Sidebar Conversation: Phil Magness on The 1619 Project

The History of the Americans

Content provided by Jack Henneman. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jack Henneman or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

20d ago 1:32:39

MP3•Episode home

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

Dr. Phillip W. Magness is an economic historian and the David J. Theroux Chair in Political Economy at the Independent Institute. Magness’ research has appeared in multiple scholarly venues, including the Economic Journal, the Journal of Political Economy, the Journal of Business Ethics, the Southern Economic Journal, and Social Science Quarterly. He is the author of several books including, most recently, The 1619 Project Myth, which is the subject of this conversation.

Our conversation was wide-ranging, including an overview of the original 1619 Project of the New York Times, conceived of and edited by Nikole Hannah-Jones; how it was a departure from similar historical projects of the Times before it; the strengths of the 1619 Project; the particular shortcomings of the Project’s claims about the economic consequences of slavery; the attempt by the 1619 Project to tie slavery to capitalism; the actual anti-slavery origins of capitalist theory, starting with Adam Smith; the anti-capitalism ante-bellum arguments in the philosophical defense of slavery; the flawed scholarship of the “New History of Capitalism” school; the Project’s distortion of the importance of cotton to the American economy before the Civil War, and the strange rehabilitation of “King Cotton” theory; the criticisms of leading historians of the colonial and revolutionary era of Hannah-Jones’s claims about the importance of slavery to support for the American Revolution in the South; the status of the “20 and odd” enslaved Blacks who were brought to Jamestown in 1619; the varied influence of the Sommersett ruling in the colonies; Lord Dunmore’s famous declaration after the American Revolution had begun; Hannah-Jones’s dismissive response to academic criticisms of her claims; that Hannah-Jones was correct in her assessment of Abraham Lincoln’s advocacy of “colonization” as a solution to emancipation; the New York Times’s strange unwillingness to correct its 1619 Project errors transparently, as it would otherwise do in other contexts; the explicit political and policy agenda behind the 1619 Project; the slow walking-back of some of the Project’s most controversial claims via ghost-editing; the insertion of The 1619 Project in public school curricula; and how to develop a school history curriculum that does give a balanced treatment of the history of slavery and Reconstruction.

X – @TheHistoryOfTh2 – https://x.com/TheHistoryOfTh2

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/HistoryOfTheAmericans

Selected references for this episode (Commission earned for Amazon purchases through the episode notes on our website)

Philip W. Magness, The 1619 Project Myth

Nikole Hannah-Jones and other authors, The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story

An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times’ 1619 Project

An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times’ 1619 Project

Philip W. Magness, “The 1619 Project Unrepentantly Pushes Junk History”

Jake Silverstein, New York Times Magazine, “We Respond to the Historians Who Critiqued The 1619 Project” (free link)

195 episodes

#History #Jack Henneman