I'm really over defending #1619Project but I must correct some glaring inaccuracies in this @politico piece. 1) The project does not argue "our democracy" was founded in 1619. 2) The Pulitzer Center that created the curriculum is completely unaffiliated with the Pulitzer Prizes.

3) The Pulitzer Center DOES NOT AWARD THE PULITZER PRIZE. That'd be Columbia Univ. 4)The project does not argue that the Am Revolution "was fought over slavery," but it does argue if you've read it, based off of extensive scholarship, that slavery was a primary motive for some.

5) There is no "soon schools started saying they would create curriculum." The curriculum was released the same time as the project. It's just many of you did not pay attention until critics started talking about it.

6) It's odd to keep pointing a handful of historians critiquing the project without noting that just as many wrote for the project and even more have defended the project and are teaching the project.

7) It's also a strange move to quote some off-the-record "concerns" by "liberal strategists, academics and authors" who are wringing hands about whether to come out against the project. It published two years ago and countless pieces, interviews, posts have been published.

8) I know #1619Project functions as click bait, but to do a piece without interviewing anyone at NYT or anyone who has defended it, or to factcheck basic facts, or without examining the efforts by Republicans to dictate what can be taught in America's schools, is poor journalism.

9) Seems like a great time to point out the #1619project book comes out this fall. My essay will speak directly to criticisms of the role of slavery and the Revolution, and we've added essays by EIGHT more esteemed historians. Cheers.