Which party has wanted freedom for all Americans since before the Civil War?

Nearly 60 years ago, we had real bi-partisanship. 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. (From my blog, Feb. 15, 2012)

It was Everett Dirksen, Senate Minority leader from Illinois who lead the way and knew the history of freedom and equality for blacks, not Lyndon Baines Johnson who had a career of holding them back. Read his eloquent speech from 1964 which provides the history of the Act and the history of the acts. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/DirksenCivilRights.pdf

How many people who have graduated from high school since the mid-1960s know that it has always been the Republicans who fought for equal rights? That Democrats are the party of the KKK and Jim Crow, voter suppression, lynching, enticing the black father from his home with government programs, and aborting generations of black babies? Even today, the lies about President Trump being a racist are a cover for Democrats trying to regain power over black Americans.

The United States of America began in 1776, not 1619

The New York Times has been perpetrating a fraud.

“Gordon Wood, one of the USA’s leading historians of the Revolutionary War, has been sharply critical of 1619’s best known essay (“America Wasn’t a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One,” by Nikole Hannah-Jones), dismissing Hannah-Jones’s claim that the USA seceded from Britain primarily to protect the institution of slavery as factually inaccurate.
Wood points out that attributing American secession to a desire to protect slavery—rather than (say) taxation without representation, conflicts over French and Indian war debt, or tense armed exchanges like the “Boston Massacre”—“makes the Revolution out to be like the Civil War,” which is “wrong in so many ways.” The eminent historian seems bemused and angered by the decision of the Times to support an arguably questionable scholarly project, saying: “I was surprised by the scope of this thing, [since] it’s going to become the basis for high school education, and has the weight of the New York Times behind it.” Given that the generally reputable Pulitzer Center is already offering a “1619 Project Curriculum” targeted at “all grades,” Dr. Wood’s words of warning ring true.

Similarly, John Oakes, Distinguished Professor of History and Graduate School Humanities Professor at the City University of New York, has been extremely critical of the 1619 Project’s claim that “anti-Black racism runs in the very DNA of this country,” and the project’s explicit attempt to link many Black problems of today (i.e. “mass incarceration”) to historical slavery. As Oakes notes, this is an almost ahistorical view. To people who believe it: “There has been no industrialization. There has been no Great Migration. We’re all in the same boat we were back then.”

https://quillette.com/2020/02/17/sorry-new-york-times-but-america-began-in-1776/

https://1776unites.com/

Update: The 1776 website is so good, I've already written them a fan letter.