The "new history of capitalism" vs the actual history, by
Excellent overview by of the flaws in the historical scholarship on which the NYT's "1619 Project" is based.
How the 1619 Project Rehabilitates the ‘King Cotton’ Thesis
"for slavery to survive this attack, [Fitzhugh] said, the South must 'throw Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo & Co., in the fire.'" Pro-slavery advocates and modern "US was built on slavery" folks agree: the free market must go! explains.
The NY Times' economic analysis of slavery is widely recognized by reputable historians as fraudulent bunk: How the 1619 Project Rehabilitates the ‘King Cotton’ Thesis
How the 1619 Project Rehabilitates the ‘King Cotton’ Thesis
Here is Magness's piece in NRO