Should parties that honor slaveholders as founders be stricken from the ballots?

No, Lincoln ran on a platform of stopping the spread of slavery to new areas of the country. As new free states were admitted, slave states would no longer hold a veto in the US Senate. The federal government would eventually restrict and eliminate slavery from the country. Maintaining the union would result in the eventual end of slavery.

Southern Democrats clearly understood the implications of Lincoln’s words. Consider this excerpt from a secession resolution from Arkansas:

Resolved, that the platform on the party known as the Black Republican Party contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race of their country to social and political equality with the whites.

Here is a similar statement from the resolution from another state:

Texas declared its decision to be “based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.”

The Republican Party was founded on the proposition equality of all people before the law. The Democratic Party was founded by those who believed in the property rights of slave owners.

And yet Lincoln was never an abolitionist and seemed to be ok with slavery being legal if it meant the Union stayed intact.

“its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States”

Someone who truly found it morally reprehensible would never support it becoming lawful “in every State.”

Except Blacks weren’t people at the time. They were property or barely more than that. But nice revisionism you’ve got going there.

Lincoln didn’t want the union dissolved, if he could have done that without freeing the slaves he would have.

Lincoln believed in the constitution and the rule of law, so he initially preferred to simply restrict the expansion of slavery allow it to die gradually by changes in demographics. On the other hand, when it was clear that Southern Democrats would continue to wage war against federal law, he issued this order based on this powers as commander in chief, which proclaimed the end of slavery in the areas still in rebellion:

. . . all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
–Abraham Lincoln September 22, 1862

Republicans went on to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that ended slavery and established civil rights regardless of race or color. Ratification of these amendments were conditions for ending federal occupation in the South and for restoring representation of the Southern states in congress.

To be fair, Democrats have been quietly removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from their annual fund-raising dinners and some have called for complete removal. Does that change the history?

To be fair? Riiiiiiight. Fair would be looking at history AFTER removing those rose tinted glasses, bud. If Blacks in the North were truly free, why weren’t they allowed to vote until AFTER the Civil War? Why did it take a Civil War to pass Amendments guaranteeing their Civil Rights? Civil Rights that were guaranteed to all people “who were created equal” under the DOI and the Constitution for nearly 100 years BEFORE the Civil War? Why weren’t women allowed to vote until several years later? Weren’t they people too? America, land of hypocrisy. But yeah, bastion of freedom Lincoln was. Didn’t even have the courage of his convictions to be an Abolitionist, a group specifically formed to abolish slavery. Gee, I wonder why.

People evolve with their opinions. Consider this video of Senator Obama defending his belief that marriage is a divinely ordained union between a man and a woman and is strictly a matter of state law under the US Constitution.

The unusual thing about the US in the years up to the Civil War was not that it condoned slavery or had limited voting rights for a portion of the population, it was that voting rights and freedom existed at all. The US has gradually expanded those rights.

Lincoln was a big government lib.

:sunglasses:

in 1964 johnson signed teh civil rights act
the south hasnt been democratic since
the vote in the south on teh civil rights act

there were 94 southern dems in the house 7 voted for the bill or 8%
there were 10 gop reps. 0 voted for it

out of 21 southern senators only 1 (a dem) voted for it

By the time the war was over it was a huge issue. Opinions, including Lincolns, evolved.

So there is that.