no the platform is almost identical check it out!

never said they didnt!

No, it is not.

Yep!
That's where the OP came from!

ROFLMAO!

well not much i can do, i posted the 1860 platform on an earlier post compare it to 2008 and then tell me if its not very very similar? It is the same principals! conservatives have been steadfast in their stance over one in a half centuries! just a fact and you dont want to except it! Conservatism has not changed, its proggresives that change thats why they call them proggresives and they call us old fashion!

okay all i can say is if you can not connect the dots what more can i do i gave you enough eveidence. a reported interveiw of general forest just read it! the democrats lost power when they lost the war and right after the KKK was founded! They refused to allow blacks to vote and refused to allow equal rights to blacks. the democrats created the laws and the ones they could not get thru they used the KKK to enforce! Up until the 1960's democrats found ways to refuse blacks the right to vote throughout the south! mayors, sheriffs, governers, all throughout the south KKK members and yes staunch democrats! you just need to investigate and come to a conclusion i did and i found the democrat party guilty of founding the KKK!

I guess you are assuming that all repubs are conservative, huh?

The founder of the KKK was not a democrat so they were not founded from a democrat.

Sorry. You failed to prove it.

Approximately what percentage of white Southerners owned slaves in 1860?

The correct answer is 5 percent.


http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Quiz?Slavery

I was wrong when I said 25%.

well if they stayed true to their party platform they would be but that ended with Goldwater! No, your right most republicans are not conservatives and it's cause people are sheep and if we had real conservative leaders instaed of mostly rinos and democrats in our ranks things would be better. as for the democrats they are where taken over by the socialists and if you read their history you will see that! i am not calling them socialists to scare anyone. read a book on socialism and see how it lines up. they are socialist leaning in many regards!

Below is an actual interveiw with general Forest! He states the KKK give their support to the democrat party! Now you already admitted he was the founder as a matter of fact you pointed it out. I agree with you, but you can now change your opinion and say he is not the founder because he always claimed he was not even though there is clear evidence he was! But you didnt dispute he was the founder you disputed he was not a democrat and had nothing to do with politics. just read it! sorry your just wrong! He clearly states that the KKK as a political orginazation and it's intent!



"Well, sir, there is such an organization, not only in Tennessee, but all over the South, and its numbers have not been exaggerated."

"What are its numbers, general?"

"In Tennessee there are over 40,000; in all the Southern states they number about 550,000 men."

"What is the character of the organization; May I inquire?"

"Yes, sir. It is a protective political military organization. I am willing to show any man the constitution of the society. The members are sworn to recognize the government of the United States. It does not say anything at all about the government of Tennessee. Its objects originally were protection against Loyal Leagues and the Grand Army of the Republic; but after it became general it was found that political matters and interests could best be promoted within it,


and it was then made a political organization, giving it support, of course, to the democratic party."





"But is the organization connected throughout the state?"

"Yes, it is. In each voting precinct there is a captain, who, in addition to his other duties, is required to make out a list of names of men in his precinct, giving all the radicals and all the democrats who are positively known, and showing also the doubtful on both sides and of both colors. This list of names is forwarded to the grand commander of the State, who is thus enabled to know are our friends and who are not."

"Can you, or are you at liberty to give me the name of the commanding officer of this State?"

"No, it would be impolitic."

Order of Secession,
South Carolina December 20, 1860
Mississippi January 9, 1861
Florida January 10, 1861
Alabama January 11, 1861
Georgia January 19, 1861
Louisiana January 26, 1861
Texas February 1, 1861
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/charts/blchartsecession.htm


On April 10, 1861, CSA Brigadier General Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused.

On April 12th the Fed Navy opened fire on the Ft. Now in the hands of the CSA.

http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/sc/sc001.html

After this and the Presidents communicating intent to take back the Ft at all costs, the following states seceded,


Virginia April 17, 1861*
Arkansas May 6, 1861*
North Carolina May 20, 1861*
Tennessee June 8, 1861*

If they had just let the CSA hold on to the FT, which was taken without loss of life, these states, all border states, probably wouldn't have seceded and the Civil War would never have happened.

North Carolina



AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."



We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.



We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.



Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of said State.



Where in there does it say slavery?

okay so you specualte it would have never happend. what does that have to do with Lincolns clear intent to end slavery and his political manuvering to accomplish that task? What does that have to do with the fact Slaves by in large where in the south and they had far more to lose if slavery was abolished? Slavery was a complex issue and even our founders new that the abolishment of slavery had far reaching consequences to the economy and social environment, political will among the people and so forth! The abolishment of slavery goes way back, way way back and the civil war had everything to do with the abolishment of slavery and the south not wanting to lose their free labor! Your just wrong! The arguments over slavery are well documented in the senate as well as congress! the threats of war from the south if we abolished slavery! Your just wrong! there is way to much evidence here! One could make the argument that the north stood in judgement of the south based on prior history, because when they where dependent on slaves they where far less vocal. but you can not argue that the civil war and the repuplican party had nothing to do with the abolishment of slavery!

where in there does it not say slavery? Strawman argument!

He didn't say he was a democrat nor that the kkk was democrat.

So you still have failed.

NC seceded after the Fed gov threatened to attack across their land the State of SC. That's why there is no mention of slavery.

Here,
Ga is more specific. They were one of the first to secede.
Make sure you read what the say about the Republicans interests in power.

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.

This part!

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.

Okay he founded the KKK, and i quote

"and it was then made a political organization, giving it support, of course, to the democratic party."

so as the founder and head of this orginazation that he founded they give their support to the democrat party, but he was not a democrat? As a confederate General he took his commands from the democrat party, lost the war and i quote again "and it was then made a political organization" The ku klux he states later in the interveiw.

Come on i am not gonna call you any names, but are you honest? I mean really you can not conclude the democrat party founded the KKK?

democrats lose the civil war......

One of the democrats most popular generals founds a new political orginazation called the ku klux right after losing the war.

the ku Klux begin enforcing democratic ideology thoughout america when they lose in the ballot box.

The other evidence is overwhelming and it is in the congessional records!

Most politicians don't even deny it this point they just say they have changed!

You see whether you admit you are wrong or not you have proved a point! As a democrat you refuse to admit the wrong of your party and are willing to lie for them! I wont i plainly state when my party is wrong!