Aug. 15, 1862 [New York Times]

THE PRESIDENT AND COLONIZATION.; Interesting Interview with a Committee of Colored Men. Speech of the President in Favor of Colonization. The Experiment to be Tried in Central America.

About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

WASHINGTON, Thursday, Aug. 14. [1862]

This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by Rev. J. MITCHELL, Commissioner of Emigration. E.M. THOMAS, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation, to hear what the Executive had to say to them.

Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition, for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You, here, are freemen, I suppose.

A VOICE -- Yes, Sir.

The PRESIDENT -- Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact, with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition. Owing to the existence of the two races on this continent, I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition -- the country engaged in war! our white men cutting one another's throats -- none knowing how far it will extend -- and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side, do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery, and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you who, even if they could better their condition, are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those who, being slaves, could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe that you can live in Washington, or elsewhere in the United States, the remainder of your life; perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.

But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now if you could give a start, to the white people you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor material to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.

There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usages of the world. It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself, and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary War sacrifices were made by men engaged in it, but they were cheered by the future. Gen. WASHINGTON himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject, yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race; something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own.


The Colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, ROBERTS, has just been with me, the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between three and four hundred thousand people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.

The question is, if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.

The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia -- not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days run by steamers. Unlike Liberia, it is on a great line of travel -- it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land, thus being suited to your physical condition.

The particular place I have in view is to be a great highway from the Atlantic, or Caribbean Sea, to the Pacific Ocean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a colony. On both sides there are harbors among the finest in the world. Again, there is evidence of very rich coal mines. A certain amount of coal is valuable in any country, and there may be more than enough for the wants of the country. Why I attach so much importance to coal is, it will afford an opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate employment till they get ready to settle permanently in their homes.

If you take colonists where there is no good landing, there is a bad show, and so where there is nothing to cultivate, and of which to make a farm. But if something is started so that you can get your daily bread as soon as you reach there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of with which to commence an enterprise.

To return -- you have been talked to upon this subject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen who have an interest in the country, [???] [According to Professor Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Vol. Two, page 388, the missing words are "including the coal mines.”] We have been mistaken all our lives if we do not know whites, as well as blacks, look to their self-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect, everybody you trade with makes something. You meet with these things here and elsewhere.

If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is, whether it cannot be made of advantage to you? You are intelligent, and know that success does not as much depend on external help as on self-reliance. Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As to the coal mines, I think I see the means available for your self-reliance. I shall, if I get a sufficient number of you engaged, have provision made that you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in the enterprise, I will spend I some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The Government may lose the money, but we cannot succeed unless we try; but we think with care we can succeed.

The political affairs in Central America are not in quite as satisfactory condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter; but it is true all the factions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it, and are more generous than we are here. To your colored race they have no objection. Besides, I would endeavor to have you made equals, and have the best assurance that you should be the equals of the best.

The practical thing I want to ascertain is, whether I can get a number of able-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go, when I present evidence of encouragement and protection. Could I get a hundred tolerably intelligent men with their wives and children, and "cut their own fodder," so to speak? Can I have fifty? If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children -good things in the family relation, I think -- I could make a successful commencement.

I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance -- worthy of a month's study, of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you, then, to consider seriously, not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race and ours for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind -- not confined to the present generation, but as –

"From age to age descends the lay
To millions yet to be,
Till far its echoes roll away
Into eternity."

The above is merely given as the substance of the President's remarks.

The Chairman of the delegation briefly replied that "they would hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer." The President said, "Take your full time -- no hurry at all."

The delegation then withdrew.

* * * * * * * *

Attendees at the August 14, 1862 White House meeting were the Committee of five prominent black men and the members of the press called to the White House for the purpose of disseminating the contents of President Lincoln's speech on "Colonization" to the nation. All of the attendees were fully aware of the purpose for the meeting. Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her book Team of Rivals, at page 469, described the purpose of the meeting as follows: "On August 14, Lincoln invited a delegation of freed slaves to a conference at the White House, hoping to inspire their cooperation in educating fellow blacks on the benefits of colonization."

The New York Times reported President Lincoln's speech the following day with a story title: THE PRESIDENT AND COLONIZATION.

Presumably, historian Nikole Hannah-Jones used this same August 15, 1862 detailed reporting of President Lincoln’s August 14th Colonization speech by the New York Times as her authoritative source in creating her own narrative describing the important events of that day in the White House, August 14, 1862. Therefore, there should be no major unexplained discrepancy between the New York Times published narrative regarding the meeting and the narrative that she provides in her New York Times essay that won for her the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones writes in her 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary essay describing her own presumed response of the members of the Committee: “You can imagine the heavy silence in that room, as the weight of what the president said momentarily stole the breath of these five black men. . . . As Lincoln closed the remarks, Edward Thomas, the delegation’s chairman, informed the president, perhaps curtly, that they would consult on his proposition. ‘Take your full time,’ Lincoln said. ‘No hurry at all.’”

The Committee of five prominent black men had been invited to the White House to hear President Lincoln's speech on the subject of a proposed colonization project, including the President's reasoning by which these men should support and even participate in the experiment themselves.

The first paragraph of the New York Times coverage reads:

"This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. . . . E.M. THOMAS, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation, to hear what the Executive had to say to them."

Nevertheless, historian Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote: “You can imagine the heavy silence in that room, as the weight of what the president said momentarily stole the breath of these five black men."

The Committee was fully aware of why they had been invited to the White House and that was "to hear what the Executive had to say to them" on the subject of colonization. In the hour long speech, what could have "momentarily stole the breath of these five black men?" Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones does not say.

But she does say: "As Lincoln closed the remarks, Edward Thomas, the delegation’s chairman, informed the president, perhaps curtly, that they would consult on his proposition. ‘Take your full time,’ Lincoln said. ‘No hurry at all.’”

The implication of these last two sentences is that the Committee Chairman's immediate reaction to the speech was strongly negative and that the President's last remark to the Committee was of a condescending nature.

However, the New York Times itself describes the close of President Lincoln's speech in the following manner:

I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance -- worthy of a month's study, of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you, then, to consider seriously, not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race and ours for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind -- not confined to the present generation . . . ."

The Chairman of the delegation briefly replied that "they would hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer." The President said, "Take your full time -- no hurry at all."

Although the President had suggested in the close of his speech that "these are subjects of very great importance -- worthy of a month's study, of a speech delivered in an hour," the Committee chairman, in behalf of the entire Committee, responded to President Lincoln's proposal in a letter two day's later on August 16, 1862 as follows:

“We were entirely hostile to the movement until all the advantages were so ably brought to our views by you,” the delegation chief wrote Lincoln two days later, promising to consult with prominent blacks in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston who he hoped would “join heartily in Sustaining Such a movement.” (Source: Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin, (2005), page 469.)

Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones is incrementally subverting the factual truth about President Abraham Lincoln and will continue to do so until she is stopped by the truth in opposition. Throughout the 1619 curricula, there will be continuing interpretative denigration of the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln by means of distortion and/or omission of important historical facts. The false historical “truth” contained within the 1619 Project about President Abraham Lincoln and related historical events will be taught in schools throughout this democracy using the 1619 Project curricula. And, if for some reason a person has the audacity to challenge this 1619 Project revised historical “truth,” what would be that person’s basis for simple argument? And, how is it that American History historian Nikole Hannah-Jones won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her 1619 Project essay if much of the 1619 Project curricula is untrue, as alleged?

An example of this historical fact alteration to subvert the truth about President Abraham Lincoln is what I detailed in my previous post. [And, I have made other similar posts on this thread.] The undisputed fact is that President Abraham Lincoln’s August 14, 1862 one hour speech on a black colonization proposal to the Committee of five prominent free black men was unanimously well-received by the Committee members. This historical fact is evidenced by a letter written by the Committee chairman to President Lincoln two days following the meeting at the White House. This “letter fact” of history was conveniently omitted by American History historian Nikole Hannah-Jones in her false narrative describing the same historical event of the August 14, 1862 White House meeting. Nikole Hannah-Jones is trying to cheat posterity out of the truth.

In 1858, when Lincoln was trying to read The Life of Edmund Burke, he threw it aside and said to Herndon:

“No, I have read enough of it. It’s like all the others. Biographies as generally written are not only misleading, but false. The author of this life of Burke makes a wonderful hero out of his subject. He magnifies his perfections – if he had any – and suppresses his imperfections. . . . In most instances [biographies] commemorate a lie, and cheat posterity out of the truth. History is not history unless it is the truth.”

“I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.”

Politico, by Leslie M. Harris, March 6, 2020

Leslie M. Harris is professor of history at Northwestern University, and author of In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863 and Slavery and the University: Histories and Legacies.

On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

Hannah-Jones and I were on Georgia Public Radio to discuss the path-breaking New York Times 1619 Project, a major feature about the impact of slavery on American history, which she had spearheaded. The Times had just published the special 1619 edition of its magazine, which took its name from the year 20 Africans arrived in the colony of Virginia—a group believed to be the first enslaved Africans to arrive in British North America.

Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay.

Email sent today to Professor Harris:

Professor Harris,

You wrote in your March, 2020 Politico opinion piece (titled “I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.”) the following narrative regarding President Abraham Lincoln:

“Abraham Lincoln was unable to use the Constitution as written to end slavery, either during his time in Congress or after his election to the presidency. The argument was settled through the Civil War, and by rewriting the Constitution with the 13th . . . Amendments.”

In my opinion, Professor Harris, that narrative is a bit of underestimation of the role of President Abraham Lincoln in the emancipation of American slaves and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I do not see any mention of the Emancipation Proclamation in this short passage regarding President Abraham Lincoln.

Hopefully, as a historian, you are aware of the Emancipation Proclamation. Or, perhaps you consider Mr. Lincoln’s role in the American Civil War to be one of those “blindly celebratory histories” that you mention in your text. If so, I disagree.

Yours truly,
David Lockmiller

Reply to Leslie M. Harris, Professor of History, Northwestern University email dated May 27, 2020


To: A. G. Hodges, Esq
Frankfort, Ky.

From: President Abraham Lincoln
Executive Mansion, Washington, DC
April 4, 1864.

My dear Sir: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

It would appear that President Lincoln had a lot of discussion on this particular topic in a narrow span of time. Francis Carpenter in his book Six Months at the White House at page 79 wrote:

Upon referring to the date of the "Hodges" letter, it will be seen that it was written April 4th, only three days before the visit of Mr. Thompson and party. The coincidence of thought and expression in that statement, and the President's conversation on this occasion, are noticeable; and are explained by the fact, that, with the language of that letter still fresh in his mind, he very naturally fell into a similar vein of illustration.

Francis Carpenter's discussion on this subject runs from page 75 through page 79 of his book. It is an excellent read. The following is a limited portion of the text.

Mr. George Thompson, the English anti-slavery orator, delivered an address in the House of Representatives, to a large audience, April 6th, 1864. Among the distinguished persons present was President Lincoln, who was greatly interested. The following morning, Mr. Thompson and party . . . called at the White House. The President was alone when their names were announced, with the exception of myself. Dropping all business, he ordered the party to be immediately admitted. Greeting them cordially, the gentlemen took seats, and Mr. Thompson commenced conversation by referring to the condition of public sentiment in England in regard to the great conflict the nation was passing through. He said the aristocracy and the "money interest" were desirous of seeing the Union broken up, but that the great heart of the masses beat in sympathy with the North. They instinctively felt that the cause of liberty was bound up with our success in putting down the Rebellion, and the struggle was being watched with the deepest anxiety.

Mr. Lincoln thereupon said: "Mr. Thompson, the people of Great Britain, and of other foreign governments, were in one great error in reference to this conflict. They seemed to think that, the moment I was President, I had the power to abolish slavery, forgetting that, before I could have any power whatever, I had to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and execute the laws as I found them. When the Rebellion broke out, my duty did not admit of a question. That was, first, by all strictly lawful means to endeavor to maintain the integrity of the government. I did not consider that I had a right to touch the 'State' institution of 'Slavery' until all other measures for restoring the Union had failed.

. . . It seems clear, then, that in the last extremity, if any local institution threatened the existence of the Union, the Executive could not hesitate as to his duty. In our case, the moment came when I felt that slavery must die that the nation might live! I have sometimes used the illustration in this connection of a man with a diseased limb, and his surgeon. So long as there is a chance of the patient's restoration, the surgeon is solemnly bound to try to save both life and limb; but when the crisis comes, and the limb must be sacrificed as the only chance of saving the life, no honest man will hesitate.

. . . It is my conviction that, had the proclamation been issued even six months earlier than it was, public sentiment would not have sustained it. . . . The step, taken sooner, could not, in my judgment, have been carried out. A man watches his pear-tree day after day, impatient for the ripening of the fruit. Let him attempt to force the process, and he may spoil both fruit and tree. But let him patiently wait, and the ripe pear at length falls into his lap! We have seen this great revolution in public sentiment slowly but surely progressing, so that, when final action came, the opposition was not strong enough to defeat the purpose. I can now solemnly assert," he concluded, "that I have a clear conscience in regard to my action on this momentous question. I have done what no man could have helped doing, standing in my place."

From: Leslie M. Harris by email on 5/27/2020
Subject: Re: I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.

Dear Mr. Lockmiller,

The Emancipation Proclamation only freed those enslaved people who were in the states still in rebellion--which encouraged the enslaved to flee in larger numbers to federal lines, but did not convince rebellious states that slavery had ended. Both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment resulted because of the war--not because the Constitution as written provided enough guidelines to end slavery. My point is less about Lincoln's lack of power or his lack of will to end slavery (it's clear he thought it should end). My point is more about the weakness of the Constitution as a tool to end slavery. Lincoln wished to end slavery in DC during his time in Congress, but could not convince his fellow elected officials to do so; and he, as with other anti-slavery activists, could not convince the nation as a whole that slavery was not supported by the Constitution. The completion of the project of emancipation resulted through Civil War.

best wishes,
LMH

Leslie M. Harris
Professor of History
Northwestern University

To say that the completion of emancipation resulted through civil war is a tad misleading. I think the election of Lincoln had some influence on the start of the war, the progress of the war, and the end of the war ..... and hence a significant influence on the emancipation. Further, the completion of emancipation would I suggest have been greatly assisted by his re-election.

One has to ask the question ... if a person other than Lincoln had been elected in 1860 or 1864, would emancipation have occurred faster, slower ... eventually ?

(05-27-2020 05:48 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  To say that the completion of emancipation resulted through civil war is a tad misleading.

Professor Harris wrote in her email to me: "My point is more about the weakness of the Constitution as a tool to end slavery."

The Southern slave colonies would not have signed their approval to the Constitution without satisfactory provision therein that the issue of slavery was a "state's rights" issue and therefore not an issue upon which the federal government might intervene or encroach.

President Lincoln explained the basis for his constitutionally correct intrusion to Mr. George Thompson, the English anti-slavery orator:

"It seems clear, then, that in the last extremity, if any local institution threatened the existence of the Union, the Executive could not hesitate as to his duty. In our case, the moment came when I felt that slavery must die that the nation might live! I have sometimes used the illustration in this connection of a man with a diseased limb, and his surgeon. So long as there is a chance of the patient's restoration, the surgeon is solemnly bound to try to save both life and limb; but when the crisis comes, and the limb must be sacrificed as the only chance of saving the life, no honest man will hesitate."

At the occasion of the Illinois Supreme Court Memorial to honor the memory of Abraham Lincoln, May 3, 1865, the Supreme Court of Illinois convened in the court room at Ottawa. The Hon. J. D. Caton, formerly Chief Justice of the court spoke in part as follows:

"If he discovered a weak point in his cause, [Lincoln] frankly admitted it, and thereby prepared the mind to accept more readily his mode of avoiding it."

President Lincoln's entire speech to the Committee of Colored Men on Colonization (Post #16)was a series of such frank admissions followed by reasoning that these free black men should accept and advocate for his proposal, and even themselves participate in its success.

Two days after President Lincoln's speech, the Committee responded as follows:

“We were entirely hostile to the movement until all the advantages were so ably brought to our views by you,” the delegation chief wrote Lincoln two days later, promising to consult with prominent blacks in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston who he hoped would “join heartily in Sustaining Such a movement.” (Source: Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin, (2005), page 469.) (Post #17)

Leslie Stahl's "60 Minutes" broadcast story on the "Lincoln" movie began with these words: “The film is filled with things about our 16th President that we, who are not Lincoln scholars, did not know.”

Well, it turns out, now, that supposedly all of those same Lincoln and American History scholars did not know the truth themselves about President Abraham Lincoln, or even the real reason that the American Revolutionary War was begun. These are historical revelations according to the 1619 Project authors and the current management of the New York Times that published the work.

Here's a story that seems to be right in the "60 Minutes" program's "wheel-house," using old baseball terminology: You have more than 10 of America's preeminent American History and Lincoln scholars, including one three-time winner of the prestigious annual Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize for his scholarly works on Lincoln, contending that there are severe historical accuracy problems with the 1619 Project, most notably, the basis for the American Civil War and specious allegations and innuendo regarding the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln.

On the other side of the equation is Nikole Hannah-Jones, the principal project author and the 2020 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary presented on the basis of her 1619 Project essay published in the New York Times Magazine. Her educational background: A bachelor's degree in History and African-American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 1998. She also graduated from the University of North Carolina Hussman School of Journalism and Media with a master's degree in 2003, where she was a Roy H. Park Fellow.

The American History and Lincoln scholars submitted their specific historical accuracy complaints to the New York Times Magazine Editor publishing the 1619 Project work. With minor exception, the complaints were rejected by the Times Magazine editor as insignificant interpretive variations of historical facts made by this nation's top American History and Lincoln scholars.

Then, a respected long-time columnist for the Washington Post, George Will, steps in to present his assessment of the controversy. See "The ‘1619 Project’ is filled with slovenliness and ideological ax-grinding" by George Will (May 6, 2020). His concluding paragraph opinion reads:

The ferocity of arguments among professors often is inversely proportional to the arguments’ stakes. Not, however, those about “The 1619 Project,” because, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Has this, the slogan of the party governing Oceania in George Orwell’s “1984,” supplanted “All the news that’s fit to print” as the Times’s credo?

Does anyone know why CBS "60 Minutes" has not done an entire hour-long show on the 1619 Project controversy with the preeminent Lincoln and American History scholars, the principal 1619 Project essayist and New York Times Magazine editor, and Washington Post columnist George Will?

I believe that I have the correct answer to this last question and it involves big, big, big money (as a hint).

(05-29-2020 07:16 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Does anyone know why CBS "60 Minutes" has not done an entire hour-long show on the 1619 Project controversy with the preeminent Lincoln and American History scholars, the principal 1619 Project essayist and New York Times Magazine editor, and Washington Post columnist George Will?

I believe that I have the correct answer to this last question and it involves big, big, big money (as a hint).

The following are three big clues as to the correct answer to this question:


Corporate Synergy
In recent years, the “60 Minutes” program has been accused of promoting books, films, and interviews with celebrities who are published or promoted by sister businesses, [such as CBS’s iconic book publisher Simon & Schuster]. (Source: Wikipedia)

Random House to Publish Multi-Book Series Based on The New York Times’s “The 1619 Project”
November 20, 2019

Random House, a division of Penguin Random House, has acquired a multi-book series based on The New York Times Magazine’s acclaimed and groundbreaking special issue, “The 1619 Project.” One World Publisher Christopher Jackson acquired world rights from Alia Hanna Habib of the Gernert Company, who represented The New York Times. The core project will be a boldly expanded version of the special issue, including new and expanded essays, fiction, and poetry from a variety of noted contributors, and published by One World.

Additionally, Random House Children’s Books will publish four 1619 Project books for young readers—one young adult, one middle-grade, and two picture books—under the Delacorte Press and Crown Books for Young Readers imprints. The Random House Clarkson Potter imprint will publish a special 1619 Project illustrated edition; while the Ten Speed Press imprint will publish the graphic novelization of the core project.

The creative team at The New York Times editing the book series will be the same group behind the original initiative: award-winning New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones; Jake Silverstein, editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine; Ilena Silverman, the magazine’s features editor; and Caitlin Roper, the magazine’s special projects editor.

“Iconic book publisher Simon & Schuster is on the auction block”
Los Angeles Times March 4, 2020

The move comes just three months after the merger of Viacom and CBS. The company’s new leadership has concluded that the New York publishing house, known for the works of such authors as Stephen King, Susan Orlean, Bob Woodward and Hillary Clinton, no longer is a core part of the company.

Simon & Schuster has some of the world’s most recognizable authors, including Mary Higgins Clark, Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCullough. It ranks fifth worldwide, behind Penguin Random House, Hachette Livre, HarperCollins and Macmillan Publishers.

When the stand-alone CBS controlled Simon & Schuster, the company created synergies by booking its authors on “60 Minutes,” which explored timely and provocative subject matter.

Simon & Schuster probably will be sold to another publishing firm looking to merge assets and create cost savings. Potential buyers may include Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which owns HarperCollins; the French company Lagardère Publishing, which owns Hachette Livre; German media giant Bertelsmann, which owns the majority stake in Penguin Random House; or perhaps a private equity firm such as KKR, which has shown interest in digital publishing.

In December, Bertelsmann announced that it would pay $675 million for the remaining 25% stake in Penguin Random House from the British firm Pearson, which would make Bertelsmann the sole owner of the world’s largest book publishing operation. That deal is undergoing regulatory review.

Bertelsmann’s move to own all of Penguin Random House came six years after it and Pearson stunned the industry by combining Penguin and Random House. That tie-up, which trimmed the Big Six to five, prompted others.

ViacomCBS’ stock has been bludgeoned since the merger was announced in August. Back then, the two companies together were worth nearly $30 billion. But since the combination was completed in early December, shares have continued to decline. On Wednesday, ViacomCBS shares closed up 2 cents at $23.10, valuing the business at less than $14.5 billion.

The company previously announced the sale of the landmark CBS headquarters building in Midtown Manhattan, known as Black Rock. ViacomCBS plans to use the proceeds from the two sales to pay down debt, pay dividends to shareholders and buy back stock.

“All it will take is for the stigma of ‘controversy’ to attach itself to The 1619 Project before school districts will think twice about adopting it.” (Dr. Allen Guelzo, Princeton University Senior Research Scholar, in email to David Lockmiller, May 14, 2020)

The purpose of the American Revolution was not to protect the institution of slavery and President Abraham Lincoln deserves the reputation that he has achieved. America’s preeminent American History and Lincoln Scholars agree on both of these concepts.

As explained below, the current management of the ViacomCBS merger will not permit CBS “60 Minutes” to bring into question the “The1619 Project” interpretation of American History as a matter of self-interest. It should be noted that in recent years, the “60 Minutes” program has been accused of promoting books, films, and interviews with celebrities who are published or promoted by sister businesses, [such as CBS’s iconic book publisher Simon & Schuster]. (Source: Wikipedia)

It would appear that the ViacomCBS merger is in desperate need of cash to fund its future plans and have decided to place its iconic book publisher Simon & Schuster division on the auction block at this time to provide the funding. The major problem for such an auction is that there is a very limited number of prospective purchasers. According to the Los Angeles Times March 4, 2020 article, Simon & Schuster probably will be sold to another publishing firm looking to merge assets and create cost savings. Potential buyers may include Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp; the French company Lagardère Publishing; German media giant Bertelsmann, which now owns a 100% stake in Penguin Random House; or perhaps a private equity firm such as KKR, which has shown interest in digital publishing.

Most certainly, Bertelsmann and its Penguin Random House division would not appreciate a critical assessment of “The 1619 Project” being aired on “60 Minutes” at any time. As previously stated, Random House, a division of Penguin Random House, has acquired a multi-book series based on The New York Times Magazine’s acclaimed and groundbreaking special issue, “The 1619 Project.” And, perhaps more importantly, the Bertelsmann’s announced purchase of the remaining 25% stake in Penguin Random House is currently under regulatory review, also according to the March 4, 2020 Los Angeles Times article.

This is not a case of “any publicity is good publicity;” in this case, “any publicity is bad publicity” because the preeminent American historians are right and “The 1619 Project” historical premises are wrong. If “60 Minutes” were to air such a program featuring a number of these preeminent American History and Lincoln scholar historians condemning “The 1619 Project,” the ViacomCBS sales calls for the Simon & Schuster division to the German media giant Bertelsmann will probably, in all likelihood, not be returned. And, thereby, ViacomCBS’s plans to use the proceeds from the two sales, the landmark CBS headquarters building in Midtown Manhattan and its Simon & Schuster division, to pay down debt, pay dividends to shareholders and buy back stock, might be placed in “extreme risk” jeopardy because of this already very limited auction for purchase of the Simon & Schuster division.

Here's the latest and greatest in "revisionist American history," from President Donald Trump in a June 3, 2020 tweet:

"I have done more for Black Americans, in fact, than any President in U.S. history with the possible exception of another Republican President, the late, great, Abraham Lincoln . . . and its not even close." [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps President Trump will win the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for this tweet. The standard set in 2020 for this award is very low.

Your last line is great -

Was he possibly referring to the economy? (before the gov't forced shutdowns)

That tweet may be what he said, but that's not how I interpreted it
O' my goodness. Now I sound like the main street media -

The emphasis should be on "and it's not even close," meaning Trump is conceding to Lincoln...but no Trump-hater is going to take the time to perceive that.

(06-05-2020 06:27 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Here's the latest and greatest in "revisionist American history," from President Donald Trump in a June 3, 2020 tweet:

"I have done more for Black Americans, in fact, than any President in U.S. history with the possible exception of another Republican President, the late, great, Abraham Lincoln . . . and its not even close." [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps President Trump will win the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for this tweet. The standard set in 2020 for this award is very low.

Here's another competitor's entry for the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary:

Near the end of 8,000+ word essay (June 26, 2020) by Nikole Hannah-Jones in the New York Times Magazine, titled "What is Owed," there is the following specious narrative conclusion regarding who is going to actually pay for these presumably sizable reparations (no dollar amount proposed) to all descendants of black slaves in America:

“Reparations are not about punishing white Americans, and white Americans are not the ones who would pay for them. It does not matter if your ancestors engaged in slavery or if you just immigrated here two weeks ago. Reparations are a societal obligation in a nation where our Constitution sanctioned slavery….and so it is the federal government that pays.”

The comment to this story with the most reader recommendations (293), began with this same Nikole Hannah-Jones quotation.

"I’m genuinely perplexed by these words in the article," the comment began.

Wouldn’t Federal government payments have to be raised through taxes, though? That's where the Federal government gets money.

So wouldn’t every taxpayer in the country in fact be paying for reparations?

************************************************************

This offending paragraph, written by Nikole Hannah-Jones, strongly reminds me of her equally misleading description of President Lincoln's August 14, 1862 meeting in the White House with the five prominent black leaders on the subject of colonization.

So, I think that there is a good possibility that Nikole Hannah-Jones will also win the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

It is amazing to me that someone could write an 8,000+ word essay and not realize how short sighted they are.

Money won't solve this problem.
(And I only used 26 words)