I was rereading the 1619 essays today and what's really shocking is that they are very sober, grounded in mainstream scholarship and fuelled by patriotism.
"The thesis of this book, that the American na- tion was built on a compromise over slavery and that there would have been no nation unless the northern states had acquiesced to southern demands for maintenance and ex pansion of the institution"
-
-
But that's a completely uncontroversial proposition, isn't it?
-
Judging by the reaction to 1619 I'd say this still freaks people out.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Nothing in that means that the revolution wouldn’t have occurred without the compromise, only that the Nation wouldn’t have formed without it. It would seem that the compromise in question was in the Constitution, which was written several years after the revolution.
-
I think Jeet may be confusing the colonies' agreement to declare independence with the agreement to form the United States as a single nation. The compromise over slavery predated the second, but not the first.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.