Surprise: They’re Now Going After Mississippi Flag

Since the Charleston shooting, many people with an axe to grind have decided to Blame the Confederate flag (any version), and Republicans have been quick to comply. As Jazz Shaw wrote Sunday, you will be made to care…about the Confederate Battle Flag, a play on Erik Erickson’s posts about being made to care about gay marriage. Now

(AP) A top Mississippi lawmaker said Monday that the Confederate battle emblem is offensive and needs to be removed from the state flag.

House Speaker Philip Gunn became the first top-tier Republican to call for a change in the flag, which has had the Confederate symbol in the upper left corner since Reconstruction.

“We must always remember our past, but that does not mean we must let it define us,” Gunn, a leader in his local Baptist church, said in a statement. “As a Christian, I believe our state’s flag has become a point of offense that needs to be removed. We need to begin having conversations about changing Mississippi’s flag.”

Mississippi and Tennessee officials are grappling with whether to retain Old South symbols, even as South Carolina leaders are pushing to remove a Confederate battle flag that flies outside the statehouse there.

Mississippi voters decided by a 2-to-1 margin in 2001 to keep the state flag that has been used since 1894. It features the Confederate battle emblem — a blue X with 13 stars, over a red field.

A couple of points: after deep reflection, I would agree that the Confederate flag should not be flown over government buildings, nor be a part of any official flag. We don’t fly the British flag, do we? Nor should we be flying the flag of any other country on government property. And, certainly, at a government level, the Confederate flag does have part of its background in slavery.

But this will not stop there. Walmart has stated that they will no longer sell the Confederate flag. Certainly, pressure will be placed on any business that sells them. License plates with the flag will be attacked. Because people have been Offended, there will be a push to have the Confederate Flag, in any form, banned.

I wonder how these same Offended people would respond if the Islamic flag, linked to slavery, mass killings, jihad, Sharia law, abuse of women and gays, misogyny, and so much more, was banned?

Should we ban all versions of the Black Power flag, which is about Black supremacy?

For most who fly the Confederate flag in some form, it has nothing to do with slavery, white power, or anything negative. It’s about Southern pride, being proud to be a Southerner, in the same way Liberals are uber-proud to live in big cities. And vote Democratic Party.

Perhaps we should ban the use of the Democratic donkey, which, while not an official symbol of the Democratic Party, has its roots in Northern anti-Civil War Democrats (Copperheads). Since they had that opinion, wouldn’t that make them pro-slavery? So, the Dem donkey is a symbol of white supremacy.

Furthermore, we should ban the Democratic Party, which stood overall for slavery. Democrats were the Party of the South for a long time, until the Reagan revolution (and, no, the Southern Dems didn’t just become Republicans), and were the ones pushing Jim Crow and Segregation. A goodly chunk, both Northern and Southern Dems, were against the various Civil Rights Acts. So, ban the Democrats. Hey, you guys can’t have it both ways.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

40 Responses to “Surprise: They’re Now Going After Mississippi Flag”

  1. Michael says:

    I agree, let’s ban the Democratic Party and while we are at it ban the Republican Party as well.

    Both parties have become nothing but protectionist big government machines to keep those in power who benefit from stealing from the public treasury.

    The idea that we have a two party system with no real third party competition because the laws prevent competition is a joke and I’m always amazed at how Americans don’t see a problem with this duopoly control over our political system.

    If this system was in place way back when there would have never been a Republican Party. Let that sink in…

    Sometimes parties become stagnant and need to be replaced for the betterment of society. It’s due time both parties fade away.

    But we won’t see that happen in this day and age will we. Nope, because the laws will prop up these dinosaurs along with all the failing banks, businesses and loser individuals. Yep, the only change that will ever occur in this country now will be like Rome and the USSR, total collapse.

  2. Dana says:

    Michael wrote:

    If this system was in place way back when there would have never been a Republican Party. Let that sink in…

    Actually, this system was in place way back when: the single-member district has been part of our government since we’ve had a government.

  3. Michael says:

    There is a natural occurrence of duopoly and there is an unnatural occurance protected by law.

    I was speaking of the latter…

  4. john says:

    “They’re going after the Mississippi flag”
    Just who are “they” Teach.
    The Mississippi Speaker of the House?
    You, after deep reflection??
    WalMart ???
    Teach would you agree that flying this flag now would lead people to believe that raaaaacism still exists?
    It was a Democratic majority Congress and a Democratic POTUS that passed the Civil Rights Act.
    Yes there were social conservatives and racists in both political parties in the 1960s. But now social conservatives and racism is generally found only in the GOP
    Crab legs. “They” are using their food stamps to buy crab legs. “They” make conservatives blood boil.

  5. john says:

    Teach do you think it might be time to bring back the Surrender Monkey?
    we want the Surrender Monkey to take down the Confederate Flag

  6. Michael says:

    To further elaborate on my point, the Republican Party emerged out of the fact that the Whig party failed to take a stance against slavery and ended up splitting their party.

    The same holds true today, both parties support banker bailouts and war. Meanwhile as a result both the emergence and rise of the tea party and peace libertarians failed to make a replacement of the Republican Party.

    2012 was the first election where we did not have a peace candidate for president. It shows a major shift towards imperialism with both parties showing little difference between each other more and more every election.

    In a duopoly, each party represents the polar opposite. However, with laws in place that protect a two party system that doesn’t even represent polar opposites anymore, you will see both parties being split only by being abandoned but no third party to effectively represent the voters. They are just becoming disenfranchised instead.

    So what you are seeing now is the rise of anarchos including myself. When the law prevents the natural replacement of failing parties, you will have an abandonment of government altogether…. A revolution.

  7. Teach do you think it might be time to bring back the Surrender Monkey?
    we want the Surrender Monkey to take down the Confederate Flag

    John, did you miss the part where I said the flag should not be flown on government property? Probably, because it’s been shown that you don’t actually read the posts.

    John, if we’re really concerned about old racism symbols, why don’t we ban the Democratic Party? It was the party of racism, Jim Crow, and segregation. It was the party of the KKK. It was the party that feature a majority of members voting against the Civil Rights acts. It was the party that was against the Union fighting the Civil War. It was the party which had racism and bigotry directly in its Party platforms. It is a symbol of all that was bad in America, and should be banned.

  8. john says:

    Teach there are no states currently flying any type of Islamic flag are there ?

  9. jeffery says:

    We’re seeing the death throes of the white supremacy movement.

    Some things happen fast in America. Gay marriage will be widely accepted in just a few years. Overt expressions of white supremacy will be quashed. There will be a “comprehensive immigration policy” adopted. We will address global warming.

    And one can already feel the current of a peoples’ revolt against our plutocratic system. The early Tea Party and early Occupy movement’s were evidence of that. Suddenly, presidential candidates have become populists. They ignore income inequality at their electoral peril.

    The plutocrats skimming trillions off our misery want the proles to continue debating healthcare, abortion, race, guns, climate, flags, religion – they want to continue distracting us with shiny objects – Facebook, twitter, cable, Hollywood gossip, Kardashians, porn, pot – and keeping us scared by threats – ISIS, Negroes, immigrants, communists, crime. They want us all to be uneducated, miseducated and uninvolved.

    The plutocrats want us to fight amongst ourselves so we won’t look their way. Liberals and conservatives aren’t the problem – our plutocrats are.

    The American people are reaching a breaking point – wage stagnation, unemployment, uncertain future, breathtaking inequality, stagnant living standards, Donald Trump will do that to a people.

    Honest to god, an international trade bill pushed by Dem president, that rewards the plutocrats at the expense of real Americans is in trouble in Congress!! That should give us all hope.

  10. jeffery says:

    The confederate battle flag is claimed to be a proud symbol of southern heritage. Whatever happened to American heritage?

    What part of the confederate experience are we honoring? Slavery? Plantations maintained by slaves? The act destroying America to preserve a state’s right to slavery? Those brave men who fought and died to preserve slavery? Jim Crow laws? Separate drinking fountains? Freedom from associating with Negroes? Lynching uppity Negroes?

    What part of the confederate experience are you honoring with that divisive symbol?

  11. Jeffery says:

    Dylann Roof thought he was starting a race war. Maybe.

    The perception, whether true or not, the perception is that Roof’s actions were an extension of the white supremacy movement that now resides largely in the Republican Party.

    But the response of all but the extremist white supremacists has been gratifying. Even the neo-Republican Party finally seems to have realized the enormity of their cultivation of the white supremacy movement. No doubt, the Mississippi flag will change.

    It’s early days, but the white supremacy movement may have to find a new political home. They will be stateless extremists in America, always dangerous, but no longer wielding legislative power.

    Next question: Should white supremacists have guns and explosives?

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    Arkansas State Code: Section 1-5-107

    The Saturday preceding Easter Sunday shall be designated Confederate Flag Day.

    Thanks to Bill and Hilary for that one.


  13. john says:

    I don’t think that the Clinton’s would be very proud of what they did 28 years ago. I am sure that they would admit this as a mistake
    Thank you for pointing out this old mistake taht they made in 1987
    Now drowning puppies is it your own personal view that the Surrender Monkey should now lower the Confederate flag from SC ? AFollowed by Mississippi and what ever other states are still flying the Battle Flag of the states that fought to keep slavery ?

  14. john says:

    Did climate change kill the Surrender Monkey?
    Prove it.

  15. Jeffery says:


    Close, but no cigar.

    Bill Clinton did nothing to repeal the Arkansas confederate Flag Day, but he didn’t start it either. But he did sign a bill in 1987 adding a 4th star to the state flag and that “The blue star above the word ‘ARKANSAS’ is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.”

    Hillary Clinton was not an office holder in Arkansas, so not sure why you included her. Oh, that’s right. She’s running for president, and her husband got a blowjob and they are both vile.

    In 2007 Hillary Clinton called for SC to lose the confederate atrocity.

  16. drowningpuppies says:

    Close, but no cigar.

    Funny that.

  17. john says:

    Teach Fast and Furious was a continuation of Bush’s “Gun Runner Program”
    Teach why aren’t you personally changing your own lifestyle totally and heading over to Nigeria to fight the muslim extremists? How are we to believe taht this is a serious problem without you doing that? Isn’t that what you demand from the “warmists”?
    You demand perfection in others, in psychology this is known as others-perfection and often is found in the profile of narcissists

  18. drowningpuppies says:

    Speaking of Hillary.

    Scankles is going to Ferguson to stir up more shit. She can’t gain any ground in Charleston so she will go where she can. “Burn this bitch down!”
    She ain’t no ways tarred…

  19. Dana says:

    When I was a kid in California, we played cowboys and Indians; when I arrived in elementary school in Kentucky — a state which did not secede — the boys were playing Rebels and Yankees. Being the only kid not from the South, being the tallest, skinniest, gawkiest boy there, the only one wearing glasses, with a girl’s name and a funny accent, I was the Designated Yankee, at which point my response was, “OK, I win.”

    And that’s what this fight reminds me of, kids playing Rebels and Yankees on the schoolyard in the 1960s, except that the left are deathly determined to Win a Victory against the Evil Conservatives, most of whom don’t really care about the Confederate battle flag in the first place. The left must have their moral victory here, but if the flag is removed, nothing will really change other than what’s on the flagpole itself. Whites will still be, in the aggregate, more economically successful than blacks, blacks will still be packed into depressed urban ghettos and be shooting each other at rates which should be alarming but are actually ignored, and black Americans will still be living in an urban culture which is economically disadvantageous for their community.

  20. Michael says:

    I have to agree with Dana that this is “much ado about nothing” and so is most of what people squabble over. Look at what’s on TV. And that is because people in America are spoiled.

    The real issues of those in government created a separate and protected class of citizens apart from us commoners goes mostly unquestioned and even defended by American couch potatoes.

    Those in control will continue to be in power so long as there is bread and circuses and the printable money to fund it all.

    Eventually, when the fun tickets run out and everything starts falling apart, everyone will point fingers at each other rather than themselves of why the shining city on the hill collapsed.

  21. david7134 says:

    Once again, you have your hate going, do you see someone about that? You should. Now, please get your history straight. The US, not the South endorsed slavery. Slavery was legal. Slavery is a fact in human evolution (you don’t believe in evolution do you as CO2 created everything). Only the extension of slavery was an issue and only for political reasons. Lincoln started the war by attempting to invade Charleston harbor, sorry but secession is legal. Lincoln did this to collect taxes, not free slaves, Lincoln hated, hated blacks. The South did have Jim Crow, modeled after the North’s Black Laws. Care to guess in what part of the US a black man could live in peace, own property, become rich, own a plantation, own slaves (and many did), I think you got the message. Try reading, it would help your hate.

  22. Michael says:

    As far as I understand history, the primary reason the south wanted to leave was because a significant part of the federal budget was based on the tax revenue generated from the southern states and the southern states rarely saw that revenue return to their states rather the northern states enjoyed this generated revenue.

    So just like our revolutionary war, although there is plenty of rights being fought for, ultimately it was unfair taxation of one government from another that lead to war.

  23. david7134 says:

    Think of now. Except think that in addition to all the other crap we put up with from the Yankees, we would have to put up with terrorist activity supported by various Yankee groups. If you want a good read, find one of the many books on the European view of the war. They saw it as a power struggle. Also, think of this, the Civil War is the only war we have ever in our history fought and for which we are told that there was a clear reason, slavery. Even in WWII, the average soldier was polled and had no idea why he was fighting. The fact is that our two sections were never meant to be together, we hate each other and that is not likely to change.

  24. Jeffery says:

    And now the Federal government collects money from the Yankees and sends billions of it to the red states each year. Reparations, I guess, for taking their slaves away. I don’t hear today’s rebels complaining about the Yankee largess coming their way. Do the red states deserve these handouts?

  25. Jeffery says:


    No one is banning anything. Some state governments are being pressured to remove the offensive symbols. Businesses are very sensitive about doing business with individuals or in states that violate cultural norms (ask Rush Limbaugh).

    Each state legislature can choose to put up any flag it wants – hammer and sickle or even pictures of lynched Negroes if they want. You can still put your confederate flags on your house, bumper, T-shirts, tramp stamp – you can still spread your race hatred online every day.

    Is it a coincidence that the worst state in America also has a confederate battle flag as part of its official flag? Maybe “they” are doing Mississippi a favor by criticizing their flag. The infant mortality rate in Mississippi is about twice the national average, so maybe that’s how conservatives are trying to eliminate Negroes there. After all, MS didn’t accept Medicaid expansion.

  26. Dana says:

    My pet – and completely unprovable — theory is that by not allowing a peaceful secession, the United States caused the Holocaust!

    If the USA and CSA had gone their separate ways, it’s unlikely that the USA would have intervened in World War I; the USA would have been economically weaker, and the CSA, given what the South would have been exporting, might have felt more favorable toward Germany.

    Without the USA in the war against Germany, Germany is able to secure a much more favorable peace treaty — I don’t think that Germany would have won — the Kaiser would have kept his throne (though probably in a more restricted constitutional monarchy form) and Adolf Hitler would have remained little more than a street malcontent.

  27. john says:

    David not sure what your family did during WWII but I had 3 uncles ALL of whom volunteered.
    They all had a real good idea of whom we were fighting
    My dad was a superintendent on a big job at an army base in PA. Hew was at the Navy enlistment door before dawn on Dec 8th and he didn’t get inside until after 11:00 am That was how long the line was.
    As for thinking that everyone in the 2 sections hates each other that sounds like you are easily excusing extremism and that you have no love for THR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

  28. john says:

    Dana it is a bit different than kids plating. Dylann Roof committed mass murder. He was using a real gun

  29. john says:

    how about an update on surrender monkey I heard he was up in VA removing license plates

  30. Jeffery says:

    If the CSA had successfully separated from the US, would they still be practicing slavery to fuel their economy?

    If not, when and why would it have stopped?

  31. david7134 says:

    I am glad that your family fought in a war that really did not make much sense, mine did to and wonder why when everything was over. Maybe you had difficutly with reading again, I said a poll did not define the objectives of the war. The US defined it as fighting for freedom, but for whom, not us, we were free, or at least as free as possible under FDR. With your love of unions and your family obviously in union rich areas, I suspect that they participated in some of the shameful union practices during the war, why John, why did they intentionally do things that would harm the war effort???

    You see, that little thing of reading and research gets in the way again and again. The South knew that the end of slavery was near. Slavery is simply and economic system, like capatilism or your favorite, communism. It is inefficient and with the coming scientific changes, slaves would have not been necessary. But what to do? The north hated blacks and would not allow them in their states. Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa and would have if not killed. Most in the South would have not put up with that treatment of people that they considered family (yes, I know you will scoff, but go visit a plantation and see the efforts made for slave comfort, scoff again due to ignorance).

  32. jeffery says:


    The difference between decent folk and white supremacists is that decent folk consider all humans to be humans, even Black humans.

    So, no matter how much you defend, excuse and misrepresent slavery in America, it stands as a horrific stain on our history.

    Maybe you don’t understand the concept of slavery. Some humans would capture other humans by force, take them from their homes and families and force them under threat of physical violence to perform tasks. It was not a voluntary arrangement. No matter how “well” you treated your slaves, they were still your captives.

    Maybe you don’t understand the concept of economics. Free labor was made unnecessary by scientific advances? Slave owners were capitalists, right? They sold the products of the slave labor for a profit, right? Slavery was a way of life AND a way for capitalists to keep their labor costs low. Capitalists who wanted to do the right thing, that is, hire workers for a fair wage obviously couldn’t compete with the slave owners.

    What economic forces made slave owners free their housekeepers, cooks, butlers and other inside servants?

  33. gitarcarver says:

    Most in the South would have not put up with that treatment of people that they considered family

    C’mon Dave, you can’t be that stupid. Would any “family” member be ripped apart from their spouse or their child? Yet slaves were. Would any “family member” be sold to another person? Would any “family member” be beaten with a whip? Would any “family member” be prevented from learning to read and write? Would any “family member” be prevented for walking away from a farming life? Would that same family member be hunted by gangs and dogs to be returned to their “family?”

    I accept the idea that there were some slaves that were treated whatever you may consider as being compassionately or well. But even that falls apart when you realize that that “compassion” or treatment was given to a person who did not have the right or ability to choose their own course for their lives.

    No matter how you try and phrase or position it, there was no compassion or good treatment of slaves when the slaves did not have the basic right of self determination.

    (yes, I know you will scoff, but go visit a plantation and see the efforts made for slave comfort, scoff again due to ignorance).

    david, I guarantee you that I have visited and seen more plantations than you have. The standard slave cabin was about 12 X 12 into which multiple families were housed. Is that what you call “comfort?” Most slave homes did not have basic things such as a wooden floor. Is that what you consider to be “comfort?” Most slave quarters were made of rough hewn logs or boards and it was rare to allow chinking between the boards / logs. Most slaves slept on the floor and if they had a bed, it was made by them in their spare toime and not provided by the owner.

    Your view of the South and slavery just doesn’t match up with historical facts. Just as john and Jeffery’s view of the north and the evil of the south is skewed, you view of the south and the evil of the north is equally skewed.

    What you are calling “ignorance” in others is actually you turning a blind eye to reality.

  34. Michael says:

    It’s so amazing how we talk about slave families being ripped apart by slavery, but we are so ignorant of families that are ripped apart by the war on drugs.

    How many people’s lives are ruined by government which thinks it’s best by separating families by incarcerating people based on their possession of drugs not approved by government?

    Or how about families ripped apart because cps or DHS decide they have a right over parents to make choices for right and wrong?

    How many families are destroyed because of government? Is that not the same slavery really???

    I can’t believe the complacency of government is right over the rights of people over their own bodies or their right as parents and we think we have some who eradicated slavery???

    It has just transformed into a softer form but it is still the same damn thing….

    Time for us to really address ALL forms of slavery!

  35. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asked:

    If the CSA had successfully separated from the US, would they still be practicing slavery to fuel their economy?

    If not, when and why would it have stopped?

    Slavery would have ended, probably in the 1880s to 1890s, because it was a horribly inefficient economic system. I could see it withering away, with perhaps a few domestic servants remaining into the early 20th century, rather than being outlawed.

  36. Dana says:

    Michael wrote:

    It’s so amazing how we talk about slave families being ripped apart by slavery, but we are so ignorant of families that are ripped apart by the war on drugs.

    How many people’s lives are ruined by government which thinks it’s best by separating families by incarcerating people based on their possession of drugs not approved by government?

    A rather ironic comment, given that this thread concerns, tangentially, Dylann Roof, who was a drug user.

    Let me be absolutely clear on this: drugs make people stupid and drugs harm society. If we had a system in which drug users had to pay the consequences of their stupidity, including homelessness, starvation and death, a libertarian response would be appropriate, but as long as society is paying for their rehabilitation and their food and their health care, it isn’t.

  37. david7134 says:

    Wrong, again. I read history at LSU under T.H. Williams. I can assure you that much of what you think you know is myth. I have rarely seen a plantation that had limited quarters. Most took excellent care of their slaves. Now, I am not advocating for slavery, only someone who can’t read would think that (ie Jeff and John). But I can assure you that we have 150 years of pure propaganda trying to justify a horrible war against the south for no reason other than political dominance.

  38. Michael says:


    It’s amazing that the drugs that this kid used were legalized prescription drugs… He was known as a “pill popper”.

    So we are not talking about the illegal drugs that get government swat teams all in a tizzy here.

    If anything, ALL of the mass murders have one thing in common…. They ALL prescribe to BIG PHARMA.

    But you will never hear that on the main stream media.. It’s all about…. “If it wasn’t for that flag” or “if white people didn’t exist”…. Silliness…

    Sorry but the monster is the physcotropic drugs!!! Mind altering synthetic garbage that people ingest because the TV says they’re amazing, just ask your BIG PHARMA educated doctor how amazing they are, hahaha

  39. gitarcarver says:

    Wrong, again. I read history at LSU under T.H. Williams.

    This would be the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”

    First you claimed that you had visited plantations and now you claim you read about them.

    The facts and the history are clear – while there were some slaves that were “treated well,” being a slave was a hard life with few of the things you seem to think existed.

    I have rarely seen a plantation that had limited quarters.

    The funny thing is that LSU has documentation available online that disputes what you are saying. It was not rare for slave cabins to be exactly as I described them. It was common.

    But I can assure you that we have 150 years of pure propaganda trying to justify a horrible war against the south for no reason other than political dominance.

    The causes of the Civil War are many david and honest people know that. The elephant in the room is always the cause of slavery and that cannot be dismissed as you have tried to do.

    But if you choose to try and dismiss it, please answer this question:


    (What was is that the South was afraid Lincoln would champion and do?)

    Second, supplemental question for the idea of a “war of norther aggression:” “WHO FIRED THE FIRST SHOT OF THE CIVIL WAR?”

    You and I have been around this topic before and at this time I don’t believe that you are willing to give answers that are factual, but I am willing to listen.

  40. Michael says:

    Lincoln by David Donald, James G. Randall and others have provided well-documented facts about Lincoln:

    * He started a war without the consent of Congress; illegally declared martial law; illegally blockaded Southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; confiscated private property, including firearms; ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; tolerated the arrest of ministers who refused to publicly pray for him; arrested duly elected members of the Maryland legislature as well as Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and supported a law that indemnified federal officials from all of these illegal acts.

    * He was a consummate politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.

    * He was adamantly opposed to racial equality, actually using the words “superior and inferior” to describe the “appropriate” relation between the white and black races.

    * He opposed giving blacks the right to vote, to serve on juries, or to intermarry with whites.

    * He supported the legal rights of slave owners and pledged his support of a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.

    * He was a mercantilist and a political tool of corrupt Northern business interests.

    * He was a railroad industry lobbyist who championed corporate welfare.

    * He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained their freedom.

    * He advocated sending all blacks back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti – anywhere but the U.S.

    * He proposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law.

    * He opposed the extension of slavery into the territories so that “free white people” would not have to associate with blacks or compete with them for jobs.

    * He opposed black citizenship in Illinois and supported the state’s constitution which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state.

    * He was the head of the Illinois Colonization Society, which advocated the use of state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that resided within the state.

    * He nullified the early emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

    * He sent troops to New York City to put down a draft riot by shooting hundreds of them in the streets.

    * He was an enemy of free-market capitalism.

    * He started a war over federal tax collection that ended up killing 620,000 Americans and wounding and maiming even more.

    * He conjured up the spectacular lie that no such thing as state sovereignty ever existed to “justify” his invasion and conquest of the Southern states.

    * He refused to meet with Confederate peace commissioners before the war to work out a peaceful compromise.

    * He provoked the upper South – Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee – to secede by launching a military invasion of their sister states.

    * He supported economic interventionism through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and central banking that would plunder one section of the country (the South) for the benefit of his Northern political supporters.

    * He orchestrated the rigging of Northern elections.

    * Introduced the slavery of conscription and income taxation.

    * Censored all telegraph communication.

    * Waged war on civilians by having his armies bomb Southern cities and destroy or steal crops, livestock and private property throughout the South.

    * Created an enormous political patronage system that survives today.

    * Allowed the unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

    * Destroyed the system of federalism and states’ rights that was created by the founding fathers, thereby destroying the voluntary union.

    * Promoted generals for their willingness to use troops as cannon fodder.

    * Created an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size and power.

Pirate's Cove