I'll say this for the 1776 report:

Despite being a dangerous, false, at least white supremacist-adjacent, version of American history—

unlike Dinesh D'Souza it never made the idiotic statement that historians don't talk about how Southern Democrats were enslavers.

In his video (you'll find it easily enough, but since that's close to 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back I'll spare you linking it) D'Souza repeats his one tune:

Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation and therefore still must be bad now.

It's quite remarkable how he always manages to bring this up.

But here he also shifts the goalposts because he wants to talk about not just "the party that promoted slavery" but also the party affiliation of the enslavers.

Which, shock: they were mostly Democrats.

Not a great surprise. But there were also some in the Whig Party.

The same Whig Party that disintegrated in a conflict over… slavery.

And then some of its members became Republicans.

But acknowledging the idea that parties have factions and can break up or realign over conflicts between those factions would add unwelcome nuance when one is trying to sloganeer one's way through a culture war.

Let's leave that aside, though, and try to actually engage with his pronouncements in good faith.

Turns out, there's still no merit here. They are simply factually wrong.

According to D'Souza, there are about 8 historians on Twitter who he keeps tangling with and who have the power to intimidate the rest of the profession into silence about shocking truths (that strangely have been known to that profession for a very long time).

And not just the boring academic historians are afraid. Apparently all kinds of outlets are too timid to speak out. For example:

"It's not talked about on Wikipedia."

Look at all of those Southern senators on this list. Look at what it says about which party so many of them belonged to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_slave_owners

"It's not talked about on the History Channel."

Look. I have many, many issues with the History Channel.

Maybe they were just too busy inventing ancient aliens to give this much room when he was tuning in.

But even they have this on their website:

Note that John C. Breckinridge, whom Southern Democrats nominated for the presidency in 1860, was according to the 1850 Census, an enslaver.

That's from Wikipedia, by the way, which you'll recall supposedly doesn't talk about this…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_career_of_John_C._Breckinridge

With all of these super inconvenient truths freely available even in places where D'Souza says they're not, one thing is clear:

We better inform @KevinLevin, @rauchway, @KevinMKruse and the five other unnamed historians that their tactics of intimidation are no longer working!