Was it their love of slavery that caused them to fall so much lower?

I mean, Sam Adams was hardly a Democrat, but yeah... The abortion thing really only took off with Margaret Sanger.

Oops- sorry. I was not implying Adams was a Democrat, but I can see the flaw in the presentation.

Oh yeah. I completely understand. I've done that before too 😄

"The abortion thing really only took off with Margaret Sanger"

No it didn't

Ever heard of the "N***o Project"?

Yes, and it had literally nothing to do with abortion

No political parties though. If you want to know when Democrats became Democrats then a good start is Andrew Jackson.

There were political parties just not democrats and republicans.

Andrew Jackson is where the Democrat jackass logo started. I'm not being derogatory by calling it a jackass. There were political cartoons in the newspapers that depicted Jackson as a jackass. For some reason Jackson liked the cartoon adopted it into his re-election campaign. Ever since then the jackass has become the most fitting symbol of the Democrat Party.

The Democrats in Sam Adams day are the conservatives of today. The switch between conservative and liberal happened in the early 20th century when Marxism was introduced to the country. The "Progressives" knew that the word "liberal" was more favorable with the American people so they took it, and they've ruined it.

Speaking in terms of America at it's founding today's liberal are classical conservatives and today's conservatives are classical liberals.

"today's liberal are classical conservatives and today's conservatives are classical liberals"

Not even close. If anything, today's conservatives are closer to the liberals from 200 years ago, and the conservatives from 200 years ago are the far right fringe of today

I'm not quite on board with the Democrats of his day being today's Conservatives, but they would be considered as such on certain topics. They eventually led this country into a Civil War, proving that they are willing to sacrifice as many citizens as needed in order to get what they want.

On that last point, I find today's Democrats to be exactly the same, if not also much more effective at it.

I made a faux pas. I should not have said Democrat. I meant liberal. Liberals back then are the conservatives of today. Parties do not always represent liberals or conservatives, both classical and modern versions of both.

However, Democrats since Andrew Jackson have always seemed to be the party on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of liberty. In that respect there is no difference between the Democrat of 1860 and 2022. They just support a difference kind of slavery.

"Democrats since Andrew Jackson have always seemed to be the party on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of liberty"

And yet it's the Democrat party of today that is more diverse and has a better track record of supporting equality for all Americans. The Republicans of today who oppose same-sex marriage are no different than the Democrats of 100 years ago who opposed interracial marriage.

"In that respect there is no difference between the Democrat of 1860 and 2022. They just support a difference kind of slavery"

Slavery is not legal in the year 2022 in the United States, and you can't even name a single Democrat who says they support slavery today.

"And yet it's the Democrat party of today that is more diverse and has a better track record of supporting equality for all Americans."
Yes, because nothing says "We care!" like record inflation.
Yes, because nothing says "We care!" better than having an America Last philosophy.
Yes, because nothing says "We care!" better than stranding thousands of Americans in foreign, hostile countries.
Yes, because nothing says "We care!" than murdering unborn citizens in the womb.
Yes, because nothing says "We care!" than doing everything possible to do away with the Constitution.

The things you say wouldn't be so tragic, except that you obviously believe it.

"The Republicans of today who oppose same-sex marriage are no different than the Democrats of 100 years ago who opposed interracial marriage."
Just as the Democrat Party of 100 years ago also opposed same-sex marriage? OK, sure, most all sexually immoral people gravitate towards the Democrat Party, which is why this Party supports all forms of sexual immorality today. This didn't happen overnight, but we have relatively recent video of both 0bama & Killary stating publicly that they oppose same-sex marriage. Of course, everyone that supported them and voted for them knew they were lying just to fool some of the Undecideds & Moderates.

My first preference would be to remove government's oversight on marriage altogether. Even if that were to happen, and same-sex marriages were simply allowed, this would not be enough for the radical immoral- they will still insist on forcing their views onto Christians by trying to force ministers & priests to marry them. Just as with the abortion issue, had liberals not pushed it so far, they might have continued to enjoy the relative peace that comes from indifference.
But that is never enough for evil people. Like yourself, as a matter of fact.

"Slavery is not legal in the year 2022 in the United States, and you can't even name a single Democrat who says they support slavery today."
Anyone that supports the Democrat Party de facto supports slavery- economic slavery, educational slavery, suppression of rights slavery, mobility slavery, etc. There are no freedoms that are not on the table with the Democrat Party. While the chains may not be visible in the slavery of today's Democrats, it is just as real, and far more insidious, given that it traps most Americans in its nets.
You are a clear product of how their domination of the education system enslaves people to evil

"nothing says "We care!" than murdering unborn citizens in the womb"

There's no such thing as an unborn US citizen

"nothing says "We care!" than doing everything possible to do away with the Constitution"

Which they aren't

"most all sexually immoral people gravitate towards the Democrat Party, which is why this Party supports all forms of sexual immorality today"

It doesn't, but okay

"My first preference would be to remove government's oversight on marriage altogether"

It's a civil institution

"Even if that were to happen, and same-sex marriages were simply allowed, this would not be enough for the radical immoral- they will still insist on forcing their views onto Christians by trying to force ministers & priests to marry them"

And yet you seem to have no problem with Christians forcing their views onto LGBTQ people by saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married

"Just as with the abortion issue, had liberals not pushed it so far, they might have continued to enjoy the relative peace that comes from indifference"

There was no indifference. Christians had been opposing Roe v Wade since 1973

"But that is never enough for evil people. Like yourself, as a matter of fact"

I'm evil because I support freedom?

"Anyone that supports the Democrat Party de facto supports slavery"

Not even close 😂

Here, let me spell it out for you. I support the Democrat party (much of the time) and I do not support slavery of any kind.

"You are a clear product of how their domination of the education system enslaves people to evil"

Again, I'm evil because I support freedom?

Again, pretty much EVERYONE was conservative back then. Even in Greenwich Village Bohemians were in short supply.

The only people who engaged in interracial marriage back in the day were the very poor, and that became rarer in the US as the last thing plantation owners needed were slaves, ex slaves, poor White sharecroppers, Native Americans, and immigrants uniting against the aristocrats exploiting them. They seeded the racism which lead to this culture of poor whites siding and supporting those who hold them down instead of standing with their fellow oppressed. Everywhere throughout the Americas from Canada to Tierra del Fuego who are the mixed race people? The poor. Who looks down on them? The rich. Whose boots do they lick?

What was the reason for the unenforceable Emancipation Proclamation? It was Lincoln's flip off to the South, as well as a con to recruit freed slaves for the Union Army. The actual reason for the 13th Amendment was punitive, to cripple the South economically and make them tethered to the Union's teat. The sugar cane industry in Puerto Rico (its chief economic driver) was dismantled after the US took over in 1898 for the same reason.

Granted, some people favored abolition AND equal rights back then, but they were very few. Abolitionists like Lincoln (as seen in his own words) & Co were no more in favor of integration than Vegans want freed cows to come eat their tulips and azaleas.

Remember, the ultra-Liberal, most radical Leftists of all time - the Founding Fathers, only reluctantly granted the vote. To monied land owning WASP males. They appointed the first Presidents, and floated the idea of making George Washington king. But the aspect of Revolution 2 without the Atlantic to keep them safe from the freshly-trained-by-war-rabble was something that gave our new aristocratic class something to worry their pretty wigs about, and thus they became 'Liberal.' Not out of idealism, but of practicality. Just ask the slaves and women and non-WASPs they kept the God given rights they created from.

The body counts between the northern and southern armies were pretty similar, so by your logic, that would also mean Republicans are willing to sacrifice as many citizens is needed in order to get what they want

You mispelled "the South"

There were no Democrats in the Confederacy. Not. a. single. one.