Once again, the KKK through history has used any vehicle they could for their purposes, whether it was Democrats, Republicans or most of the time, no politics at all. Because it was a socio-religious group, not a political group. It was actually one of several that sprang up after the Civil War (see the Knights of the White Camellia for another example), founded by veteran Confederate soldiers on the basis of Southern culture. Or what they thought was Southern culture.
Until the Simmons iteration in the early 20th century (second Klan, after the first died out in the 1870s) it was entirely confined to the South, which was also already entirely Democratic (for reasons I went into in post 8), which means if you were a Klansman in the South and you were a registered voter then you were most likely a Democrat, because that's where the access to power was. If you were a Democrat in New York you had nothing to do and nothing in common with the Klan; it was anathema to everything you stood for. Because as a social organization the KKK had nothing to do with the culture there. So what you're trying desperately to construct is a non sequitur. "Klan members are Democrats, therefore Democrats are Klan members". The same as saying "apples come from trees, therefore all trees make apples".
In other words if you were a Southerner who was not a Klansman and stood firm against them, you were also a Democrat.
Yet when it came time to expand nationally wth KKK2, that vehicle to access power in Indiana and Ohio and Colorado and Washington and California was the Republican party. Not for any particular ideology but simply because that's where the power was. At base one opportunist group (a racist vigilante group) using another opportunist group (a political party machine).
David Duke? He was and still is a Republican and was the Republican Party Chair for St. Tammany Parish. By your logic then, to be Klan today means to be Republican. Run with that and see where it takes you. Your logic would have to mean Klansmen are Republicans now. They may be by simple numerical association but that doesn't express a causation between the two either. And David Duke for his part represents part of the migration from the DP to the RP --- what I went over back in post 8. He used to be a Democrat too; like Thurmond, Lott, Helms and all the other racists in that migration, they knew where they weren't wanted and went were the power was. They don't really care whether they need to use the DP or the RP. It's whatever works.
...