Nikole Hannah-Jones is immensely proud of the 1619 Project, her magnum opus. No matter how many gaping holes get shot through that thing, she stands by it with pride.
So when Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie recently posted this video featuring Reason senior editor Damon Root discussing his book about towering American historical figure and former slave Frederick Douglass and highlighting Douglass’ commitment to the U.S. Constitution:
Frederick Douglass called the Constitution a "glorious liberty document" that guaranteed the rights of all. @damonroot tells me why Douglass' vision is as powerful as ever. @The1619Project @nhannahjones @TimothySandefur @PhilWMagness #BlackLivesMatterpic.twitter.com/7eb1vJDxFq
— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) December 20, 2020
Hannah-Jones wasn’t about to let those guys get away with getting Frederick Douglass completely wrong:
I know you all desperately need me for clicks, but I gather I’ve read far more Frederick Douglass than you and he also wrote this about the Constitution . pic.twitter.com/cV81lJqQiE
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) December 20, 2020
Or here where he calls the Constitution “radically pro-slavery.” pic.twitter.com/uAZP4K6XVf
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) December 20, 2020
She’s read far more Frederick Douglass than anyone at Reason. Far more than anyone in America, probably. No, the world!
So don’t you dare try to suggest that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Unless, of course, you’re someone like Goldwater Institute VP Timothy Sandefur, who not only suggests that Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn’t know what she’s talking about, but demonstrates it conclusively:
Recommended
I should probably screenshot this latest example of NHJ’s intellectual dishonest before she deletes it like she usually does, but here’s the fun part: she’s quoting passages from the speeches Douglass later repudiated after devoting time to studying the Constitution. https://t.co/KPM6iXZGQH
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Douglass explained in great detail afterwards that he had been wrong to swallow Garrison’s views about the Constitution being evil. After studying the subject himself he realized he’d been in error. One might wish, and futilely, that she would herself study with some care. pic.twitter.com/uA6Bcsft9U
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
FD was of course falsely accused of dishonesty for his change of mind—his white critics said it couldn’t POSSIBLY be a genuinely thought-out position on his part. It just HAD to be an intellectually dishonest political tactic. pic.twitter.com/1t9k9Aryan
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Anyone who’s read OH SO MUCH about Douglass & the Const would know this. Doubtless it’s news to NHJ.
FD doesn’t fit into NHJ’s (patently false) narrative of American history so she has to wish away the considered opinion he held after the age of about 33.
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
That definitely sounds like something Nikole Hannah-Jones would do.
Anyway, more here: https://t.co/FPdQqC7a0w
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
And there’s more still!
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
Behold:
Yes, as a strategy to end slavery. As I said. Here’s Douglass in *1889* referring to the Constitution as a charter of slavery that after the Civil War BECAME a charter of liberty. Next? pic.twitter.com/n1xgyiGhU3
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) December 20, 2020
Lol. She’s actually arguing that Douglass did NOT think the Constitution was anti slavery before the war.
This is a truly radical rereading of Douglass, which is contrary to the man’s own words & to every scholar who’s ever written on the subject, but okay. https://t.co/apQbNrC541
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Ms. H-J isn’t saying Douglass was wrong abt the Const, or just a liar (tho she said that a couple hrs ago). Now she’s saying that he REALLY thought the Const became anti-slavery only after the war.
Which is the opposite of what FD himself said in countless speeches & articles.
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Alas, typical of her approach to such matters. https://t.co/OCyWbjTOc2
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
The simplest way to get a grasp on how confused & dishonest Ms. H-J’s reading of Douglass is? Simply read his own words. Here he is in 1860. https://t.co/6N09McUxfY pic.twitter.com/8PpSBeqQIC
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Cue sad trombone.
Imagine a Pulitzer Prize winning writer saying “Well, ACKSHUALLY, Saul of Tarsus was ANTI-Christian! He even persecuted Christians!” https://t.co/jUK7KaDZEg
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
“Augustine of Hippo was such a pagan that he actually prayed *not* to be converted! What he said later was just political pragmatism…”
“And I’ve read more Augustine than you, so there!”
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Stop! Stop! She’s already dead!
Or maybe she’s only mostly dead:
Douglass held both views before the war, friend. And by the 1890s, he was referring to the Constitution as a doc that started as pro-slavery abs became pro-Liberty. Relevant to your grandstanding, no?
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) December 21, 2020
Please, as simply as you can so someone of my low intellect can understand, explain to me what Douglass meant when he said in the 1880s that the Constitution was pro-slavery document that became a pro-liberty one.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) December 21, 2020
Guess it’s up to Sandefur to finish her off:
He was referring to the fact that the Const had been falsely interpreted by slavery’s advocates on the Court & in congress as a pro-slavery document & the war had ended that. https://t.co/DmVYPWzEkA
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
This is not the sort of question a person familiar with Douglass’s thought would ask.
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
To think that Douglass secretly thought the Const was pro-slavery, even after loudly repudiating that view & maintaining the opposite for the last 45 yrs of life, is to accuse him of a level of dishonestly so extreme that the most hardened slavery advocate never dared suggest it.
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
Nice job, Ida Bae.
“Grandstanding” is a remarkable charge, considering the source.
FD is quite clear: he thought, btwn ages 20 & 33, that the Const was pro-slavery as you believe. Then upon more mature consideration he realized that that was in error & maintained the opposite till his death. https://t.co/PhgSkxg1KD
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
So yes, he “held both views” in the sense that he agreed with you and with Roger Taney that the Const was pro slavery. Then he studied the matter in depth & realized he had been wrong.
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
To be fair, Nikole Hannah-Jones is incapable of introspection and therefore incapable of realizing — or at least admitting — when she’s wrong.
Hahahaha! You can read a line from this speech or you can read Douglass. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning Douglass biography Blight makes it clear that Douglass’s switch from calling the Constitution pro-slavery to pro-liberty was a political tactic aimed at shaming the nation for..
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) December 20, 2020
As someone who studies Douglass for my doctoral program, I can say Blight is wrong here. So is Paul Finkelman who claims likewise. Blight also contradicted this new position in his 1989 book on Douglass. He was a more fair scholar and less of a political partisan in those days.
— Joey Barretta (@Douglass_1895) December 20, 2020
Agreed. https://t.co/TJkA8isW4U
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Yes, you are most certainly a superior scholar to David Blight.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) December 21, 2020
I’m PERFECTLY comfortable having readers compare our books and decide for themselves. https://t.co/3GRIQjoWKZ
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
(For those interested, here’s what I thought of Blight’s book: https://t.co/ciPABhjwVs)
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
And speaking of further reading …
Ms. H-J is here saying that the entire last four and a half decades of Douglass’s life & career were a lie. https://t.co/KPM6iXZGQH
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Perhaps Ms. H-J in her studies of Douglass will eventually light upon this speech. She would be well advised to read it. https://t.co/6N09McUxfY
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 20, 2020
Oof.
For more information https://t.co/i7I8llPaQc
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
Readers might also enjoy: https://t.co/AegZISOK0Y
— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) December 21, 2020
Cleanup in aisle 7!
It's so hilarious that you would choose something Douglass later changed his mind on after he went back tonthe constitution. Thank you for doing this to yourself.
— seegrean (@See_Grean) December 21, 2020
Please. The pleasure was all ours.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member