'Not the Way to do History': Princeton University Historian Blasts 1619 Project as 'Historical Sloppiness' Unworthy of Pulitzer

One of the nation's leading Lincoln scholars criticized the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project for its "historical sloppiness" and claimed journalists typically lack the expertise to consider themselves historians.

Dr. Allen C. Guelzo, who is the senior research scholar in the Council of the Humanities at Princeton University and director of the James Madison Program’s Initiative in Politics and Statesmanship, refuted three major claims of the New York Times Magazine's "The 1619 Project" during a recent interview on The Buck Sexton Show.

New York Times Magazine writer Nikole Hannah-Jones won a 2020 Pulitzer Prize in Commentary for her essay, "Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true." The Pulitzer Prize Board described it as "a sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project, which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America’s story, prompting public conversation about the nation’s founding and evolution."

Guelzo, who was less impressed, said, "The 1619 Project, to put it in a short compass, is an attempt to re-center our understanding of American history. What they mean by 're-center' is to see the presence of slavery and race as the central narrative of American history."