It's not another simplistic version. Her assessment was full of nuance. She says things like this: "If we really want to understand ourselves and move forward, it’s important to view our history with an honest and nuanced lens. What other beliefs allowed supposedly good men like Lincoln to still decry racial equality? What beliefs have made equity so unpalatable for those in power? If we’re honest, we aren’t going to like a lot of the answers."

Learning about and understanding the 3/5 compromise is not the same as understanding that Frederick Douglass spoke frankly and somewhat harshly about Lincoln upon the unveiling of a statue to honor him shortly after his death. Something I'm guessing that almost no-one reading this story was previously aware of. I know I wasn't, and I know quite a bit about this topic.

And how is it that your issue is no longer with "everyone already knows this" and has all of sudden become that her analysis is too simplistic? You don't really know what your objections are, do you? You just seem to want a platform for slapping someone down. What's that about? You might want to ask yourself...