So, after parsing through Meade & Cornbread's replies (no Ned? Come on!), here is how I see the thread's initial question has been answered:
1. It's clearly no more than a petty taunt.
2. The Republican hivemind has used an (incomplete) bit of history to rationalize this taunt as Democrats being pro-slavery. This rationalization is, of course, absurd.
3. When faced with the notion that "democrat party" is just a petty taunt, Meade and (in particular) Cornbread respond with petty taunts.
4. Interesting to note: The entire question at hand rests on this taunt not actually being offensive in any way. Not only did I initially state that, but it has been reiterated a few times throughout the thread. To which Meade and CB respond with "why are all of you so offended? LOL!"
Aside to CB: All the jingoism is colorful, but I've noticed several places on the forum (and someone else pointed it out upthread), but you don't know what the word avowed
means, do you?