I will certainly agree there's a lot of ignorance on display here today.
ek_hornbeck: "...to recognize the fact that A. Democrats in the 1800s, e.g. Andrew Jackson, J.C. Calhoun, and later Grover Cleveland, were the exact opposite of what Democrats are today, and (more importantly)"
And we can begin with this claim, along with others who say Democrats were the "constitutional conservatives" of their day.
It's nonsense.
From Day One, those who became Democrats opposed ratifying the US Constitution, opposed the Federalists and the Federal government.
Sure, at the time they claimed it made Federal government too powerful, then they claimed to be "strict constructionists" -- but, just as today, "strict construction" was only intended for their opponents.
Once Democrats were in power, they did whatever the h*ll they wanted, by whatever subterfuge was necessary.
ek_hornbeck: "B. by joining in the crusade against Southern heritage, you (and not Confederates) are on the same side as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and todays Democrats.
How does it feel being a puppet of Al Sharpton?
He applauds your hatred of the stars and bars too."
My goodness, what a crock of garbage-talk that is!
We, sir, are the Republicans, inheritors of the original Federalists (i.e., Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Pinckney, Jay, Madison) & Whigs (Webster, Clay, Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln).
Our party created & ratified the Constitution, Republicans fought to preserve the Constitution, the Union and (by the way) free the slaves.
While we were at it, we also ratified the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
You, sir, are the descendants of G.D. Democrats, the people who opposed and fought to destroy our country, from Day One, and still do!
Now you wannabe Republicans, or rather, you wish you could make Republicans into G.D. Democrats like yourselves.
Well, sorry sir, but it's just not going to happen.
If you want to be Republicans now, then you have to give up your old Democrat lies.
Fair to say Lane is here referring to the Northern Democrats of Stephen Douglas.
Nevertheless, when Lane left the Senate in March 1861, it was after accusing Tennessee's Democrat Senator Johnson of having "sold his birthright" as a Southerner, for opposing secession.
Johnson (Lincoln's future VP & then President) responded that Lane was a hypocrite because he so staunchly supported a movement of active treason against the United States.
Democrats are the party of treason, then as now.
It's quite telling that you don't have even the modicum of honesty to admit that you and they are on the same side of this issue.
If you want them as allies in your cause, so be it. Just don't then turn around and complain when the people you applauded for tearing down a statue of Jefferson Davis take their crusade further and tear down statues of the Founding Fathers because (according to your Black racialist allies) they were "racists" and "slavers."
You actually made an unwitting factual statement - just as a monkey on a keyboard is bound to come up with something coherent once in a while.
It's quite true that 19th Century Democrats (including Democratic-Republicans) were not "constitutional conservatives," because as anti-Federalists they felt that the constitution gave the Federal government too much power.
The big divide between Democratic-Republicans and Federalists-Whigs was that Democratic Republicans (and Jackson/Calhoun Democrats) believe in a plural United States of America, while Federalists/Whigs and later Lincoln Republicans believed in a singular United States of America.
Jefferson played no role in drafting the Constitution and as an anti-Federalists was not happy with it. It's rather ironic that people who honor Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence (and who talk about localism and state's rights) have so much hatred for the logical outcome of his philosophy, which is a Confederation of States.
Of course, all of this information falls on deaf ears with someone like you, who is utterly in capable of thinking beyond party affiliation. Dinesh D'Souza's juvenile propaganda worked masterfully on you - it's so much easier to think in terms of R vs. D rather than in terms of the actual political debates that framed the parties 170 years ago vs. today.