Over the weekend, the New York Times rolled out the printed version of The 1619 Project, a sprawling historical-journalism project devoted to changing the way Americans currently understand and discuss the legacy of slavery in this country. The premise was that slavery was not a passing and painfully corrected mistake, but a foundational feature of all aspects of life in this country—and that therefore the black experience is at the center of the American experience.

Conservative pundits were not happy to see this. Right-wing intellectual heavyweights such as Newt Gingrich or right-wing intellectual junior middleweights such as Erick Erickson spent the past few days obsessively tweeting or yelling at you from your TV screens to make sure America knew that the New York Times was trying to—well, that part was not entirely clear.

For white conservatives, accepting that the United States wouldn’t exist without slavery would mean acknowledging that the Founders were not the creators of an infallible civic religion, which sets the limits on all modern claims for justice. It would mean that liberty was, in practice, as much a matter of exclusion as inclusion, and that success and prosperity owe more to centuries of exploitation than to God’s blessing of an exceptional people.

But their political project depends on not even considering those possibilities. And so their response was equal parts furious and vague, a barrage of arguments that discussing this country’s history is the last thing this country needs: the Times was being divisive, or it was being nihilistic, or it was implementing a secret scheme to make Americans vote against Trump by claiming that racism was an ongoing problem.

Mostly, they wanted to express that they were very personally angry. The fact that they took a wide-ranging examination of slavery’s lasting ills as an attack on themselves was a fairly obvious confession. Here are a few of the different categories of criticism under which they spent the weekend telling on themselves, in the name of complaining about the project:

It makes me feel bad about my country.

Facts don’t care about your feelings except when they do, and the fact is that it’s divisive to make conservatives feel bad.

From a radio host and the guy behind this:

Once you declare the United States a racist enterprise, you light a fire that will eventually consume you too. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 18, 2019

The New York Times undertook a worthy project to educate the public on the history of slavery. But they handed much of it to opinion writers who profit from seeing things through racial lenses and keeping racial tension aflame as much as Trump does. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 19, 2019

From the director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies:

Writing about history is great, but a project intended to delegitimize mankind’s grandest experiment in human liberty & self-governance is divisive, yes. I know it’s unwoke of me to say so, but so be it. I’ll take reality, warts and all, over grievance-mongering.

Cc @bhweingarten — Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) August 18, 2019

From a senior contributor to the Federalist:

Contrary to its stated goals, it appears the purpose of the 1619 Project is to delegitimize America, and further divide and demoralize its citizenry https://t.co/1c1F0hyZ5A — Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) August 18, 2019

Everyone’s already heard of slavery.

Or, how dare a newspaper try to further inform its readership.

Yes, nobody is aware of slavery and we need the NYT to write it up for us in 2019. Newsflash: slavery is a human sin, not a uniquely American one. — Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) August 18, 2019

From a Georgetown Law professor:

Same. But think, if Bob Mueller had only done a better job proving the Russia-Trump conspiracy, the New York Times would not have had the time or space to enlighten us on this vital “news.” https://t.co/q2FseYpZM7 — Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) August 19, 2019

It’s a plot against the presidency, and also helps Trump.

From the Washington Examiner’s chief political correspondent:

Question raised by leaked New York Times transcript, plus rollout of 1619 project: Should the public still view the Times as a news outlet? Or as something else? https://t.co/28AbrrPgnt — Byron York (@ByronYork) August 17, 2019

From a former speaker of the House and noted wife enthusiast:

The NY Times 1619 Project should make its slogan “All the Propaganda we want to brainwash you with”.it is a repudiation of the original NY Times motto. — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) August 18, 2019

From Sen. Ted Cruz:

The Editor continued: “Race in the next year…is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship w/ Donald Trump, but Latinos & immigration.” So, he’s explicit that this is the political narrative. 5/x https://t.co/NvAAKRKBE7 — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 19, 2019

Link: New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe" American history, and target Trump, too. https://t.co/2NnoS3Y87F — Byron York (@ByronYork) August 18, 2019

that’s the path down which The NY Times heads and it will make the President’s remarks about the New York Times being the enemy of the people sound prescient to a lot of people. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 18, 2019

It’s being rude to white people.

Have you considered the real victims of slavery?

The Times essentially offers a Neo-Confederate view that the South really won the Civil War and minimizes or undermines the cost white people paid to free slaves. It is unfortunate and corrupts the whole project. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 19, 2019

From an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute:

Understanding slavery’s legacy is crucial-But saying it’s the “foundation” of America is factually false & a slur on the memories of countless Americans of all races who’ve given their lives, fortunes & sacred honor to a nation they rightly believed is founded on freedom for all. — Timothy Sandefur (@TimothySandefur) August 17, 2019

It’s doing what it said it would do, and that’s bad.

I’ve been told America is good, and this would seem to imply the opposite. How dare you, and no further questions.

From a contributor at the Daily Signal:

To delegitimize American ideas and place race and slavery at the heart of literally everything this country is about (including things like healthcare). Racism and slavery were there at the time of the founding, but they aren't what the country was founded on. — Jarrett Stepman (@JarrettStepman) August 19, 2019

The @nytimes #1619Project is an obvious attempt to "reframe" America's past to fit the aims of a modern, left-wing political ideology. It's part of a longer-term process that I explain in my book, "The War on History," set for release on Oct. 1. https://t.co/BO3I0ffTUX — Jarrett Stepman (@JarrettStepman) August 19, 2019

Leaked transcript gave public a look inside New York Times agenda-setting discussions. Now look at agenda of its ambitious new initiative, the 1619 Project: 'To reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding.' https://t.co/qmjO9bytqQ pic.twitter.com/Xg8aczCvE9 — Byron York (@ByronYork) August 17, 2019

Mara Gay (@MaraGay) Tweeted:

In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.”

This is simply a LIE.Pravda was never more dishonest than this effort to write a “left history” — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) August 18, 2019

The left doesn’t get it. Slavery was AND IS terrible (there are slaves today who need liberating). A 1619 history of slavery project is great. Insisting that slavery is THE defining reality of America is simply factually wrong. — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) August 19, 2019