1619 Project's Nikole Hannah-Jones 'goes full white supremacist' over the Declaration of Independence and doesn't seem to have noticed

So Max Boot recently got into it with “1619 Project” mastermind Nikole Hannah-Jones:

Joe Klein argues Biden should give a prime-time speech arguing that “the teaching of Black history, especially the brutal legacies of slavery, is essential” but that CRT is “to be deplored as a simplistic attempt” to filter history through a racial lens. https://t.co/QTSaaBHuL3

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) November 20, 2021

You don’t fight propaganda by engaging in propaganda. No credible person would define CRT this way. It’s laughable. https://t.co/hyFdSIIkRH

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) November 22, 2021

Maybe no "credible person" would do this but a lot of Virginia voters did just that. https://t.co/3e7tHgYXeL

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) November 22, 2021

Yes, that’s how propaganda works. Thanks for making my point.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) November 22, 2021

It should go without saying that we have no dog in this particular fight.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy watching Nikole Hannah-Jones make an ass of herself yet again.

Started reading The 1619 Project book this morning. Love this quote from Douglass: pic.twitter.com/6ruBMnA58Z

— Scott Daniel (@ScottDaniel) November 22, 2021

Does the book get into Calhoun & Southerners response to the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence? They argued that those ideals were not timeless. For if they were then slavery would not hold up well with what was written in 1776. Jefferson knew what he was doing.

— Dan Hellman (@danhellman) November 22, 2021

Haven't got that far yet, but I'm assuming that there will be similar content.

— Scott Daniel (@ScottDaniel) November 22, 2021

Keep me posted. I went thru Hillsdale College’s Con Law 101 course with my boys this summer. They went into a lot of detail of how the pre-Civil War South argued against the Declaration of Independence & its influence on constitutional interpretations regarding slavery.

— Dan Hellman (@danhellman) November 22, 2021

I'm curious as to your position as a Trump 2024 MAGA supporter, considering what I presume to be your openness to The 1619 Project…unless I'm reading your tweets wrong.

— Scott Daniel (@ScottDaniel) November 22, 2021

Not really fan of 1619 with its deemphasis of 1776 & the Decl. of Independence. I am big believer in teaching all history – good & bad. But in America’s struggle btwn slavery etc & the ideals in Decl. we see USA striving to reach those ideals & that makes America a great nation.

— Dan Hellman (@danhellman) November 22, 2021

Still with us? OK, good. Because here comes Nikole Hannah-Jones:

No honest reading of the 1619 Project argues that it deemphasizes 1776 of the Declaration. The thrust of my essay is that Black Americans have fought, generationally, to make real the lofty ideals of the opening stanza of the Declaration.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) November 22, 2021

The only “honest reading of the 1619 Project” is that it’s hot garbage, but we digress.

Further, the Declaration is not a liberation document, but a document arguing for secession. There is that lofty opener, and the rest is a list of complaints about all the crimes the British committed that forced the colonists to secede.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) November 22, 2021

Um, OK.

As @woodyholtonusc argues in his new book, it was a Black man named Lemuel Haynes who turned the Declaration into a liberation document, and part of the abolitionist argument. https://t.co/B9550DRw2I

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) November 22, 2021

So, the Declaration of Independence wasn’t a declaration of independence when it was written?

What a novel idea, has anyone ever argued that before? Had anyone ever grappled with this idea and, say, given several very long speeches about this concept? https://t.co/OL739BYno3

— Carl Paulus (@CarlPaulus) November 22, 2021

Yes, as a matter of fact, someone has.

Klansman says what? https://t.co/qh1N9IJSCK

— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) November 22, 2021

Seriously, Nikole Hannah-Jones is taking a page straight out of notorious racist slavery supporter John C. Calhoun, who himself had this to say about the Declaration of Independence:

If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition differently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That asserts that “all men are created equal.” The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous. All men are not created. According to the Bible, only two, a man and a woman, ever were, and of these one was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have come into the world by being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, either free or equal. But this form of expression being less striking and popular, has given way to the present, and under the authority of a document put forth on so great an occasion, and leading to such important consequences, has spread far and wide, and fixed itself deeply in the public mind. It was inserted in our Declaration of Independence without any necessity. It made no necessary part of our justification in separating from the parent country, and declaring ourselves independent. Breach of our chartered privileges, and lawless encroachment on our acknowledged and well-established rights by the parent country, were the real causes, and of themselves sufficient, without resorting to any other, to justify the step. Nor had it any weight in constructing the governments which were substituted in the place of the colonial. They were formed of the old materials and on practical and well-established principles, borrowed for the most part from our own experience and that of the country from which we sprang.

John C. Calhoun argued that the Declaration of Independence was effectively an argument for secession. Nikole Hannah-Jones is arguing … that the Declaration of Independence was effectively an argument for secession.

@nhannahjones goes full white supremacist here.

— Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) November 22, 2021

It might seems strange at first that someone like Nikole Hannah-Jones would agree with someone like John C. Calhoun, but it makes sense if you think about it.