The New York Times has embarked on an effort to rewrite the history of the United States as a nation built upon slavery.  Calling it the “1619 Project,” the opening article is a whopping 7,600-word effort to look at 18th Century history through a liberal 21^stcentury lens.  Joshua Lawson has written an excellent rebuttal to this effort in The Federalist.  Because much of the NYT’s ideology is already being inserted into the narrative of schools and universities, I wanted to pass along some portions of this important article for your consideration.

No, America Wasn’t Built On Slavery, But Faith That All Men Are Created Equal

The year 1619 was chosen for the Times’ “re-founding” to mark when the first slaves arrived in the English settlement of Jamestown.

Slavery was a heart-wrenching, obstacle during America’s birth, but by no objective analysis was it the central factor of the founding as the 1619 Project claims.

Slavery was and is an abomination. It is an evil part of America’s past—as well as that of nearly every nation on earth. The fact that slavery has a universal heritage does not absolve American slave owners, but it does provide a necessary historical context.

During the 17th century, slavery was, sadly, an accepted part of life throughout the world. By A.D. 1619, slavery had existed for more than 5000 years, dating back at least to Mesopotamia.

Written by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the 7,600-word flagship essay of the 1619 Project asserts that “our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.”   Hannah-Jones claims, “white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.” She provides no evidence or examples for this sweeping assertion.

Jefferson’s original final draft of the Declaration explicitly referred to black slaves not as property but as men.  Letters written to John Jay show Alexander Hamilton hoping the Revolutionary War could lead to the emancipation of blacks and appraising them equal to whites in their abilities. Additional examples are plentiful.

The Founders were painfully aware of the cognitive dissonance of forming a nation under the proclamation that all were created equal while maintaining slavery. They also had to face the political reality that the 13 colonies could not be united in a new nation if they immediately abolished slavery.

With no other way to obtain the necessary support for unity and ratification, the Founders spitefully tolerated slavery’s existence, while also placing it on a path to extinction. Once the nation secured independence, American statesman of the Founding Era slashed away at slavery as quickly as prudence and political reality would allow.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the territory that would become the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In 1794, Congress barred American ships from engaging in the slave trade. Additional legislation in 1780 banned Americans from employment or investment in the international slave trade. Finally, the U.S. Congress officially banned the importation of slaves beginning on January 1, 1808, the earliest date allowed under the deal made to ratify the Constitution.

Far from the bastion of racism, hate and pro-slavery sentiment that the 1619 Project portrays, much of the United States was ahead of the world in ending the horror of slavery.  Shortly after the signing of the Declaration, northern states took the lead. By 1804, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had passed laws that immediately or gradually abolished slavery.

If the American Founding was grounded in slavery, and the Founders didn’t believe a word of the opening of the Declaration, how does one account for these actions?

According to Hannah-Jones, one of the “primary reasons” Americans declared independence was to preserve slavery, fearful of the “growing calls” to abolish the slave trade in London. However, a closer look shows the abolitionist movement didn’t have a truly organized presence in England until 1783 when the first petition was filed by Quakers. It wasn’t until 1787 that the influential Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded.

The 1619 Project is politically driven 2020 posturing dressed in the veneer of a historical “exposé.” By warping history, it hopes that dopamine hits of anger and injustice will prevent readers from engaging in objective analysis. Just in time to paint America as racist for the upcoming presidential election.

Leftists are banking that the outrage caused by the 1619 Project will provide them the political capital required to move to the next stage: a full reconfiguration of America into their image.

America does not need further tribal rhetoric tearing up what little societal cohesion remains. The nation certainly doesn’t benefit from Times writers conducting a growing chorus of anger and grievance.

---

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Here was the headline: “Soros Shifts $18 Billion To Foundation He Uses To Fund Left.” That is not a typo. $18 billion with a B. This guy is serious about seeing Leftism advanced. The facts about that “shift” of dollars are presented by Aly Nielsen at NewsBusters.org.

By now, most people who follow politics are aware of George Soros and his generous funding of radical Leftist issues and organizations around the world.

Here are the opening paragraphs of Nielsen’s article:

Left-wing financier George Soros just nearly tripled the size of his foundation by adding an additional $18 billion in assets. The foundation has funded liberal activism on immigration, abortion, journalism and a myriad of other issues. Its soon-to-be president was also formerly a DNC executive director.

Soros transferred the billions to Open Society Foundations (OSF) from his hedge fund, Soros Fund Management, The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 17, 2017. The transfer increased OSF’ assets from $7.3 billion (according to Foundation Directory) to $25.3 billion.

Here are a few details from the article put into bullet points:

• Soros has given away roughly $14 billion throughout his lifetime.

• Soros has also funneled more than $103 million to journalism groups around the world including ProPublica, NPR and Columbia University.

• Soros also gave at least $10.5 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

• Media outlets that backed her campaign or policies had received an additional $61 million in prior years.

• OSF operates in seven different global regions including the U.S., Africa, Latin America and Europe.

• Through the various OSF branches, Soros has started revolutions, undermined national currencies and funded radical groups throughout the world.

There are a lot more colorful details in the article, but my focus is the money:

By transferring $18 billion to OSF, Soros has signaled he intends this left-wing agenda to remain well-funded long after his death.

Soros is 87 years old.

At American Thinker, Rick Moran wrote about this news item as well: “Soros transfers most of his wealth to Open Society Foundations.”

Two sentences from the article: “The foundation said it is the second-largest in the world after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.” “The Wall Street Journal estimates Soros’s net worth at $23 billion.”

Note this good point as well: “Suffice it to say, infusing his foundation with that much cash will free up other resources for partisan campaign donations.”

Soros isn’t the only big money person funding Leftist causes, of course, but he’s the biggest dog. Another big dog is Tom Steyer (read more about him here). Steyer is worth an entirely separate article since he is funding an effort to impeach President Trump. Tech magnates have also made headlines over the past few years as they have written enormous checks to left-wing causes. J.B. Pritzker, another Leftist billionaire, is running for governor in Illinois.

The Lefty titans get it — everything in politics costs money. If you want your political agenda to succeed, it requires money money money.

There are a few good examples on the political right where conservative donors are adding more zeros to the checks they write. But many more of our big dogs need to realize that funding a building with their name on it at their alma mater is not going to save the country from the Leftist agenda.

The only way conservatives save the country is if we have the money to fight. The large PACs and the large think tanks are adequately funded, but the best fighters are many of the small, underfunded groups. I’ll name just two here — the Illinois Family Institute and Illinois Family Action (there are many more here and around the country).

Often the smaller organizations are more aggressive and less concerned with being politically correct. Their effectiveness would greatly increase with more funds to hire more staff to oversee more campaigns and events to reach more people. The decades-old think tanks are happy to operate the same as they always have while expecting a different result.

A few years ago I wrote (and rewrote) a series of articles on this topic — it starts with this one. In one, I included this story:

In August of 1781, our Southern forces had trapped Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis in the little Virginia coastal town of Yorktown. George Washington and the main army and the Count de Rochambeau with his French army decided to march from the Hudson Highlands to Yorktown and deliver the final blow. But Washington’s war chest was completely empty, as was that of Congress. Washington determined that he needed at least $20,000 to finance the campaign.

When Morris told him there were no funds and no credit available, Washington gave him a simple but eloquent order: “Send for Haym Salomon”. Haym again came through, and the $20.000 was raised. Washington conducted the Yorktown campaign, which proved to be the final battle of the Revolution, thanks to Haym Salomon.

“Send for Haym Salomon.” Even the Father of his country needed funding — and he knew where to turn.

Here is an invitation to those conservatives who can write checks to fund a much-needed communications revolution from sea to shining sea. Wealthy donors need to start exercising a little critical thinking, and stop supporting organizations that don’t have a vision and start funding those that do such as IFI and IFA.

---

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.