> just a few posts earlier it looks like the political party of the Klansman is what interested you <
In a way, it does. But only because of how the media would paint the picture. A Republican who attended a Klan meeting would be slammed by the media today, tomorrow, and forever.
But if it were a Democrat, the story would be ignored. Or if it couldn’t be ignored, the media would say that the Democrat has “evolved”, and is now a swell guy.
A perfect example of that is the Democrat governor of Virginia, and his Klan yearbook picture. All is forgiven. He’s a swell guy again.
But morally, I make no distinction between a Republican who supported the Klan and a Democrat who supported the Klan. Both would have some explaining to do. No free pass for either.
“But morally, I make no distinction between a Republican who supported the Klan and a Democrat who supported the Klan. Both would have some explaining to do. No free pass for either.”
Since morality is your interest, what is your judgement of the slave owners of the Founding era? That’s kind of related to the whole KKK thing. There was no Democratic Party until 1828, and all but two of the Presidents up til that election had owned slaves. Washington was maybe the largest slave owner of his era. So was slavery evil then? Or does it only become evil 90 years later with the Civil War?