OK, so there's no opportunity for me to read for myself and judge how "glowing" Tom's comments were. For the sake of discussion, I'll simply assume they were glowing.
And the basis for your declaring the 1619 Project to be garbage? I'm asking here rather than debating, as I just read about it for the first time roughly twenty minutes ago. Prior to that, all I had read were sporadic and brief criticisms of it in posts from conservatives on the Test Board.
Laf, as Engineer says, this is probably more suited to the Test Board. But a quick comment here that hopefully avoids overt partisan politics. There are some overwhelming problems with the 1619 Project, and they've been identified and critiqued by prestigious nonpartisan historians.
One such person is Princeton Professor of History Sean Wilentz, one of the leading academic authorities in the country, who wrote a devastating rebuttal to the premises of the project. Other famous critics include James McPherson, John McWhorter, James Oakes, and Gordon Woods...to name just a few. Google any of these guys with the term 1619 project, and you'll find material galore.
Two huge issues overarch all the others: A) The premise that American history has no significant meaning apart from the institution of slavery; and B) The assertion that the main objective of the Revolutionary War and real reason for the founding of our country was to preserve the institution of slavery.
Both of these premises are egregiously, provably wrong. Moreover, they originate not in scholarship but rather in ideology: the determination to see every fact and event through an ideological lens and outlandishly shoehorn reality into the theory rather than shaping the theory around reality.