In the Gordon Wood article you can see the errors many people made through history and their errors. Like in the 1619 Project and makes claims that there isn’t any evidence in some of the statements said in the project. In the long run the Project will lose its credibility, standing, and persuasiveness with the nation as a whole. This caught my attention because he already knew the project was not going to go well. In addition it states, “fear that it will eventually hurt the cause rather than help it. We all want justice, but not at the expense of truth”. He knew all these things were going to happen at one point. So what i thought was before doing this why didn’t he think of what would happen after the years. The errors people made through this history was when he said “how could slavery be worth preserving for someone like John Adams, who hated slavery and owned no slaves?” “If anyone in the Continental Congress was responsible for the Declaration of Independence, it was Adams. And much of our countrymen now know that from seeing the film of the musical “1776.”Like they said they ignored his people for independence can only undermine the credibility of your project with the general public. Furthermore he stated I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and cannot accept the view that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” In my opinion I think he just ended because slaves were going to die in the war. So they thought who would do the work after. Also he probably didn’t have enough power to defeat the other side.
I’m having a lot of trouble following this. Who is the “he” in the last few sentences, for example. At times it is unclear whether you are talking about Gordon Wood, the 1619 Project, or the United States itself. Make sure you specify who or what you are talking about with the use of proper nouns.
You also use a lot of quotations, then at other times you paraphrase without quoting, which in some situations can amount to plagiarism. Although that’s not the case here, there’s far too little of your own original thinking—what I’m looking for is your analysis of the readings, not a summary or a collection of quotes. To be clear, Gordon Wood is a living historian who was writing to criticize the 1619 Project, but was not directly involved in it. To really understand his criticisms, though, you would have to read the Hannah-Jones essay–and ideally, discuss them both in a post that considers which perspective is more valid, and why.