioned by such early marriages, there is a continual complaint of the scarcity of hands in North America. The demand for labourers, the funds destined for maintaining them, increase, it seems, still faster than they can find labourers to employ.

    https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations-cannan-ed-vol-1

  136. @Hank Yobo
    @RVBlake

    Ah, the Acadians had a choice to remain neutral or take up arms against George II during the 1750's. They chose the later and paid the price. Choices have consequences. British treatment of the Acadians was less severe than that of the Jacobite rebels. And, by the way, the Acadian transports were allowed to return to their homes after the Seven Years' War provided they took the Oath of Allegiance. Many did.

    Replies: @Sean

    Indeed the Jacobites suffered merciless punitive measures, but not at the hands of Wolfe who was able to secure a great victory because his Highland troops knew of his fair play.

    http://carmichaelwatson.blogspot.com/2010/02/general-wolfe-at-battle-of-culloden.html
    A gentleman of the name of Macleod and his three sons from Glenelg fell at the battle of Culloden. Although severely wound[ed] the father was not yet dead. As Cumberland and his staff were passing Mac-leod slightly moved his head to look at them. “Shoot that damed bugar [sic] looking at me” said Cumberland to an officer beside him. My comission is at the disposal of your Royal Highness but I decline to become a butcher replied the officer. Without noticing heeding the remark Cumberland ordered a soldier near him to shoot that damned bugar [sic] The soldier said that all his lead was done up Take the stock of your gun cowardly bugar [sic] and smash his brains said Cumberland and thus sternly addressed the soldier battered the head and brains of Macleod breaking his gun in the process.

    The officer who declined to shoot Macleod was Wolfe who fell at the battle of Quebec when the Highlanders showed prodigous valour and conquered Canada to the British crown.

    Yes the Acadians refused to sign an unconditional oath of allegiance. They could have been sitting pretty

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/french-canadians-unexplained-genetic/

    Moreau et al. (2011) have shown that settlers on the wave front of colonization enjoyed a reproductive advantage over other French Canadians and thus contributed more to the current gene pool. Such settlers also seem to have been selected for higher fertility, according to a study of one French Canadian community. Between 1800 and 1940, the community of Île aux Coudres saw its mean age of first reproduction (AFR) fall by four years, not through a lowering of the mean age of marriage (which remained stable) but through a shortening of the mean interval between marriage and first birth. […]

    French Canadians are genetically unique for several reasons. … In France, their ancestors lived almost under steady state conditions: land scarcity, small family size, late marriage for men and women alike, rigid class distinctions, and limited geographic mobility. In Quebec, those limitations were weaker if not absent altogether. Because land was much more plentiful, the opportunities were accordingly greater for marrying younger and having larger families. This freer and less limiting environment foiled attempts to transplant feudalism to Quebec even during the French Regime, with the result that the term paysan never caught on. People called themselves habitants. Finally, in comparison to other French Canadians within the same region, business-minded individuals had more chances for economic betterment in those areas, like eastern Quebec, where competition from American or British merchants was relatively weak.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    @Sean

    FYI, that story about Wolfe at Culloden is apocryphal and didn't appear in print until 1802. The British regulars were operating upon the belief--based upon captured enemy documents or faulty intelligence--that they would receive no quarter from the rebels. Wars and insurrections are not often pretty things. Oaths of Allegiance, by their very nature, are generally unconditional.

    Replies: @Sean

  137. @Steve Sailer
    @Bert

    My Go West, Young Nation theory is a motivation that united North and South, slaveowner and abolitionist. I wouldn't totally rule out the Preserve Slavery theory in some situations, but it would be hard to explain how, say, it made Boston the main hub of Independence agitation.

    Counter-example: New York City was the main Loyalist hub and it was a port and its river ran north not west. After the Erie Canal in the 1820s, it benefited hugely from the Westward expansion, but in the 1770s, it was tied to the Atlantic and was less interested in Westward expansion than most other places in America.

    Replies: @Bert, @Sean

    Further evidence for the My Go West, Young Nation theory is that the ethnic group most united in seeking independence, the Scots-Irish, was the one that had actively defied the 1763 proclamation by the Crown that trans-Appalachian settlement was prohibited. In the 1760’s the Long Hunters were exploring what is now Tennessee and Kentucky. In the early 1770’s Scots-Irish settlements were established on upper tributaries of the Tennessee River, the Holston, Nolicuky, and the Watauga, through leases and purchases made directly between the Scots-Irish and the Cherokee. The Wilderness Road was opened from Virginia to Kentucky in 1775 by Daniel Boone.

    Militiamen from the Tennessee settlements recrossed the mountains several times during the crucial year of 1780 to fight the British in North and South Carolina (at Musgrove’s Mill, Kings Mountain and other places). The illegal Trans-Appalachian settlements also provided refuge for Elijah Clarke’s force from Georgia after that colony was reconquered by the British. The Scots-Irish were the vanguard of expansion in the second half of the 18th century, and numerous observers recognized that they provided disproportionate military support for The Revolution. One writer stated that it was not an American revolution, but a Presbyterian revolution.

    In the 1950’s this history was well-known. At that time, misinformation, no propaganda, like the 1619 project would have been laughed at. Not so today when many decades of leftist control of school curricula have replaced history with fable.

  138. @Redneck farmer
    1. I wonder if editor Silverstein knows he's the kind of person Steve wrote about in "Carved Upon the Landscape"?
    2. How would Hannah-Jones react to an article that said the big difference in outcomes between white and black Americans since 1965 has been blacks acting like Africans rather than Americans?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Art Deco

    She wouldn’t react to it, because she would never read it. People like her, of whatever color, refuse to read people on their enemies’ lists, or who write for “enemy” publications.

    Back in 1995, when Chronicles magazine published my first exposé on so-called Ebonics, I brought one of my two comp copies to a white relative by marriage. Not only did the good progressive “intellectual” not take or read it, he pushed it away on the table with a fingernail, as if it were contaminated.

    Very few people read their enemies’ works. Most who do are from the Dissident Right.

    Some interns and operatives for places like the SPLC, ADL, RWW, etc., scan works by their enemies, but they are just hunting for quotes they can chop up for “ransom note racism” fundraising letters.

  139. @Steve Sailer
    @Bert

    My Go West, Young Nation theory is a motivation that united North and South, slaveowner and abolitionist. I wouldn't totally rule out the Preserve Slavery theory in some situations, but it would be hard to explain how, say, it made Boston the main hub of Independence agitation.

    Counter-example: New York City was the main Loyalist hub and it was a port and its river ran north not west. After the Erie Canal in the 1820s, it benefited hugely from the Westward expansion, but in the 1770s, it was tied to the Atlantic and was less interested in Westward expansion than most other places in America.

    Replies: @Bert, @Sean

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144039X.2012.734114?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=fsla20
    The antislavery activity of the religious fringe of Atlantic Presbyterianism, Covenanters, has been neglected. Covenanters produced longstanding articulations of antislavery rooted in seventeenth-century Scotland. In America, Covenanters created an ignored alternative to traditional paradigms of slavery debates. They were antislavery Biblical literalists. In the American South, their support of the American Colonization Society (ACS) was an attempt to maintain their faith, and they believed the ACS was their brainchild. Everywhere, Covenanters utilized antislavery to maintain connection to their Old World religious traditions

    The Covenanters were from South West Scotland, (as were most of the Scots Irish) The enemies of the Scottish Covenanters were the Highlanders who were enforcers for the King. The Rev Ian Paisley, for example, revered the memory of the Covenanters executed for the beliefs and travelled to Scotland to place a wreath on their graves.

    The Ulster Scots Covenanter antislavery and support for the Revolution both harked back to their old conflict with the British state in Scotland and then Ulster, and their anti-Catholicism. To these people the Quebec Act seemed like a Papist plot.

    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-act

    The Province of Quebec was significantly enlarged. No longer limited to the St. Lawrence River Valley, the province’s borders expanded to comprise Labrador, Anticosti Island, Magdalen Islands and a large area to the west of the Thirteen Colonies, including what would become Southern Ontario, the disputed territory of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and even parts of modern-day Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. This territory also included what was then called the “Land of the Indians” that the Royal Proclamation had recognized as Indigenous reserves. The proclamation had banned European settlement on this territory. According to Alan Taylor, the idea was that “Quebec’s authoritarian government” could better prevent the arrival of settlers and land speculators from the Thirteen Colonies onto this land.

    The Ulster Scots immigration to New England went to the the borders frontier region where the ‘Indian fighting’ was carried out by scalphunting expeditions after the bounty on Indians offered by the New England government. Benjamin Franklin complained about the ‘Quaker Assembly. of Pennsylvania refusing to use force against the Indians but after Braddock’s disastrous defeat trying to take the French Fort Duquesne (now downtown Pittsburgh) Indians decided the the French were winners and in 1755 wreaked havoc along the frontier of settlement , which at that time was the Kittakenney or Blue Ridge range that extend from western Maryland to Northern New Jersey . In the exposed frontier region of Cumberland County mourners at a funeral were killed by Indians who also took the corpse of the deceased woman out her coffin and scalped her. As a result the Pennsylvania province government decreed a bounty on Delaware and Shawnee Indians.

    On April 8, 1756, Governor Robert Morris enacted the Scalp Act. Anyone who brought in a male scalp above age of 12 would be given 150 pieces of eight, ($150), for females above age of 12 or males under the age of 12, they would be paid $130.

    I think it is pretty clear that the Quebec Act attempts to protect Indians and allow Catholics full civil rights (no mention of religion in the oath of allegiance) was a greater cause of the American Revolution than a fear that slavery would be abolished.

    The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam
    By Barbara Tuchman
    The Proclamation was hardly welcome news to colonists who were already forming stock companies to promote migration for profit or, like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, obtaining grants of land across the mountains for speculation

  140. @Sean
    @Hank Yobo

    Indeed the Jacobites suffered merciless punitive measures, but not at the hands of Wolfe who was able to secure a great victory because his Highland troops knew of his fair play.


    http://carmichaelwatson.blogspot.com/2010/02/general-wolfe-at-battle-of-culloden.html
    A gentleman of the name of Macleod and his three sons from Glenelg fell at the battle of Culloden. Although severely wound[ed] the father was not yet dead. As Cumberland and his staff were passing Mac-leod slightly moved his head to look at them. “Shoot that damed bugar [sic] looking at me” said Cumberland to an officer beside him. My comission is at the disposal of your Royal Highness but I decline to become a butcher replied the officer. Without noticing heeding the remark Cumberland ordered a soldier near him to shoot that damned bugar [sic] The soldier said that all his lead was done up Take the stock of your gun cowardly bugar [sic] and smash his brains said Cumberland and thus sternly addressed the soldier battered the head and brains of Macleod breaking his gun in the process.

    The officer who declined to shoot Macleod was Wolfe who fell at the battle of Quebec when the Highlanders showed prodigous valour and conquered Canada to the British crown.

     

    Yes the Acadians refused to sign an unconditional oath of allegiance. They could have been sitting pretty

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/french-canadians-unexplained-genetic/

    Moreau et al. (2011) have shown that settlers on the wave front of colonization enjoyed a reproductive advantage over other French Canadians and thus contributed more to the current gene pool. Such settlers also seem to have been selected for higher fertility, according to a study of one French Canadian community. Between 1800 and 1940, the community of Île aux Coudres saw its mean age of first reproduction (AFR) fall by four years, not through a lowering of the mean age of marriage (which remained stable) but through a shortening of the mean interval between marriage and first birth. [...]

    French Canadians are genetically unique for several reasons. ... In France, their ancestors lived almost under steady state conditions: land scarcity, small family size, late marriage for men and women alike, rigid class distinctions, and limited geographic mobility. In Quebec, those limitations were weaker if not absent altogether. Because land was much more plentiful, the opportunities were accordingly greater for marrying younger and having larger families. This freer and less limiting environment foiled attempts to transplant feudalism to Quebec even during the French Regime, with the result that the term paysan never caught on. People called themselves habitants. Finally, in comparison to other French Canadians within the same region, business-minded individuals had more chances for economic betterment in those areas, like eastern Quebec, where competition from American or British merchants was relatively weak.
     

    Replies: @Hank Yobo

    FYI, that story about Wolfe at Culloden is apocryphal and didn’t appear in print until 1802. The British regulars were operating upon the belief–based upon captured enemy documents or faulty intelligence–that they would receive no quarter from the rebels. Wars and insurrections are not often pretty things. Oaths of Allegiance, by their very nature, are generally unconditional.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Hank Yobo

    Declining the the Duke Of Cumberland's direct order in wartime would be inviting death. There were apparently a number of versions of the story before and after it first appeared in print. There is some evidence that Wolfe's Highlanders believed he had refused an order to shoot a Jacobite prisoner on the battlefield at Culloden, so the attribution of fair play was an asset to him. If it happened, it is maybe unlikely Wolfe was the one as he was a martinet who issued orders that officers and sergeants should immediately kill any soldier trying to hang back during a battle. On the other hand Wolfe was an unusual man, while the '45 was largely the work of Donald Cameron of Lochiel, and hard to explain on any rational appreciation of the likely consequences to him.

  141. @Bert
    @George

    Yes, coincidence because slavery was not ended in the British Empire until 1833, 58 years later.

    Another anti-white troll who believes, without written evidence from 1772-1775, that he can read the slave owners' minds regarding their motives for supporting independence. Steve Sailer's hypothesis of motive makes infinitely more sense.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @George

    “coincidence because slavery was not ended in the British Empire until 1833, 58 years later.”

    The argument is that the rich well informed people who operated the slave system understood that the court ruled that at common law slavery was impossible. It is clear to me that slave owners in the Virginia and the Carolinas would have been alarmed. People involved in the finance and shipping of slaves in NY, RI, and CT would have been even more informed and alarmed. These people borrowed money to buy plantations, ships, and slaves.

    • Replies: @Bert
    @George

    Your restatement of your thesis does not give it any greater veracity. History requires data. Documentation. What occurred historically is established by documents written by participants and by the recording of oral testimony.

    Many of the wealthy men of all thirteen colonies were involved in land speculation focused on the frontier. The ultimate limit of that frontier had been officially defined by the Crown in 1763 and thus in 1775 an unnatural impediment to settlement, and therefore to speculation, had already been in place for twelve years. The legal finding regarding the status of slavery in Great Britain per se was just that; it did not apply to the Colonies, and given the immense profits generated by West Indian sugar plantations, was unlikely to apply to the Empire in the foreseeable future.

    Absent written documentation, claiming to know what was in the minds of a group of people 250 years ago is handwaving, plain and simple, no matter how persuasive your thesis is to you personally. The links below give documentation of land speculation being one of the reasons for the Revolution.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiKxO2viM_mAhVCZN8KHcyyCOQQFjARegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Fcollections%2Fgeorge-washington-papers%2Farticles-and-essays%2Fgeorge-washington-survey-and-mapmaker%2Fwashington-as-land-speculator%2F&usg=AOvVaw0hG7a6fzjtCnn14N7U2r0h

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajes.12080_2

    https://www.loc.gov/collections/george-washington-papers/articles-and-essays/george-washington-survey-and-mapmaker/washington-as-land-speculator/

  142. @Hank Yobo
    @Sean

    FYI, that story about Wolfe at Culloden is apocryphal and didn't appear in print until 1802. The British regulars were operating upon the belief--based upon captured enemy documents or faulty intelligence--that they would receive no quarter from the rebels. Wars and insurrections are not often pretty things. Oaths of Allegiance, by their very nature, are generally unconditional.

    Replies: @Sean

    Declining the the Duke Of Cumberland’s direct order in wartime would be inviting death. There were apparently a number of versions of the story before and after it first appeared in print. There is some evidence that Wolfe’s Highlanders believed he had refused an order to shoot a Jacobite prisoner on the battlefield at Culloden, so the attribution of fair play was an asset to him. If it happened, it is maybe unlikely Wolfe was the one as he was a martinet who issued orders that officers and sergeants should immediately kill any soldier trying to hang back during a battle. On the other hand Wolfe was an unusual man, while the ’45 was largely the work of Donald Cameron of Lochiel, and hard to explain on any rational appreciation of the likely consequences to him.

  143. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous


    The British didn’t care about American quarrels with Indians on the frontier and Americans didn’t care about British quarrels with the French and others in Europe.
     
    True in the abstract, but things got complicated in America. The colonists didn't merely fight Indians as they expanded but rubbed up against French claimed-and-contested territories. Thus, it was just a matter of fighting Indians but threatening French claims in the New World. This put the Brits in a tight spot. Side with Colonialists and anger the French, leading to more wars, or make peace with the French to the displeasure of the colonialists who, while taking land from Indians, were also under constant attack from Indians. In a way, the Indians were like proxies. Anglos used their Indians against the French, and the French used their Indians against the Anglos. This gave both sides plausible deniability. "It wasn't us. The injuns done it." But in fact, the French fended off Anglo/colonial expansion by using their Indians, and Anglos, in turn, used their Indians to harass the French. Indians were like the Kurds and Afghans of them days. It's like, in the abstract, America doesn't care about Kurds, but they are useful proxies in its imperial sake in the Middle East. It's to "Save the Kurds!!" Or, all of a sudden, we realize that Ukrianians are the closest allies next to Israel. Another variation of "our indians" vs "their indians".

    Even though Napoleon eventually sold the Louisiana Territory, did the French have a chance after losing Canada? Because of the French support of the American Revolution and America's sympathies for the French Revolution, the French could have counted on the Americans, but for how long? What if passage to the Louisiana territories were blocked from Canada all the way down to the American south? Then, the French could have gone up through the Mississippi River from way south, but how long before Americans grab that too? If the territory hadn't been sold, there would likely have been some excuse for the Americans to grab it like they did with SW territories later. And that would have soured relations between US and France, even leading to war. So, did Napoleon read the writing on the wall and figure it's better to sell for much needed cash than hold onto land that seemed pretty doomed?

    https://youtu.be/B1A_Yab1UMA

    Replies: @Tex

    Even though Napoleon eventually sold the Louisiana Territory, did the French have a chance after losing Canada? Because of the French support of the American Revolution and America’s sympathies for the French Revolution, the French could have counted on the Americans, but for how long? What if passage to the Louisiana territories were blocked from Canada all the way down to the American south? Then, the French could have gone up through the Mississippi River from way south, but how long before Americans grab that too? If the territory hadn’t been sold, there would likely have been some excuse for the Americans to grab it like they did with SW territories later. And that would have soured relations between US and France, even leading to war. So, did Napoleon read the writing on the wall and figure it’s better to sell for much needed cash than hold onto land that seemed pretty doomed?

    Napoleon’s big problem with Louisiana was that he didn’t control it. The Spanish king had ceded it to France, but the Spanish were still running it. Moreover, the required stepping stone to get effective military & economic control was San Domingue (Haiti) now in the hands of rebellious slaves, albeit “loyal” to France.

    Looming over it all was the Royal Navy. France and Britain were at peace for about thirty minutes and as soon as war resumed the Royal Navy would have veto power over anything Bonaparte did more than a mile or so from the French coast.

    When Bonaparte’s plans to restore French authority in Haiti collapsed, and war with Britain looming on the horizon, his best bet was to sell Louisiana fast for whatever he could get. It didn’t sit well with the Spanish, but they were not in much of a position to object, France and the USA being too strong to take on. The hand over ceremony in New Orleans literally consisted of the Spanish colors being struck, the French Tricolor going up, then down again as the Stars and Stripes went up.

    Had the Spanish retained Louisiana, they would have lost it to the US and rebellious colonists the way they lost the rest of their American empire. Had Napoleon managed to impose his will on Haiti and get effective control of the lower Mississippi makes for some interesting speculation.

  144. @Art Deco
    @Paleo Liberal

    to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    You cannot 'steal' something when there is no regime of ownership.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain

    Define ownership.

    Do you know that each and every one of the tribes that inhabited what became the United States didn’t have an abstract concept of ownership?

    If a people lives in a place for some hundreds of years, hunts there, farms there, etc., that’s not ownership?

  145. @Art Deco
    @Paleo Liberal

    to make money by stealing Indian lands.

    You cannot 'steal' something when there is no regime of ownership.

    Replies: @Hank Yobo, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain

    Furthermore, if Native tribes had no “regime of ownership” then I don’t understand why the US Government struck treaties with them.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp

    Picking one tribe at random, the Choctaw, I learned that nine treaties were signed between 1786 and 1830, which is kind of weird considering that they “owned” nothing.

    You’ll be happy to hear that the process resulted in the removal of most of the Choctaw from their native land to Oklahoma, involving the death of about a quarter of their number.

    *****

    With respect to the “genuine historians” objecting to the 1619 Project, there are other historians, presumably just as genuine, who are clashing with them.

  146. @Redneck farmer
    1. I wonder if editor Silverstein knows he's the kind of person Steve wrote about in "Carved Upon the Landscape"?
    2. How would Hannah-Jones react to an article that said the big difference in outcomes between white and black Americans since 1965 has been blacks acting like Africans rather than Americans?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Art Deco

    How would Hannah-Jones react to an article that said the big difference in outcomes between white and black Americans since 1965 has been blacks acting like Africans rather than Americans?

    If she’s numerate and broadly familiar with the social data on the black population, she’d think that was a strange thing to say. Black Americans are very seldom cultivators or herdsmen and seldom employed in the in-town ‘informal economy’ you see in the third world. They are ordinary wage earners, with a modest crew of salaried employees thrown in. Their real incomes are about 10x what’s typical in an African household. Literacy and public health have improved a great deal in tropical Africa over the last 60 years. However, life expectancy at birth among black Americans still exceeds that among Africans by about 15 years and adult illiteracy is vastly less common (< 2% v. 40%). Fertility rates among blacks in America are less than half of those prevailing among African blacks (and at replacement levels). Islam, animism, and syncretism (common in Africa) are eccentric or unknown among blacks in the United States. African languages are unknown among blacks in the United States. Familial patronage networks which have a professional man's 2d cousins into him for money and references are unknown among black Americans. Black Americans do commonly give their children ugly ersatz African names, but that's not acting like an African, as actual Africans favor European names, Arab names, or names derived from African tribal languages.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  147. @George
    @Bert

    "coincidence because slavery was not ended in the British Empire until 1833, 58 years later."

    The argument is that the rich well informed people who operated the slave system understood that the court ruled that at common law slavery was impossible. It is clear to me that slave owners in the Virginia and the Carolinas would have been alarmed. People involved in the finance and shipping of slaves in NY, RI, and CT would have been even more informed and alarmed. These people borrowed money to buy plantations, ships, and slaves.

    Replies: @Bert

    Your restatement of your thesis does not give it any greater veracity. History requires data. Documentation. What occurred historically is established by documents written by participants and by the recording of oral testimony.

    Many of the wealthy men of all thirteen colonies were involved in land speculation focused on the frontier. The ultimate limit of that frontier had been officially defined by the Crown in 1763 and thus in 1775 an unnatural impediment to settlement, and therefore to speculation, had already been in place for twelve years. The legal finding regarding the status of slavery in Great Britain per se was just that; it did not apply to the Colonies, and given the immense profits generated by West Indian sugar plantations, was unlikely to apply to the Empire in the foreseeable future.

    Absent written documentation, claiming to know what was in the minds of a group of people 250 years ago is handwaving, plain and simple, no matter how persuasive your thesis is to you personally. The links below give documentation of land speculation being one of the reasons for the Revolution.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiKxO2viM_mAhVCZN8KHcyyCOQQFjARegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Fcollections%2Fgeorge-washington-papers%2Farticles-and-essays%2Fgeorge-washington-survey-and-mapmaker%2Fwashington-as-land-speculator%2F&usg=AOvVaw0hG7a6fzjtCnn14N7U2r0h

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajes.12080_2

    https://www.loc.gov/collections/george-washington-papers/articles-and-essays/george-washington-survey-and-mapmaker/washington-as-land-speculator/

  148. When reputable historians are done cleaning up the NYT’s 1619 Project they should move on to cleaning up the history of the United State’s entry into World War 2 which was another one of the NYT’s projects -the entry, not just the history. I think a couple of these historians are old enough to have started doing that cleaning of WW2 historiography a half century ago. Of course if they had tried to do that, they would not now be reputable historians.

  149. @Anon
    Why haven't people become aware that Carlos Slim is as much of a corrupt busybody, and does as much damage, as George Soros? Slim, via the propaganda-spewing NYT, makes himself every bit as much of a problem as Soros.

    It ought to be illegal for a foreign national to own a US newspaper. Our national interest and national security are at stake. It should be outlawed.

    Replies: @James Forrestal

    Why haven’t people become aware that Carlos Slim is as much of a corrupt busybody, and does as much damage, as (((George Soros)))? Slim, via the propaganda-spewing NYT, makes himself every bit as much of a problem as (((Soros))).

    This “Lebanese Mexicans control the NYT” trope that you’re attempting to promote is, of course, a long-discredited semitic canard.

    As any educated person knows, the Times has been controlled by the (((Ochs-Sulzberger))) family for more than 120 years (hence the common nickname “Sulzberger Blog”). Note that the NYT has a dual class share structure. It’s important to distinguish minority ownership in Class A shares (such as Slim’s) from actual control, as the Sulzbergers retain control via their majority ownership of Class B (supervoting) shares regardless.

    The last three publishers of the NYT (over a period of 56 years): Arthur Ochs “Punch” Sulzberger, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. , and now Arthur Gregg “AG” Sulzberger. Not a single Lebanese Mexican to be seen.

    It ought to be illegal for a foreign national to own a US newspaper.

    Sure, it’s a good idea to keep our news media under the control of members of the historic American nation, rather than allowing it to be controlled by an alien tribe. But the NYT is not — as you contend — controlled by Lebanese Mexicans, but by members of an entirely different Middle Eastern desert tribe.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @James Forrestal

    Actually, it's controlled by scions of a German-Sephardic family who have been in this country for 160 years. That aside, Punch Sulzberger married a succession of gentiles and all three of his children married gentiles. His grandson, the current publisher of The Times, married a gentile as well. Punch Sulzberger's father, btw, was inveterately hostile to Zionism, blaming the Jewish Agency et al for all manner of ills. (Not quite as antic as Philip Girladi, perhaps).

  150. @James Forrestal
    @Anon


    Why haven’t people become aware that Carlos Slim is as much of a corrupt busybody, and does as much damage, as (((George Soros)))? Slim, via the propaganda-spewing NYT, makes himself every bit as much of a problem as (((Soros))).
     
    This "Lebanese Mexicans control the NYT" trope that you're attempting to promote is, of course, a long-discredited semitic canard.

    As any educated person knows, the Times has been controlled by the (((Ochs-Sulzberger))) family for more than 120 years (hence the common nickname "Sulzberger Blog"). Note that the NYT has a dual class share structure. It's important to distinguish minority ownership in Class A shares (such as Slim's) from actual control, as the Sulzbergers retain control via their majority ownership of Class B (supervoting) shares regardless.

    The last three publishers of the NYT (over a period of 56 years): Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , and now Arthur Gregg “AG” Sulzberger. Not a single Lebanese Mexican to be seen.


    It ought to be illegal for a foreign national to own a US newspaper.
     
    Sure, it's a good idea to keep our news media under the control of members of the historic American nation, rather than allowing it to be controlled by an alien tribe. But the NYT is not -- as you contend -- controlled by Lebanese Mexicans, but by members of an entirely different Middle Eastern desert tribe.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Actually, it’s controlled by scions of a German-Sephardic family who have been in this country for 160 years. That aside, Punch Sulzberger married a succession of gentiles and all three of his children married gentiles. His grandson, the current publisher of The Times, married a gentile as well. Punch Sulzberger’s father, btw, was inveterately hostile to Zionism, blaming the Jewish Agency et al for all manner of ills. (Not quite as antic as Philip Girladi, perhaps).

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS