Your view of history is skewed and somewhat wrong. The Democrat Party was not created to preserve Slavery per se, although that might have been one aspect of it. It became the Dominant party in the South after the Civil War due to Reconstruction and other reasons.
The KKK actually went through three variations in it's history. The original KKK had nothing to do with oppressing blacks, it had to do with battling the Carpet Baggers that came south after the war. When Reconstruction was over the KKK disbanded. It did not become into existence again till 1915, and then had another transformation in about 1950. You can look all this up like I did.
By the way Lincoln was not that interested in stopping slavery, his documented remarks about Blacks are out there to see. You just have no real interest in researching this and finding out the truth. You are more persuaded by the Myth that has been written, much like we have witnessed by Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan.
No, my view of Jacksonian history is not skewed in the slightest. Read my chapter in “Seven Events that Made America.” TONS of primary sources, none of DiLorenzos goofball crap.
Van Buren stated his goal was to prevent a Civil War. Undeniable. He decided the only way to do that was to create a PARTY that was governed by the SPOILS SYSTEM ($$) that would supercede people’s individual views on slavery. A slaveholder himself as a teenager, Van Buren knew exactly what he was doing-—preventing ANY discussion of slavery from coming to a national vote, either by the legislature or through a presidential election. Look at the sources. They are irrefutable. No one really denies this, including his most famous biographer (and Democrat) Robert Remini.
It was not “one aspect,” it was the SOLE FOUNDING PURPOSE because there was already a party that had all the “other aspects,” the Jeffersonian Republicans.
It didn’t work BECAUSE of people like Lincoln, who would not be bought, and who thought slavery’s expansion into the territories would lead to it coming back into the Free States (as of course it HAD TO constitutionally). here you can look at (which I cite) “Calculating the Value of the Union” by Huston who shows the definition of PROPERTY was the key element being fought over-—whether people were people or property.
No, this is my field. I’ve written five or six books specifically on this, found documents NO ONE (especially DiLorenzo) ever found, and know this stuff inside out. The Dem party WAS the party of protecting and preserving slavery.
Lincoln caused secession because (like Trump) he was an outsider, NOT beholden to the spoils system, and someone who couldn’t be bought off by it. He was committed to no slavery in the TERRITORIES (he always said he’d leave slavery alone in the South-—but of course, as Huston points out, this would mean the death of slavery if it couldn’t expand due to the definition of property).
You really need to read more. Yes, the original KKK was completely racist, had EVERYTHING to do with oppressing blacks, was led by the guy who Ulysses Grant saw slaughter black POWs at Fort Pillow (well, Grant saw the bodies in heaps). If you believe DiLorenzo on anything, you are completely ill served.