American History Is Being Falsified to Sow Political Division

Mary Grabar, author of the upcoming book “Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America,” told Epoch TV’s Crossroads program that the controversial 1619 Project skews American history for divisive political ends.

The 1619 Project attempts to cast the Atlantic slave trade as the dominant factor in the founding of America, rather than ideals such as individual liberty and natural rights. The initiative has been widely panned by historians and political scientists, with some critics calling it a bid to rewrite U.S. history through a left-wing lens.

In the interview, Grabar criticized the project for inaccuracies such as the American Revolution having been fought to preserve the institution of slavery rather than for seeking independence from Britain.

“The way the 1619 Project presents it, it’s an oversimplified form,” Grabar said, referring to the dynamics of slavery and growing opposition to it ahead of the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.

Grabar said the situation was that Britain was deeply vested in the slave trade and that, “they were actually encouraging the colonies to use slave labor, because they were leading in the international slave trade.”

“They were making a lot of money, and they wanted the colonies to have the slaves,” Grabar insisted, adding that the reality of the dynamics around slavery in America run counter to the claims made by proponents of the 1619 Project.

Keep reading

How farmer Andrew Kehoe became US’ first mass murderer, killing 38 children

Berenice Sterling was a first-grade teacher in Bath, Mich., in 1927 when she asked school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe for a favor. Sterling wanted to have some fun with her students on the final day of school, so she wondered if the class could picnic in a shady grove of trees on Kehoe’s farm that Wednesday, May 18. 

Kehoe agreed, but he urged Sterling’s class not to wait till that date. Instead, he said, they should have their picnic “right away.” 

Asked after May 18 why he thought Kehoe had made that suggestion, Bath resident Monty Ellsworth gave a stark reply: 

“I suppose he wanted the children to have a little fun before he killed them.” 

The full story of Kehoe — who went from first trying to control a school’s budget to finally just blowing the whole building up, killing 44 people in a fit of rage — is revealed in “Maniac: The Bath School Disaster and the Birth of the Modern Mass Killer” (Little A), out now. 

Keep reading

11 of the Most Memorable Acts of Civil Disobedience in History

Government officials hate civil disobedience because it’s a disgruntled citizen’s way of thumbing his nose. If we’re unhappy with laws or policies that are stupid, destructive, corrupt, counterproductive, unconstitutional, or in other ways indefensible, they advise us to do the “democratic” thing—which means hope for the best in a future election, stand in line to be condescended to at some boring public hearing, or just shut up.

My go-to expert on the issue is not a politician or a preacher or an academic. It’s Henry David Thoreau, who famously asked, “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.”

If the choice is obedience or conscience, I try my best to pick conscience.

Keep reading