Phil Magness: Critiquing the 1619 Project
KEY MOMENTS
0:00 – Intro and welcoming Phil Magness
1:39 – How the 1619 Project debate moved online
3:57 – The claim that the Revolution protected slavery
5:26 – Slavery as America's original sin
7:28 – Adam Smith and capitalism's abolitionists
10:14 – Pro-slavery thinkers against capitalism
11:27 – Refusing to engage with critics
13:41 – Twitter insults from academics
15:45 – Nikole Hannah-Jones and her critics
17:39 – Lincoln, colonization, and citing Phil's book
19:17 – The quietly deleted "true founding" line
24:23 – Turmoil inside The New York Times
25:58 – What the 1619 Project got right and wrong
28:38 – Should the Pulitzer be revoked
29:27 – How Phil became an economic historian
31:35 – Slave owners as a political interest group
35:16 – Who actually owned slaves
36:33 – Southern dissent and West Virginia
39:25 – HBO's Confederate and lost nuance
41:23 – Dred Scott and the Constitution
44:00 – Origins of the Great Barrington Declaration
47:00 – Fake signatures and a hoax campaign
51:37 – Honest public health advice and focused protection
56:50 – Wrap-up
ABOUT THIS EPISODE
Economic and political historian Phil Magness joins Lou to talk about his critiques of the 1619 Project, his Twitter beef with Nikole Hannah-Jones, who actually owned slaves, and the Great Barrington Declaration.
We also get into the claim that the Revolution protected slavery, Adam Smith and capitalism's abolitionists, pro-slavery thinkers against capitalism, Lincoln and colonization, the quietly deleted "true founding" line, turmoil inside The New York Times, whether the Pulitzer should be revoked, Southern dissent and West Virginia, Dred Scott, and the fake signatures aimed at the Great Barrington Declaration.