The founders were quite aware of their hypocrisy: it bothered some quite a lot- Franklin was bothered enough to free his slaves and agitate for the general abolition of slavery. Jefferson fully admitted slavery was an evil , but it was convenient to his lifestyle. Washington had little qualms about using slaves until later in his life, when he expressed doubts, and his will freed a good number. Of all the Founder slaveowners, Monroe was perhaps more typical of the general attitude: slavery is bad but useful. One day we'll figure out a way to get rid of it, but not now. Monroe was in favor of abolition in theory- but he would not free any of his slaves, and he had his secretary at his elbow, begging him to do just that. I think "hypocrisy" fits well enough.

This thing was written by lawyers ( or would-be lawyers) to purpose, and this pivoting from an uncomfortable fact( Founders hypocrisy) to a distracting theory ( the charge has done enormous damage) happens a good bit, like you would expect in a trial. You can wander through it and find many things to laugh at, places where your jaw drops... but I especially admire this bit of courtroom sleight-of-hand . After devoting quite a lot of space to the GOOD things the Founders said or did about slavery, how it wasn't that bad, we stumble into a mention of: the Civil War!

This conflict was resolved, but at a cost of more than 600,000 lives. Constitutional amendments were passed to abolish slavery, grant equal protection under the law, and guarantee the right to vote regardless of race. Yet the damage done by the denial of core American principles and by the attempted substitution of a theory of group rights in their place proved widespread and long-lasting. These, indeed, are the direct ancestors of some of the destructive theories that today divide our people and tear at the fabric of our country

Pause at "regardless of race", and think. Were any of those amendments enforced? Did Black people then step forward as full citizens endowed with life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the vote? No; we know that Reconstruction was abandoned and Blacks would not have rights fully equal to Whites for more than 100 years. You would think that 100 years of things like lynchings , burnings, and oppression would merit a description...but they would run counter to the happy narrative. So, the authors deftly step away from what would be glaring examples of racism and bad faith and go all theoretical: instead of racism, there's " denial of core American principles and by the attempted substitution of a theory of group rights". Theory of group rights?.....Well, those could be had by anybody ....especially, now, all those Black people. They keep thinking about their group rights, and so that's bad.... ( Congratulations, counsel! You have succeeded in diverting everyone from learning about 100 years of real racist violence and oppression, and instead you now have the audience ready to hear that people who identify as Black are tearing at the fabric of our country. )

The authors are not doing history: they are arguing a case against the recent 1619 Project. Now, the 1619 Project should not be above criticism, but this does a terrible job of that- there's no discussion of other points of view, historiography, current scholarship. There is instead a constant threat: the people who disagree with us are doing enormous damage. But these lawyers have no need to actually DO history, because these lawyers are arguing to a conservative jury itching to convict, not to historians. Their audience will be quite content to believe their happy and very convenient little narrative. To me, it's hard to say which is more sad, that the government would sponsor this hack job of political ingratiation, or that too many people will be delighted to read it as fact, and then be willing to say; if you disagree with me, you will be doing enormous damage to this country.