There are good things about the 1619 project, but they're all duplicative of previous, better work. The general idea of hypocritical liberty goes back to Frederick Douglass or even before (Douglass gave it the best, most pointed treatment); the long-term impact of slavery and racism has been the subject of countless scholarly and popular works over the last 20 years. Without the false, radical revisionism, it's just kinda bland and pointless.

Anyone who supports the 1619 Project is either ignorant or racist. There's just no other way to approve of that complete shambles. "Not perfect" is making a mistake or misinterpretation. "Absolute travesty of journalism" is ignoring pre-publication corrections of fact from historians and even your own publication's fact checker, and then accusing all detractors of racism.

I'm not gonna argue about why the Confederate states seceded; they made pretty clear in their own words that it was mostly (though not exclusively) over slavery and white supremacy. It's just interesting that whether treason is bad depends on which party you find objectionable.

When first released (before professional historians leaned on the Times and they made stealth edits) the Project and Hannah-Jones made the explicit argument that the perpetuation of slavery was the reason for the political separation of the United States from England. It's certainly ludicrous enough to be a strawman but in this case it's just a straightforward description.

I guess you're one of those racists who thinks the 1619 project was less than unimpeachable journalism.

So what you're saying is it's a disgrace that treasonous bastard John Hancock got away