Thank you for fact-checking me. However, your link provides just a few words from paragraphs, even pages in length. Until you read those pages, dismissing them smells of an agenda.

In 1838 Frederick Douglass escaped slavery and entered the abolitionist movement. In 1849, Douglass explained that the Constitution bound the nation to “do the bidding of the slave holder; to bring out the whole naval and military power of the country, to crush the refractory slaves into obedience to their cruel masters.” Until 1851 Douglass shared that view with William Lloyd Garrison (a journalist and social reformer).

In 1851, Douglass was persuaded by Joshua Giddings, a Congressman from Ohio and Lysander Spooner, an attorney, who argued that the Constitution’s Preamble, “does not declare that ‘we, the white people,’ or ‘we, the free people,’ or ‘we, a part of the people’ — but that ‘we, the people’ — that is, we the whole people — of the United States, ‘do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ ”

Douglass found Giddings and Spooners argument persuasive and parted ways with Garrison.

Mr. Shetterly, you could have written about Frederick Douglass without mentioning the 1619 Project at all. Why did you feel the need to demean Hannah-Jones work before you presented your own? You falsely accused a professional journalist, who happens to be a black woman, of leaving Frederick Douglass out of a project dedicated to black history. That makes no sense, unless it is personal.

You are so intent on Hannah-Jones you sound like you have a personal grievance against her. Even the label you assign her is a convoluted mess (neoliberal race reductionist). Did Nikole Hannah-Jones offend you personally in some face-to-face encounter? Come on, spill the beans, what is going on with you?