"Real history is this -- who killed who, and why -- all else is commentary." Mark Curran

under construction come back later






His speech should be in every US text book





If you do NOT know how extreme, violent, and clear Southern leaders were -- why then MUST expand slavery into Kansas -- you don't know shit about the US Civil War.  I don't give a shit who told you want, Southern leaders at the time, made it very clear, they would kill to spread slavery.

Yes, they did. They boasted of it -- till they lost.

Toombs, Yancey, and others had speeches that brought cheers from the crowds, we MUST expand slavery or we will perish!

Atchison, the US Senator that got Kansas Nebraska Act passed (and Atchison bragged he got it passed, see below) was not unique at all, just more blunt/


The Texas declaration of Secession said it bluntly, you are against GOD if you are against slavery.  Slavery must spread -- or the white race is doomed.

No one told you that, did they?  Southern leaders sure as hell told each other and the public that.

You don't know about it, because it's not in any text book, in a clear way.   


You can count on your hand how often Southern leaders were as blunt as Atchison. But enough were blunt, and their actions were clear. When they boasted in their own speeches, and their own letters, and their own documents, especially those Texans in Kansas, they bragged out the ass what they were doing, who they were killing, and why.

In fact, Atchison wrote a letter to Jefferson Davis, soon after he went to Kansas to start the violence Charles Sumner spoke about.   This was two years  before the speech to his Texas men, and promised they would hang and get rid of "Abolitionist".  Atchison needed the Texas men, as you will see, he could not hire enough in Missouri.




While other leaders spoke a bit more carefully, claiming "our rights in Kansas"  Atchison was direct. They were killing to spread slavery.  And not just into Kansas, but all the west. 

Atchison also made it clear (as did others) what the goal was.... the spread of slavery all the way to Pacific Ocean

Atchison left the US Senate, where he had passed Kansas Act.

He was not some nut -- he was, indeed, Jeff Davis "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.   And he boasted of that too.

If that were not enough, Jefferson Davis himself said everything Atchison did in Kansas was "Constitutionally required".



The survivors of Atchison's killing spree, actually held reunions. 
 This is their reunion from 1898.

Local artist version drawing the day after the first killing spree into Kansas.

45 years later, a reunion of the survivors.

When Kansas citizens tried to reject slavery -- and later would reject it by 95% vote -- Southern leaders weren't going to those "abolitionist"  stop the spread of slavery.  By the way, anyone not pro slavery, could be, and were, called abolitionist, which was considered by many to be a run above child molester, and below highway robber.

David Atchison got Kansas Act passed, then, Jefferson Davis named Atchison "General of Law and Order" in Kansas,  where Atchison started first bullying then terrorizing, then killing.

And he bragged about it. He did not admit it, he boasted of it, to his recently arrived Texas men, about to invade Kansas for a second time.


Atchison's own newspaper -a letter bragging they would continue to kill, torture, hang, every "abolitionist" who dares pollute our soil.

Funny thing is (no, its not funny) almost everyone working for Atchison, were not citizens of Kansas.  Very few people in Kansas would help Atchison, even for money. Atchison had to hire from Missouri, then from Texas and South Carolina.


Before he left for Kansas, Atchison and Stephen A Douglas passed the Kansas -Nebraska Act, supposedly to give people of Kansas "the right to vote" on slavery, but not the right, ironically, to vote against slavery. Really.

On the best day most "history teachers"  teach, they could not tell you that it was David Rice Atchison who got Kansas Act passed.  Atchison took credit for writing it, but Stephen A Douglas insisted he wrote it, alone.    They both pushed it through Congress.

Few history teachers, even at college level, seem to know that Charles Sumner was speaking about Atchison - for hours -- in the speech on Senate floor, for which he was beaten almost to death.

Not. One.  Yet, go read the damn speech. It's called "The Crimes Against Kansas Speech."

Charles Sumner responded bluntly to Atchison's killing sprees in Kansas. He was beaten almost to death for that speech.

Bet you had no clue about that.

To make it very clear no one could vote against slavery, Atchison took 300-500 paid men with him, from Missouri the first time, and simply set up his own government in Kansas, which is now called "bogus legislature"  but actually, it was a group of men using violence to stop others from even speaking against slavery, as you will see.


Really, it became against the law -- a law Atchison "passed" with his own men, to openly write or speak against slavery  That may sound extreme -- and was -- but such laws were already in place in most of the South, anyway..

Jeff Davis DID have a point.  The SCOTUS did say blacks could NOT be persons under the constitution -- because they were "so inferior" no white man could believe a black man had inalienable rights.  



Jeff Davis and David Atchison both took delight in tellling crowds that Northern folks were not about to stand up to the Souther.   Atchison was blunt, as usual, and called men in Kansas cowards who would run away.   

He was right - at first.

Jefferson Davis predicted no trouble, he claimed that he "would drink all the blood" spilled below the Mason Dixon line, if there was any military action at all.   Davis had set the stage for a "bloodless" revolution, and was genuinely surprised when a man he considered spineless, Abe Lincoln, did not back down at Fort Sumter.

This is from US Grant's memoir -- Jefferson Davis thought he could just bluff his way through.   He might have done so, too, if not for Lincoln.  Others in  the North suggested Lincoln obey the South's war ultimatums.


As you will see, Stephen A Douglas accused Lincoln (really) of "treason"  and "preaching revolution"   for just saying blacks had rights from God.

You didn't hear this before, did you?

It's about time you learned what SOuthern leaders were bragging out the ass about, at the time.  They didn't stutter, they didn't admit it, the BRAGGED OUT THE ASS about it.

And it's about time you heard what Lincoln faced, both in Kansas, and in Jeff Davis claims the North would just fold.


Atchison passing Kansas Act, then going to Kansas to kill and terrorize?

Jefferson Davis using US troops at first, to stop Kansas Territory residents from voting?

Jefferson sending Atchison to Kansas and authorizing arrests and violece?

Jefferson claim that it did not matter what the people of Kansas wanted, blacks were not human beings, but property, and Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery.

The Southern War Ultimatum s of 1861.

Sound like States rights to you?   Really?  If so, yoiu are a dumb ass, and get off this page. Yes, you were told BS about the South's concern for state's rights. 

Did they really want "local control"? 

 Atchison and Stephen Douglas both were for the "Missouri Compromise" -- in fact, Douglas said that Compromise was "a sacred compact as important as the Constitution himself.  No one would ever be ruthless enough to try to change it!

But just three years guess -- go on, guess -- who was back to change that "sacred pact".

Stephen A Douglas, and David Rice Atchison.  

They said they just respected "local control" so much!!

Atchison's killing sprees made very very clear, no.  Precisely the opposite.

Atchison went to Kansas, officially, immediately after he got Kansas Act passed. And officially, worked for Jefferson Davis.

Guess, really, guess, who backed Atchison's actions in DC, until crowds nearly attacked him?  Stephen A Douglas.  Douglas was "Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas.  One of the reasons LIncoln ran for Senate, was TO GET DOUGLAS out of that committee!   


Atchison is the guy Charles Sumner was talking about, when he was beaten on the floor of the US Senate.  You won't hear any US teacher tell you that either -- it's very important, but simply not thought of as a relevant fact.

It was relevant as can be.  By the way, Stephen A Douglas was near Sumner as he was being beaten, did not lift a hand or his voice to stop it. 

In fact, Davis named Atchison as General of Law and Order in Kansas, and Atchison was paid for his bloody work, in Kansas. Davis also congratulated the man who beat Sumner almost to death.

Later, after the Civil War, a woman wrote to Davis asking him about Atchison and what happened in Kansas. Davis responded only by saying that Atchison "did what was "Constitutionally required." 

Stunningly, not only did Atchison get Kansas Act passed,  he then immediately left the Senate, the next day -- rushed to Kansas, and started his machinations there, starting with terrorizing, then later violence, then later bragging about being at war against the USA.

First thing Atchison did was use Missouri men - Atchison paid them -- to come into Kansas and set up his own legislature, and pass laws (you can't make this up) that made speaking against slavery, and writing newspapers against slavery, a crime.

Yes, a crime.  And Atchison hired men to carry out those laws. 


Atchison was also the guy US Senator Charles Sumner was speaking about, in his two day speech -- you know, the speech he was beaten almost to death for.   
 From Atchison's speech to his Texas men, just before his first organized killing spree, into Kansas.   His full speech below, may be the best lecture on the Civil War ever given, and you almost certainly have never heard of him, or it.



THIS is a copy of the map Lincoln actually used-- we put the highlights on it.
If you don't know this map, you don't know what the hell Atchison was bragging about, and what was at stake, then you don't know what caused the Civil War at all.


The area in white border-- slave power already had that, by "compromises" of 1820 and  1850.

 As Lincoln correctly pointed out in one speech "What compromises?" 

You probably never heard that in 1820 and 1850, the South promised war before -- about the spread of slavery.  Both times they were awarded with doubling, then doubling again, the area for slavery. Southern leaders were considered "bullies" and rightly so -- they did not bluff.  They got power through slavery, where force was customary, and threats were promises.   

No one really wanted war against these very loud, proud, and frankly, violent men.  In fact, some in the North wanted the South to secede -- let them go. 

Lincoln could not let them go, and said so, because the South's war ultimatums and clear intention, was to spread slavery not just in the white border areas, which they already had, but in the red border areas, above.

No one told you that, did they? 


Some  Southern leaders bragged out the ass they were killing to spread slavery, and their promises they would not stop killing, until they had slavery not just in Kansas Territory, but all through the West, to the Pacific, and they would get California and Oregon back as slave states.

  If they couldn't have the spread of slavery -- they would have war.  Their own Richmond newspapers called these, ultimatums.

In fact, the VP of the Confederacy, tried to see Lincoln after some Southern states seceded.

Lincoln would not see Alexander Stephens, but wrote him this famous note....

Just stopping the spread of slavery -- into a state (Kansas) that had rejected slavery overwhelmingly, was too much for the South. 

Somehow, the South's violent reaction to Kansas rejection of slavery, has morphed into LIncoln not caring about slavery.   Just because Lincoln had no power, no desire, and no public support to end slavery in the South, does not mean he was pro slavery.

Most people in the North would not walk across the street to spit on a slave, much less fight a war to invade the South and end slavery there by force.

Lincoln was just trying to stop -- and said so -- the spread of slavery.

That was too much for the South, a basic fact often overlooked today.

Just stopping the spread of slavery -- into Kansas-- was enough that the Southern leaders said was intolerable, and would destroy the white race!

By the way, don't blame me, for calling them war ultimatums. That's what they themselves said, at the time, loudly, and proudly. The ultimatums were not suggestions, and Southern leaders did not bluff - they made good on their war ultimatums, when Lincoln refused to obey them.

Have you ever heard one word about the War Ultimatums, Richmond papers boasted of as "THE TRUE ISSUE"?

I could not believe my eyes when I chanced on the Richmond papers, who ran the headlines, "THE TRUE ISSUE" then boasted it was about the spread of slavery.

Was this a joke?  The SPREAD of slavery was the true issue?

I though the true issue was "states rights".



Blacks ordered to be considered as property-- not human beings, not persons.

This is NOT how Dred  is taught to you in grade school, high school, or college.  

There, and in almost every web site, graphic "lesson plan"  they give you euphmisms, that Dred Scott was about "citizenship."      

Bull sthit.   It was about -- literally, if blacks were human beings, with any rights intended by God, or property.

And they Taney court officially ruled -- NOT PERSONS -- and further ruled, THEY ARE PROPERTY.

To make it very very clear -- Taney Court ruled that blacks have "no rights which a white man must respect". 

  Why?  Because blacks are "so inferior" they were sub human, a different species than man.  This was the "scientific" truth of the age, said Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.  Blacks were not human beings,  but a different type of God's creation.

Bet you never  heard that, either.

Again, what SOuthern leaders bragged out the ass about, you don't hear whispered today.  LIncoln discussed this -- more times than he could count.  Here in this video clip from a 1940 movie, you get a sense of this, the dialog is taken faithfully and correctly from Lincoln - Douglas debates,  indeed it captures the basic position of both men, through the words they said, that are in the movie.

As property, no state could keep out personal property.  

   Just like you can't understand US history if you don't know about Atchison, you can not understand US history if you don't know about Dred Scott decision.

You may THINK you know about Dred  --but if you know, you did not get it from US text books, or even from guys like Eric Foner or James McPherson, who have never mentioned it, in any basic way. It was never taught -- and is not now taught -- in basic candid ways. 

What happened to that whole states rights thing?   I had to read plenty more Southern speeches and newspapers to learn, Southern leaders hated states rights, when it came to slavery.

WTF?   No one told me, ever, not once, about Southern leaders hatred of states rights, when KS rejected slavery. But they sure did reject state's rights for slavery, and they did with the "logic" of Dred Scott decision, which said blacks are not human beings -- not persons -- but property.


In the Orwellian logic of Jeff Davis,  states rights  not apply to slavery . And  he would, and did, kill to stop Kansas from rejecting slavery, as you will see.

Jeff Davis hated states right, re slavery, and was loud and proud that it did not matter what the people of Kansas wanted.   Im still stunned, why did I find out none of this, in high school, college, or any of the CIvil War lectures I have sat through?

This is the most basic possible issue leading up to Civil War.

Why didn't anyone mention these most  fact?

It's not in US textbooks.   It was headlines then, New York papers ran the same article two days later, and suggested Lincoln obey them.

Even without those specific headlines, the issue was clear for years -- the spread of slavery West, and the South's violent efforts to kill torture and terrorize, to get it done.

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, actully tried to visit Lincoln in person, and present him the War Ultimatums.  Bet no one told you that either.

Lincoln would not see Stephens, but of course, Lincoln already knew full well what their War Ultimatums were.   See Lincoln's not to Stephen, below.


And no one in 1861 was a bit surprised these were the top two ultimatums.   Lincoln not surprised whatsoever.

There was no newspaper, North or South, that wrote "What are you talking about, war ultimatums to spread slavery?

Why was no one surprised? 

 Because non-stop, since 1854, Southern leaders were forcing slavery into Kansas Territories -- and promising to spread it by force, all the way to the Pacific.

Some people call this "Trouble in Kansas"  which is like calling your stomic cancer a "tummy ache".

Teachers teach what they are taught, and most could not tell you who Atchison was, much less what his speech was about.

They could not for the life of them tell  you what Southern war ultimatums were.

They could not tell you that Lincoln exposed Stephen A. Douglas duplicity and popular sovereignty, and was actually against popular sovereignty, by the wording and  usage of the Kansas Act.

Of  US text books actually taught who Atchison was, and what  he did (Pass Kansas Act) and then what he did next (go to Kansas and start his reign of terror) and then what he did NEXT  (declare war on the US for "the entire South", they wouldn't use the term "Trouble in Kansas" without sounding like an idiot. 

But those living then weren't so misinformed, mostly because our text books have always been edited by Southern school boards, who never once allowed anything like this information, into any text book they published. Sadly, Southern book companies, mostly in Texas, have decided what generations of Americans learn as "history",.  

They left out nearly everything horrible and vile, by Southern leaders. 


Now -- in 1856 David Rice Atchison was demanded the area in red, too. A basic fact that few history teachers have any clue about. 

Why  not even mention what this guy did and bragged about?


Davis and Atchison did not seek to convince folks in the Territories that slavery was better.  They did not seek to encourage some "compromise" --  they had no compromise to offer.

They demanded the spread of slavery and promised to kill anyone who got in the way. That is not sophistry or hype, that is what they did.  Atchison bragged about it, then did it.

Killing to spread slavery?  Exactly.  Not kinda, not in a way -- that is what they boasted of, and that is what they acted on, in the 1850's.

David Rice Atchison was Jefferson Davis man in Kansas, and he boasted of it, most of all.


According to David Rice Atchison, the happiest day of his life, was the day he spent killing to spread slavery.

David Rice Atchison should be a  household name today, like Lincoln or Jeff Davis.   Atchison is the US Senator who got Kansas Act passed, then hurried to Kansas, to being his reign of terror there, that lasted until he became a deserter from the Confederate Army, and went home to Texas till others got tired of killing each other, in a wary he largely started

Like most bullies of the South, Atchison turned out to be a personal coward, but that's another story.


As you will see, even AFTER Kansas became a free state, Jefferson Davis demanded Kansas "accept and respect" slavery because of the Dred Scott decision, that blacks were not human beings (not persons) for purposes of the Constitution.

In fact, even after the Civil War, when Davis wrote his book, "Rise and Fall of the Confederacy"  -- he still insisted the resistance to the spread of slavery, into Kansas, was "intolerable". 

Why do "scholars" no read Jefferson Davis own book, and learn what Davis wrote about the cause of the Civil War.   The "intolerable grievance"  was the resistance to slavery in a state that voted 95% against slavery.  


Orwell much?

BTW -- your text book has watered that "not persons" and "not human beings"  and "inferior beings ordained by God to be punished"   down to "not citizens".  When you hear of Dred Scott especially, bullshitters give you this "not citizens" version.

Yes, they did say not citizens, they also said NOT PERSONS, and so inferior, and Southern leaders boasted God gave them the black man to do the work, and to punish for biblical sins.  That's not what I say, that's what Southern leaders boasted of, till they lost.



Full speech below.

Things I learned from Southern books
Southern speeches
Southern documents
Southern newspapers

David Rice Atchison, not just some guy, bragging about killing to spread slavery, in detail.

Not even just some "US Senator" bragging about killing to spread slavery, though that, by itself, is stunning.  Atchison was the US Senator, that got Kansas Act passed, with his partner Stephen A Douglas, who then left the Senate immediately, went to Kansas, and there first bullied, then terrorized, then killed to spread slavery.

And he was proud of it.  Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.

He was proud of it.  His speech to his Texas men should be in every US text book. Arguably, it's as important as Lincoln's House Divided Speech. In fact, Lincoln had to give his House Divided Speech, because of what Atchison did, and boasted of.



Atchison is US Senator who got Kansas Act passed.  Then went to Kansas personally to make sure no one could vote against slavery, or even speak or write openly against slavery.

Atchison was not the only one, Jeff Davis himself declared -- in his own book, Rise and Fall of the Confederacy -- declared that the "intolerable grievance"  was the resistance of slavery, into KANSAS.  

Never mind that when able, Kansas citizens rejected slavery by 90 and 95% votes.

Davis, like all those who so often spoke of "our rights in Kansas" kept forgetting to mention that 90 an 95 % of the citizens of Kansas were against slavery, and not only voted that way, but fought back against Atchison and 

Bet no one told you that, but it was as basic as it gets.




Davis insisted, even after the Civil War, that everything Atchison did in Kansas was "Constitutionally required".





Your history teacher probably does not either.  Few text books even mention Atchison, and none that we know of even mention his speech, or what he did, in Kansas, and how he was the man who got Kansas Nebraska Act passed.

It was not ONLY the speech, there is an abundance of evidence what he did, and what his cohorts did.   

Almost every person Atchison hired, he hired from Missouri, then Texas and South Carolina.  

Artist drawing the day after Atchison's first killing spree, into Kansas.

Some survivors of the Lawrence Killing Spree, gathered for reunion in 1890.   



Most history teachers in the US do not grasp the land areas involved in the spread of slavery, largely because "Kansas" is mentioned so often, they mistakenly think it was about slavery in Kansas only.


Stephen A Douglas helped pass the "Sacred Pact"  of 1850 ("Compromise of 1850)  that "no fool will dare ever to revisit."

In fact, after Douglas got the Compromise of 1850 passed - which doubled the area for slavery, as you see in the white border, Douglas promised NEVER TO SPEAK OF SLAVERY AGAIN.

The 1850 Compromise was supposed to settle things "For an eternity" boasted Douglas. The issue of slavery was "forever fixed' in the "great Compromise of 1850".

Guess- go ahead, guess -- who just three years later, wanted to get rid of that 1850 Compromise that he pushed through, and spoke in the most amazing terms about?   The guy who wanted to end 1850 Compromise, was Stephen A Douglas.

Oh -- and another guy. Our buddy above, David Rice Atchison.


 This is important, so remember  it.

Stephen Douglas himself, the guy who got the 1850 "compromise" passed,  the guy who said he would never speak of slavery again in his life, now wanted Kansas Nebraska opened up to the possibility of slavery

Yet there were few slave owners in Kansas.  T

 In fact, by 1860, there were still only two slaves in the ENTIRE Territory of Kansas, according to US Census information, but probably there were about 300, according to guesses at the time, by people who lived there.

Still, very few people wanted slavery, many had come to Kansas to get away from slavery.

 Most history teachers simply assume -- incorrectly - that there was this demand or request by people in Kansas, to allow slavery there. Not true at all.



Atchison claimed 12 times  in the speech he worked for "the entire South"  or  was paid by the "present administration."

Atchison  claimed he was at war -- against the United States. Did you know that?  

He claimed he rode under a foreign flag -- red in color, because he hated the US flag.   The Confederate flag was red color, for the blood he would spill.

That would surprise you only because you are not told how violent and extreme Southern leaders were. 


Of course Lincoln spoke of this -- his letter to Joshua Speed is the most direct evidence Lincoln was exceedingly preoccupied by what Atchison and friends were doing in Kansas.   See below at the bottom of this blog, his letter.



"Gentlemen, Officers  Soldiers! - (Yells) This is the most glorious day of my life! This is the day I am a border ruffian! (Yells.)..

...The U.S. Marshall has just given you his orders and has kindly invited me to address you. For this invitation, coming from no less than U.S. authority,

I thank him most sincerely, and now allow me, in true border-ruffian style, to extend to you the right hand of fellowship. (Cheers.) Men of the South, I greet you as border-ruffian brothers. (Repeated yells & waving of hats.)...

Though I have seen more years than most of you, I am yet young in the same glorious cause that has made you leave your homes in the South.

Boys I am one of your number today (Yells.) and today you have a glorious duty to perform, today you will earn laurels that will ever show you to have been true sons of the noble South! (Cheers.)

You have endured many hardships, have suffered many privations on your trips, but for this you will be more than compensated by the work laid out by the Marshal, - and what you know is to be done as the programme of the day....

Now Boys, let your work be well done! (Cheers.) Faint not as you approach the city of Lawrence, but remembering your mission act with true Southern heroism, at the word, Spring like your bloodhounds at home upon that d--d accursed abolition hole; break through every thing that may oppose your never flinching courage! - (Yells.)

Yes, ruffians, draw your revolvers & bowie knives,  and cool them in the heart's blood of all those d--d dogs, that dare defend that d--d breathing hole of hell. (Yells.)

Tear down their boasted Free State Hotel, and if those Hellish lying free-soilers have left no port holes in it, with

your unerring cannon make some, Yes, riddle it till it shall fall to the ground. Throw into the Kanzas (river) their printing presses, & let's see if any more free speeches will be issued from them!

Boys, do the Marshall's full bidding! - Do the sheriff's entire command! -

(Yells.) For today Mr. Jones is not only Sheriff, but deputy Marshall, so that whatever he commands will be right, and under the authority of the administration of the U.S.! - and for it you will be amply paid as U.S. troops, besides having an opportunity of benefitting your wardrobes from the private dwellings of those infernal nigger-stealers.

- Are you determined? Will every one of you swear to bathe your steel in the black blood of some of those black sons of ---- (cries and yells of yes, yes.)

Yes, I know you will, the South has always proved itself ready for honorable fight. You who are noble sons of noble sires, I know you will never fail, but will burn, sack destroy, until every vestige of these Northern Abolitionists is wiped out.

Men of the South  and  Missouri, I am Proud of this day!

[We] shall annihilate from our western world these hellish Emigrant Aid paupers, whose bellies are filled with beggars food whose houses are stored with "Beecher's Rifles ......

[We have] the resolve of the entire South, and of the present Administration, that is, to carry the war into the heart of the country, (cheers.)

[We will never] slacken or stop until every spark of free-state, free-speech, free-niggers, or free in any shape is quenched out of Kansaz!........(Long shouting & cheering.)

As I speak the honest sentiments of my heart and the sentiments of the administration the blessed pro-slavery party throughout this great nation, -  

[this] is the only flag we recognize, and the only flag under whose folds we will march into Lawrence, the only flag under which these damned abolition prisoners were arrested - who are now outside yonder tent endeavoring to hear me, which I care not a damn if they do! ( Cheers.)...

.....Yes, these G--d d--d sons of d--d puritan stock will learn their fate, .... I defy damn them all to Hell. (roars  and yells.) Yes, that large red flag denotes our purpose to press the matter even to blood, - the large lone white star in the centre denotes the purity of our purpose and  the words "Southern Rights" above it clearly indicate the righteousness of our principles.

.... I am now enjoying the proudest moments of my life, ......... I will be there to support all your acts & assist completing the overthrow of that hellish party, and  in crushing out the last sign of dammed abolitionism in the territory of Kanzas. - (Three times Yells for Atchison.)



Atchison also bragged he was starting this war (he called it war) for "the entire South" -- the South, he said, wanted this war.


Atchison was not the only one bragging, nor the only one killing.  But all the killers were paid, contrary to what your "teacher" might tell you, there simply were no citizens of Kansas that volunteered to help Atchison.

All those who rode with Atchison, he paid.   And this is why Atchison eventually lost -- he could not hire enough men. 

The South tried to "fix" that by the Dred Scott decision.  Guess who said so, in so many words?

Abraham Lincoln, in his House Divided Speech.

Want to see how much your history teacher knows about the Civil War?   

Just ask him one question -- who was the US Senator bragging about killing to spread slavery, that Charles Sumner was talking about, when he was beaten almost to death, on the Senate floor?

 Let us know if any teacher gets this answer right.

If your teacher doesn't know the answer, he or she likely does not know much about Jefferson Davis, Abraham  LIncoln, or the US Civil War. 


Do you know what Southern leaders boasted of for over 10 years leading up to the Civil War?

Atchison boasted about killing to spread slavery.   The boasting was loudest, as the Civil War grew near.

In fact, Southern leaders rejected repudiated states rights as their excuse to spread slavery.   It did  not matter what the people of Kansas wanted. Kansas rejected slavery by 90% and 95% votes.

Southern leaders sent  their own man, US Senator David Rice Atchison, to Kansas.

Before Atchison went to Kansas, do you know what he did in DC?  He got the Kansas - Nebraska Act passed. 

That was a BFD.  

Atchison's actions -- Kansas Nebraska Act, and his killing sprees in Kansas, propelled Lincoln back into politics, and then to run for US Senate, and Atchison's partner,  Stephen A Douglas. 


People today think the South, if  only as an excuse, used the term "states rights" to keep slavery.

Uh -- not so much. Actually,  Southern leaders hated states rights, when Kansas rejected slavery, by a vote of 90% against slavery.

And they were vocal as hell about it. In fact, a US Senator went there, and started terrorizing, then later killing, to spread slavery there - in Kansas.

In fact, Lincoln had to give the House Divided Speech, because of what Atchison did. Atchison's actions, and Dred Scott, pushed Lincoln and the North into an all or nothing position.  

If Atchison and Dred Scott "logic" prevailed, there was no place that could be against slavery. Literally, no place.

Lincoln was not exaggerating at all, when he explained, again and again, how Dred Scott decision, and the Kansas Act, meant slavery would go everywhere, with or without the consent of the people in any state.

Already, 1856, Atchison described his actions as a war to spread slavery. Not just once, but seven times he talked about this being for the South, and about killing.


By the way, Sumner named Atchison by name -- but said the "real criminals" are in Washington DC "right now."

Sumner  was talking about Jefferson Davis, and Stephen A Douglas. He accused Atchison of just being the thug in Kansas, doing their bidding.  

Your history teacher doesn't know that, either.


Atchison and his buddies even had a newspaper -- the Sovereign Squatter.  You should read it sometime, and his speech.

Other Southern leaders were telling crowds they MUST spread slavery, or the white race was doomed.   Who said so?  Robert Toombs, who would be "Secretary of State" for Jeff Davis.



No one was surprised, when later in 1861, Southern newspaper headlines bragged about "THE TRUE ISSUE"  --  do you know what Richmond papers reported in March of 1861?

The Five Southern ULtimatums:  the first two, were for the spread of slavery, into Kansas.

Never mind that Kansas was already a free state, the first two, of the five ultimatum, were about the spread of slavery into Kansas.

And no one was surprised.  Why?   

But everyone alive then, knew exactly what was going on.  It's just not taught like this.  But this is what happened.  

New York papers suggested two days later, in response, that Lincoln should let the South have Kansas as a slave state.

Problem was, Kansas was ALREADY a free state, in the Union, and ALREADY Kansas citizens had voted 90 and 95%  against slavery.

Lincoln was not about to let them invade Kansas and make them a slave state, though they had been using violence since 1856.




It should have always been in US text books, because these killings and acts of terror were well known at the time-- discussed widely, reported widely.   


Atchison and his "legislature" made it a crime  to speak against slavery.

You think you know the history of slavery in USA?  Not unless you know who killed who, and why.

Great excitement ? 

- they heard about a guy who was suspected of being against slavery.

They chased him.  They found him.  They tried to get him to sign a card that he was pro slavery.

He refused.

They arrested him.

And they bragged of it.  In their own papers, they bragged of it.

In their own speeches, they bragged of it. Their leader was David Rice Atchison.  His men were paid, they were not from Kansas, they moved to Kansas to help Atchison.   

They were bragging about this -- get this through your head.  They bragged about things like this. Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way. 


First, Davis tried to use US troops, he was Secretary of War.  But those troops would only do so much, they would not invade cities,  like Atchison would, or use terror, like Atchison bragged of.










To justify the killings and terror in Kansas, Jefferson Davis claimed Atchison was doing what was "constitutionally required" - because of Dred Scott decision.

According to Davis, it did not matter what the vote in Kansas was against slavery -- the Supreme Court had ruled, slavery was protected, because slaves were property, not persons.

The "DAVIS LOGIC"  was the "Dred Scott decision, which claimed blacks were not human beings -- not persons.

 Atchison promised to kill all these people -- and many more.

He called them "abolitionist dogs"  and said he would wipe them from the face of the earth.

He didn't kill them all -- here some  of the "dogs"  -- survivors -- reunited 50 years later.

Shame on your history book for not telling you who killed who, and why.    150 years of bullshit is enough. 


  Jefferson Davis boasted of it -- blacks are NOT persons.   Stephen A Douglas boasted of it --the Supreme Court officially ruled blacks were not persons.

What Southern leaders bragged of, you don't even know about, because our text books don't show it this way.

See more about that below.


Atchison failed to kill enough people in Kansas, as you will see.  Kansas finally fought back against Atchison and his Texas men, and voted against slavery at least three times, and President Buchanan, and Congress, accepted them as a free state, January 1861.

Kansas was accepted as a free state, before LIncoln even got sworn in. 



James "I LOVE JEFF DAVIS" McPherson.

Supposed scholar.   Does footnotes well -- doesn't dare show what his Southern heroes did, what they bragged about, who they killed, and why.

So David Rice Atchison = BFD. 

Who killed who, and why, and what they bragged about, is real history.


This is the speech as it is in Kansas Historical Society files.

No one disputes this is Atchison's speech. 


An opinionated know it all tells you
what your text books don't. 

There is much more than this speech, of course.  But his speech is by the  guy who got Kansas Nebraska Act passed -- a US Senator, no less.

And he explains it very very well, at the time.  He was in Kansas killing to spread slavery.

And killing to stop folks from speaking against slavery.  And he is proud as hell about it.

Furthermore, he is speaking to his Texas killers -- men he hired from Texas, because he couldn't even find enough killers in Missouri.   Virtually every one killing to spread slavery was hired -- including Atchison. He was paid too.




Of course SOuthern leaders had an excuse to get around "state's rights" in Kansas.   Do you know that excuse was?

The excuse was this -- per Jeff Davis.   Blacks are "so inferior" they were not human beings -- not persons, and the Supreme Court said so in Dred Scott. 

This was the basis -- the very basis, the very thing Davis said was the basis, that made it a crime for Kansas to reject slavery.     Did you know -- yes or no that Davis emphatically and clearly explained his "logic" to force slavery into Kansas?

Blacks are SO inferior, they were not human beings, and therefore, Kansas must protect slavery as they must protect any property.

 1) Southern leaders killed to spread slavery 
 2) Southern leaders bragged the logic to spread slavery, was that blacks are not human beings.

Even though this was well known then, even though Lincoln himself referred to the South's intention of spreading slavery by any means -- your history teacher does seem to make a big deal of that. WTF?

Turns out, everything Sumner predicted, happened.  Opening up Kansas was a ruse -- Atchison had no intention of letting Kansas vote against slavery.  


 The killings were not a one day, or one week, or even one year event, they were a process that lasted for years, up to, and all through, the US Civil War.


McPherson -- never mentioned David Rice Atchison's killing sprees into Kansas. Ever. He sure as hell did not feature them, explain who Atchison worked for, what he demanded, and who he killed, and why.

He can't tell you Jeff Davis hired Atchison, sent him to Kansas to kill and terrorize, as early as 1854.   He can't tell you about Jeff Davis insistence that blacks are not human beings but "so inferior" they are ordained by God to be enslaved.

Nor did McPherson ever -- not once -- tell folks of the relationship between Davis and Atchison, the most important relationship of the 1850s.. 




Already killing to spread slavery.

Already bragging about killing to spread slavery.

Already bragging this was war  -- that the "Entire South" wanted.  


This will sound very strange to you -- incredible even. It was well known then, with Jefferson Davis defending Atchison then, and for the rest of his life.


These folks survived Atchison killing sprees, picture taken 1890

Atchison promised to "kill every damn  abolitionist dog" 
if he found them.   These folks  (dogs) got away, and lived to tell about it.

Do you see why our Southern edited text books don't show this.

Robert Toombs brought crowds to their feet screaming that stopping the spread of slavery
would doom the white race. Another speech no US text books shows. 


Atchison gave this speech, as his newly hired men from Texas were about to invade Kansas, and kill as many people as they could in Lawrence. He just met them, as you can tell in the speech itself. 

This was BEFORE the Civil War.

Why use Texas men to invade Kansas?   

 Because there were almost no men in Kansas, that lived there, that were citizens there, that wanted slavery to spread there, much less enough men to kill to accomplish that.

Remember that -- Atchison had to get men from Texas to do this.  He had already hired all he could from Missouri, and that was not enough.

Who paid  Atchison ? Who paid the Texas men?  Jefferson Davis  did. Davis was Atchison's life long friend. He paid  almost everyone in Kansas associated with killing to spread slavery.

 Atchison got Kansas Nebraska bill passed, and immediately left DC for Kansas.  There, he invaded Kansas and set up his own "legislture" making it illegal to speak againt slavery.

No one ever told you that, did they?   Hell no.  But that's what happened.  

After Atchison set up this totalitarian "legislture" (often called bogus legislature -but it was more of a dictatorship, including control of what people could say)  he arrested and killed people who "disobeyed" him.

Yeah, I know, supposedly Davis and other Southern leaders cared about state's rights.  No, not when Kansas rejected slavery, they hated state's rights, and fought against it.   

Besides, men who torture slaves and sell children, never actually cared about rights, state's or otherwise.   Too complicated? 

They used state's rights as an excuse -- then when Kansas rejected slavery, they came up with other excuses to kill, enslave, and force the spread of slavery. That "other excuse" was Dred Scott decision, but they were already killing to spread slavery before that. See below. 

Blacks are "not persons" Davis said, but "property"  and his duty as Secretary of War, was to protect slavery in Kansas.    Never mind that 95% of the white males voted against slavery.

Southern states -- especially Texas -- have controlled text book publications since text books started.   And school boards down there never -- ever -- allowed harsh truth about their heroes,  to be in their text books. 

But why on earth do guys like Foner, McPherson, Catton, not correct that bullshit whitewashed nonsense in Southern text books?

I don't know for sure. 

Sound like state's rights to you? 


Atchison speech is as important as Lincoln's House Divided Speech,   because he brags what the South wants and will kill for -- the spread of slavery. 

Atchison was not the only one bragging about killing to spread slavery -- he was just the most vivid.  He was pumping up his Texas men for the killing spree that happened right after this speech.

If the South had won the Civil War -- this  kind of speech, with speeches like Jeff Davis bragging of spreading slavery by arms, or the Cornerstone Speech by Stephens, would be praised for 100 years.

But the South lost,  so you will not find Atchison speech, or the other speeches, bragging about killing to spread slavery, in any US text book.

There are many more speeches, documents, sermons, newspapers, where Southern leaders and editors BRAGGED about killing to spread slavery -- but this speech was especially proud, loud, and specific.

Plus -- this was a speech BY the most important figure of that day -- he was officially the General of Law and Order in Kansas, officially worked for Jeff Davis -- officially a Senator from Missouri -- a slave state.

Most of all -- he was the individual who, with Stephen A Douglas, passed the Kansas Nebraska Act.  That is vital to understanding any of this -- if you don't know how important that was, you should not be on this blog.  Go learn and come back.

The point is -- as Lincoln and many others said at the time -- Kansas Nebraska Act was a way to spread slavery by any means necessary -- including killing.   It was a ruse, a fraud.   

And that is exactly what it was.  And your dumb ass "history" teacher probably doesn't even know that -- though if he just read Lincoln's speeches, he should have picked that up.


The point is - what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about -- you don't know about.   



Jeff Davis, in his own book, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, wrote that the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas was "the intolerable grievance".

No one told you that -- they called it a war, they made it clear they killed to spread slavery.   We show you one of the speeches, but there are others, and documents, books, newspaper headlines in the South, bragging of things you never heard of in your "history" text book.


  US Senator, was already calling it a war, and bragging about it, to spread slavery, 1856

You should read his speech, and other Southern documents boasting about what they did, and why they did it.

Not some historian later -- but Southern leaders then, at the time, loudly and proudly boasting they were killing to spread slavery for the South.  

Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way. Not "if you want to see it that way."

They bragged about it. They wrote about it. They even wrote war ultimatums about it. Maybe it's time we learn what Southern leaders bragged about and did, instead of bullshit excuses.   

It's just not taught now.  Southern school boards refuse to allow books that even mention this stuff. What Southern leaders bragged of at the time, Southern school boards dare not whisper now.

You are about to find out why.  


 Southern leaders were already killing to spread slavery from 1854 on.

No one disputes this is Atchison's speech -- he gave other comments  like it, bragged about coming back to kill more.  Below,  Atchison's right hand man, Stringfellow, makes it clear, they

 "We will continue to lynch, hang, tar and feather every white livered abolitionist who dares to pollute our soil"



  The Civil War was NOT about slavery.   To this Southern leaders - the man who got Kansas Nebraska bill passed --  the Civil War was about the spread of slavery.   

Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.  He explained this very clearly -- emphatically. He called it a war, and he bragged it was about spreading slavery into Kansas -- and beyond.   

He was not some nut in a bar.  He was the US Senator who got Kansas opened up for a "vote" on slavery, then personally went there to kill and terrify, so no one would try to vote against slavery.

And he bragged about it.   Nor was he the only one to so boast.  

He worked for Jefferson Davis -- Davis named Atchison as "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.  Davis defended what Atchison did- - later, and in writing -- as "constitutionally required".

President Pierce also defended Atchisons actions, indeed, when Kansas citizens appealed to Pierce for help to stop Atchison's killing sprees, Pierce had them arrested when he could.

Oh -- you didn't know this?   We welcome to history, as explained by Southern leaders themselves, at the time, boasting of it.  Why is this not in your text books?   Because SOuthern school boards have controlled US text books since text books started.

REally -- that's why you have not heard this or anything like it. 

Jeff Davis -- US Secretary of War.

David Atchison -- US Senator.

Stephen A Douglas -  US Senator.

Davis named Atchison "General of Law and Order of Kansas Territory.

Davis paid Atchison, and paid his Texas killers.

Davis later claimed everything Atchison did was "Constitutionally required" because of "Dred Scott decision" 

Problem is, Atchison was killing for two years, before Dred Scott decision. So even if you are an idiot, and think Dred Scott decision could excuse killing to spread slavery,  it was a lie. 

  Atchison started terrorizing  in 1855, his Texas men arrived in September 1856. He immediately used the Texas men to invade Lawrence and start killing to spread slavery and stop speech against slavery.

Not one text book in the US has Atchison's speech -- in fact, no US text book even mentions that Atchison was in Kansas as Jeff Davis General of Law and Order.  

Not one text books mentions that Sen Sumner was beaten on US Senate floor, moments after mentioning what Atchison was doing in Kansas.

Not one.


But Lincoln noticed Atchison -- Lincoln  got back into politics because of what David Rice Atchison did.    Ask your teacher if he / she knows that.  Lincoln got back into politics when Atchison and Stephen A Douglas got Kansas Nebraska bill  passed.

No, your history teacher does not know that either.   Lincoln also went to Atchison Kansas and spoke there. 

ATCHISON  is not just a US Senator -- he is also Jeff Davis life long friend, and officially the "General of Law and Order" in Kansas. 

Add to that, he is the guy who got Kansas Nebraska Bill passed, that opened up Kansas -- supposedly -- for a vote on slavery.  But then he personally rushes out to Kansas, he does not even wait for the Senate session to end, and starts his violence in Kansas to prevent folks from voting against slavery.

That's right. The guy who destroyed the Missouri Compromise (which kept slavery out of the West) pretended to be for voting rights -- then went to Kansas and helped kill to prevent people from voting.   And he bragged about it.

Shouldn't that be in history books? HELL YES.

Is that in text books?  Hell no.

So most "history teachers"  don't know.    They can tell you the name of Robert E Lee's horse, though. They can, they can really tell you the name of Lee's horse,  maybe even the name of his pet chicken.

But they can  not tell you who got the Missouri Compromise repealed in the US Senate. They an  not tell you who went to Kansas and killed to spread slavery.   They can not tell you what Jeff Davis justification for those killings were.,

But the name of Lee's horse -- oh man, they got that. 

Atchison hired the Texas killers. Do you know why?   Because there were not enough men even in Missouri willing to kill to spread slavery for Atchison.   He hired Missouri men to set up his "bogus legislature"  but not enough for killing sprees. 

Most  teachers assume that Kansas  had a fair amount of citizens there who wanted slavery. No, not all. Quit the reverse.  Almost all citizens of Kansas wanted to keep slavery OUT. 
There were few slave owners in Kansas. by 1860 census, a total of 2 slaves were listed for the entire state.

Remember that -- it's crucial to understand the killings, who paid for it, and why.   There was virtually no organic, local, support for slavery in Kansas, much less for killing to spread it.   

It seems that the men who helped Atchison kill -- every one of them -- were not from Kansas.   They were from Texas mostly.  And they were paid.  Your history teacher does not know that.  

Nor was it just about Kansas - Nebraska territory, as Atchison boasted. This was about slavery -- against the will of the public -- all the way to California.


Your text books do mention Kansas, of course, but in Orwellian terms, as "Kansas Trouble"  or "Kansas presages the dispute over slavery".

That's bullshit. Kansas didnt do anything -- people do. 

 People invade, people kill, people in slave.  One of the common ways to sound smart, while spewing bullshit, is to write sentences like "Kansas" did this, or "slavery" did that.  

Trouble in Kansas?  Try real language -- Southern leaders killing in Kansas to spread slavery. That's real history, that's factual, and those kinds of sentences are not in your history books.

You won't see information about  Jeff Davis, for example, paying for the Texas killers.   You will see some bullshit about Davis claiming "All we ask, is to be left alone."

It makes a difference what words are in your "history" text book, and in the US, Southern school boards have always  kept actual history out.

No wonder people are so stupid about US Civil War. They do not know much about who killed who, and why, leading up to it.


Most history teachers, even at college level, don't seem to know Atchison was the guy Sumner was talking about for hours,  in his speech.

Nor do they know that the day after his speech, while he was in a coma, was the day of Atchison's first of three killing sprees into Kansas.

Why don't they know? Apparently,   Because they learn from text books. And text books don't have this information. 

 Why not show what Southern leaders bragged of, and did, at the time? Especially since it was well known, and documented, at the time?

And it was not just this speech.  Southern newspapers headlines in 1861 bragged about THE TRUE ISSUE being the spread of slavery into Kansas.

      Richmond newspapers BRAGGED that the "TRUE ISSUE"   was the spread of slavery into Kansas.  

Did you ever hear that?  Atchison killing to spread slavery into Kansas -- you never heard it. Southern war ultimatums to spread slavery -- you never heard that. 

Davis claiming blacks were inferior beings -- not persons, and blacks could not be acknowledged as persons --  you never heard that, either. 

But you probably know the name of Robert E Lee's horse.

And you probably can tell me who Lincoln wrote a letter to in 1862.  But most people to save their life, could tell you which US Senator bragged about killing to spread slavery.


Do you know who wrote the following?   Read it, then tell me who you think wrote it.

The same guy who insisted Kansas must accept and respect slavery, wrote that.   Jeff Davis.  It's from his book.

The same guy who insisted Dred Scott meant Kansas had no say in if slavery spread there, or not.

This is from the Dred Scott Decision -- Davis quoted it to "prove" that blacks are property, not persons. 

We had people write in, and say no, the Dred Scott decision did not describe blacks as property. You idiot, here it is.

Notice -- in the same sentence, blacks are property, and the federal government shall protect slavery.   

Jeff Davis  knew this -- he was proud of the Dred Scott decision.   He was clear about it -- the Dred Scott decision was the legal basis for the push of slavery into Kansas.

Davis said and wrote the Dred Scott decision meant no one could keep slavery out of Kansas -- even though Kansas was already a free state. 

Do you get that or not? Kansas was a free state -- admitted as a free state, voted 95% against slavery, fought a four year war (with more to come) against slavery, and yet Davis claims Kansas must accept and respect slavery -- because of Dred Scott.

" Negroes are not persons -- and can  not be acknowledged as persons" Jeff Davis.We show it again, this is from Jeff Davis own book. 

 Yet people like Foner, James McPherson, don't tell you this.   Why not tell you what justification Davis himself used?

Dred Scott was about whether blacks were human beings or not -- and decided they were not.  

Jeff Davis and Lincoln did not agree on much, but they agreed on Dred Scott decision -- that it mandated the spread of slavery no matter what the people of a state thought.  

So take a look at this -- no one ever told you this, did they. It's from the Dred Scott decision Davis was so proud of.    Really -- no one ever told you this. Not ever.  No one.

Congress can't keep slavery out of Kansas.

The people of Kansas can't keep slavery out of Kansas. 

Who said so?  This was the official "platform" of the Democrat party in the election of 1860.   And this became their war ultimatum, in May of 1861.

 Davis insisted Dred Scott decision justified the killings in Kansas -- the problem is, even if you believe that crap, Dred Scott decision came later, AFTER the killing sprees did not work. 



1) Lincoln got back into politics, because of what Atchison did  (Kansas Nebraska Bill)
2) John Brown went to Kansas, because of what Atchison did 
 3) Jeff Davis got the Dred Scott decision to claim blacks are "so inferior" they were not persons, but property under the law. 

You heard of Kansas -- typically how Kansas "foreshadowed" the Civil War. Often called "Trouble in Kansas".   All watered down bullshit.

You will even read that  Kansas Nebraska Act gave people the "right to vote" about slavery. Bullshit, Atchison and Douglas passed that, as the first step to force slavery into Kansas.  

Atchison rushed from Washington immediately -- immediately -- went to Kansas to being his killing and terrorizing.  Before that, Kansas and the West were closed to slavery by the Missouri Compromise.



Atchison bragged to his men that the Kansas men were cowards.   He took hundreds of armed men into a peaceful city and started  terrorizing the citizens, then the next day, after the attack, laughed at his victims.

Yes, many ran.   But not for much longer.

 It would take a year more before Kansas farmers started fighting back, using the same violence Atchison used.     John Brown came to Kansas,  saw the tortures, killings and terror, and after a while, he fought fire with fire.  I bet no one told you John Brown reacted to Atchison -- and Atchison killed Brown's brother. 

Brown would later fight back in Virginia, though remember, that's after Southern leaders hired over a 1000 men to kill and terrorize, and bragged about it.   What do you hear of to this day?

Mostly, you hear how John Brown was a violent man.  Not one word about the killers in Kansas, bragging about killing to spread slavery, and bragging about killing to silence those who spoke against slavery. Somehow BROWN is the bad guy.

When  we quit white-washing what CSA leaders did, and show what they bragged about, we won't be so stupid about the US Civil War.


Why getting rid of free speech was absolutely vital for Aitchison and Davis

Here is another thing Foner, McPherson, Catton and others had or h have no clue about, yet it was basic.

Slavery could and did end in the North, because it was shamed -- shamed in church, shamed in newspapers, shamed in public.  People could talk about it, against it, people could write truthful things about slave owners, and write about rape, torture, and the gross violence associated with slavery.

You could not do that in the South. Did you know that, yes or no?

It was illegal in the South -- and Atchison made it illegal in Kansas -- to even speak publically, write publicly - against slavery.

In the North, people COULD print newspapers against slavery -- slave owners were not the high status folks, because people could preach against slavery in front of them, call them out in public, read, write, and sell books against slavery, and read, write and sell newspapers against slavery.

Not so in the South.  It was no accident the very first thing Atchison did, was to pass laws making it illegal to speak or write against slavery.

Atchison knew -- as all SOuthern leaders knew -- that if you let newspapers and books, and sermons be against slavery (yes, even sermons against slavery were against the law in the South)  you would not keep slavery very long.

Leaders in southern states -- each one -- passed "anti incendiary" laws, laws  against speaking or writing against slavery.  Supposedly, so that blacks would not hear such speech and be "dissatisfied".

In the North, a slave owner, or his family, could be and were shamed, yelled at, in public.   Did you know that?

Naturally, slave owners did not want to be shamed in public.  Their wives did  not want to be shunned. Their children did not want to be laughed at or taunted for their ownership of slaves.

Too complicated?

So in the North, there was no "high status" for slave owners, like their was in the South.

Did any text book ever mention that?   No.  Did any "historian" ever make that clear?

Not that I know of.  

  Slaves did not read books nor read newspapers, so the idea slaves would read them and be "dissatisfied"  was Orwellian nonsense.  

So they just outlawed such newspapers, speech, and preaching.

By the way, if any dumb ass tells you England got rid of slavery without war, tell them in England it was not a crime to speak against slavery -- like it was in the South.  England and US North got rid of slavery, BECAUSE there was free speech against slavery.

There was not free speech against slavery in the South, or Kansas, under Atchison.  

WHen you understand that, you will probably know more real history than most highschool, and even college, teachers.  A very basic fact of slavery, maybe the most basic.


Atchison Kansas raids, were to arrest or kill those who spoke -- just spoke -- against slavery. 

That was the purpose of his raid -- and he said so.   To shut down the Free State Hotel, and the newspaper they printed there.

Your history teacher will claim they know all about Sumner's speech. Bullshit.  If they knew Sumner's speech, they would teach about Atchison's killing sprees and that Atchison is the guy that got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas, and started terrorizing out there, according to Sumner.   


Atchison's actions (getting Kansas Nebraska bill passed) got Lincoln back into politics.  

Atchison's killing sprees in Kansas got the attention of the entire country, though the South approved of the killings as "our rights in the territories".

The untold story  is that only a few farmers out in Kansas Territory fought  back - at first.  Atchison,  however, demanded too much.

He demanded people not speak -- that's right -- not speak against slavery.  

And Atchison was by no means alone -- he had a t hired men, and the support of Jefferson Davis, Stephen A Douglas, and according to him, "every Southern man". 



It almost worked.    Atchison's quick invasion into Kansas, his use of violence and terror, almost got Kansas into Union as a slave state.


In speeches, Douglas pretended to be for popular sovereignty
but behind the scenes, Douglas helped Atchison, and covered for him.

 Douglas actively prevented official papers from Kansas to be submitted to Congress that would have proved Kansas citizens were against slavery overwhelmingly.

Stupidly, most "history" teachers claim Douglas was a champion of popular sovereignty, because he said so.  He spouted that in speeches.    But behind the scenes, a different story.  

That's too complicated for "historians" who honestly, are mostly too stupid to even wonder what did Douglas DO?   We know what  he said -- though he said all kinds of things, he was firmly on all sides of every issue, sorta like Newt Gingrich today.

The point is, without Douglas duplicity, Aitchison and Davis could not have started their killing sprees. They could not have passed Kansas Nebraska, they could not have used military at first to stop free speech in KS, then hired the Texas killers Atchison is talking about. 

Douglas knew all that, was part of all that.  


"Douglas, Davis, and Atchison worked together on Kansas. 

 The fourth son of a bitch, was Roger Taney. "


Why get Texas men?  You nor your history teacher even knew Atchison had killers in Kansas, so you could not know where he got them.

He got them from Texas.
Why?  Why get the killers from Texas?

Because almost no one local would kill to spread slavery.  There were not even enough men to do the killing in Missouri, right next door.

There were few citizens in Kansas who cared much about spreading slavery at all, much less to kill to spread slavery.

Gov Perry, from Florida, would make it very clear -- officially clear.  The SPREAD of slavery was the issue, not keeping slavery where it was.   That was not a worry to the South.

But not being able to spread slavery -- he specifically and formally announced -- was "like burning us to death slowly"

That may surprise you now -- but it surprised no one then, this was common knowledge.  


Slave owners and southern leaders sometimes gave bullshit speeches about "state's rights" -- yes.    That sounded better.  They were not about to say "We get more power, prestige, wealth, and slave women, if we spread slavery".   


The NORTH didn't start fighting back, till 1861, because frankly, most people in the North didn't give a shit about slaves,  and were not about to stand up the hot headed violent slave power folks. 

Jeff Davis wisely tried to avoid overtly attacking the US -  he would have prefered to bluff his way through, and almost did.  Bluffing and show of violence worked before.

   Davis even claimed no blood would be spilled below the Mason Dixon line -- he had already planned a military coup of Washington DC, if Lincoln showed up, but that was thwarted by General Scott, who suspected as much. 

 Even Lincoln tried to pacify Southern war ultimatums. He did not reject it out of hand. He refused to meet Alexander Stephens, who carried the ultimatums with him.  New York papers suggested Lincoln obey the Southern Ultimatums -- meaning, let South force slavery into Kansas, even after Kansas was in the United States as a free state.

  But the South was stupid -- Lincoln could not possibly do that, if he wanted.  The South, in its bravado and competition among the men to be more macho, had demanded something Lincoln could  not allow -- because Kansas was now officially a state.  It was a stupid move to demand the spread of slavery into Kansas, after Kansas became a US state.  But thats exactly what SOuthern leaders did -- even if your "history" teacher doesn't know that. 





States rights?  As you will see, Southern leaders, including Jeff Davis, hated states rights when Kansas rejected slavery, and sent killers to KS to force slavery into Kansas, and bragged about it, then.

 Yeah, yeah, you probably heard Jeff Davis was a big "state's rights" man. Bullshit.  Not about the SPREAD of slavery, he wasn't.  Details matter.

As you will see, when it came to the SPREAD of slavery, Davis did a complete 180 degree turn, and made up bullshit nonsense to explain why state's rights and popular sovereignty didn't apply to slavery.

 The excuse he used to force the spread of slavery was ---- Dred Scott decision.  

Yet Dred Scott decision came after -- after -- after -- the killing sprees. Davis rushed to get the Dred Scott decision in place, but that took two years.   He and Atchison were paying the Texas men to kill, that whole time.  And they promised to get 5000 more men, on top of the 1700, and just "kill them all" as Atchison said.

Not just Kansas, but the rest of the western US, if  possible. California had rejected slavery too, just like Kansas did.  




In fact, of all the amazing things in Atchison's speech, two things stand out. 1) He called it a war the "entire South" wanted, to spread slavery,.

And 2) He bragged he killed not just to spread slavery, but to silence opposition to slavery.

You didn't know that either.
  I know PhDs who claim they are "historians" who had no idea that Dred Scott decision specifically declared blacks are not persons, and that the same sentence ordered the federal government protect slavery, based on that logic of blacks being non - persons.

Yet Lincoln shouted out the injustice and horror of this decision -- because it said blacks were NOT PERSONS.  



Remember, Atchison hired 1700 men, bragged about the killings, worked for Jeff Davis, all these guys were paid.

But read how WC Davis put it, in one of his boooshit books. 

The way WC plays it -- "Atchison supported pro-slavery group" .  

Atchison is killing them, brags about it before hand, brags about it later, and to WC Davis, he explains "it quickly got out of hand".

Who did what? Who killed who, and why?  Like all Southern apologist, WC Davis is not going to tell you who killed who, and why.


What's the Secretary of War doing sending men to Kill in Kansas?

Notice, no biographer of Jeff Davis -- not one -- even mention his role in sending Atchison to Kansas, much less the killing sprees with 1700 men, nor Atchison  bragging about it. I've looked through a dozen biographies of Davis - they just avoid that topic or mischaracterize it.

 Gee, I wonder why?



Lying bastard, stupid, or hiding?



To hear guys like Kenneth Davis tell it, Jeff  Davis just cared soooo much for state's rights.

There are over 300 books about Davis,  over 100 biographies.   One Davis "expert" is Kenneth Davis, author of "Don't know much about  history" Kenneth Davis, in his narrative of what caused the Civil War, blames those bad old "extremist"  and make you think those damn Kansas radicals "would not compromise". 

He never --ever (nor do any other Jeff Davis apologist) even mention the army Davis paid for to kill and terrorize in Kansas. Not one word!

Do you think Kenneth Davis doesn't know about Atchison, and how Davis named him General of Law and Order?   Think guys like K Davis has no clue Atchison and Stephen A Douglas got the Kansas Nebraska Bill passed, then Atchison went to Kansas, worked for Davis, and started these killing sprees?

  You may not know what Charles Sumner said in his famous "Crimes Against Kansas" Speech - but Davis, and every other "Davis expert" does.

And he didnt even have the balls to include the word "slavery" in is Orwellian double tax "EXPANSIONISM WAS AN ISSUE".

We arent picking on K Davis  --all Davis apologist  do basically the same thing. Of COURSE they know Davis demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, Davis was proud of it!  Davis  wrote about his demands to spread slavery in his own book. Do you think they did not read Jeff Davis own book?

Atchison and Stephen A Douglas got the "Kansas -Nebraska" bill passed in the US Senate, then Atchison rushed to Kansas to kill people who voted against, or spoke against, slavery.  This is a fundamental course of action -- not an event. 


Gentlemen, Officers & Soldiers! - (Yells) This is the most glorious day of my life! This is the day I am a border ruffian! (Yells.) The U.S. Marshall has just given you his orders and has kindly invited me to address you. For this invitation, coming from no less than U.S. authority, I thank him most sincerely, and now allow me, in true border-ruffian style, to extend to you the right hand of fellowship. (Cheers.) Men of the South, I greet you as border-ruffian brothers. (Repeated yells & waving of hats.) Though I have seen more years than most of you, I am yet young in the same glorious cause that has made you leave your homes in the South. Boys I am one of your number today (Yells.) and today you have a glorious duty to perform, today you will earn laurels that will ever show you to have been true sons of the noble South! (Cheers.) You have endured many hardships, have suffered many privations on your trips, but for this you will be more than compensated by the work laid out by the Marshal, - and what you know is to be done as the programme of the day. Now Boys, let your work be well done! (Cheers.) Faint not as you approach the city of Lawrence, but remembering your mission act with true Southern heroism, & at the word, Spring like your bloodhounds at home upon that d--d accursed abolition hole; break through every thing that may oppose your never flinching courage! - (Yells.) Yess, ruffians, draw your revolvers & bowie knives, & cool them in the heart's blood of all those d--d dogs, that dare defend that d--d breathing hole of hell. (Yells.) Tear down their boasted Free State Hotel, and if those Hellish lying free-soilers have left no port holes in it, with your unerring cannon make some, Yes, riddle it till it shall fall to the ground. Throw into

[Page 2]
the Kanzas their printing presses; let's see if any more free speeches will be issued from them! Boys, do the Marshall's full bidding!

 Do the sheriff's entire command! - (Yells.) for today Mr. Jones is not only Sheriff, but deputy Marshall, so that whatever he commands will be right, and under the authority of the administration of the U.S.! 

Aand for it you will be amply paid as U.S. troops, besides having an opportunity of benefiting your wardrobes from the private dwellings of those infernal nigger-stealers. (Cheers.) 

Courage for a few hours; the victory is ours, falter and all is lost! 

 Are you determined? Will every one of you swear to bathe your steel in the black blood of some of those black sons of ---- (cries, yells of yes, yes.) 

Yes, I know you will, the South has always proved itself ready for honorable fight; you, who are noble sons of noble sires, I know you will never fail, but will burn, sack and destroy, until every vestige of these Norther Abolitionists is wiped out.

 Men of the South and Missouri, I am Proud of this day! I have received office and honor before; - I have occupied the vice-presidents place in the greatest republic the light of God's sun ever shone upon; - but, ruffian brothers, (yells.) that glory, that honor was nothing, it was an Empty bsubble, compared with the solid grandeur and magnificent glory of this momentous occasion!

 Here, on this beautiful prairie-bluff, with naught but the canopy of heaven for my covering, with my splendid Arabian charger for my seat, to whose well tried fleetness I may yet have to depend for my life, unless this days work shall annihilate from our western world these hellish Emigrant Aid paupers, whose bellies are filled with beggars food, & whose houses are stored with "Beecher's Rifles (Bibbs!) (Yells prolonged.)

 I say, here, with the cool breeze of the morning blowing fresh around my head, with the U.S. Marshall at my left, - completely surrounded by my younger brothers, (terrible enthusiasm.) each supporting a U.S. rifle, and on the manly countenance of each, plainly seen, his high and fixed determination to carry our to the letter the loft and glorious resolves that have brought him here

[Page 3]

- the resolves of the entire South, and of the present Administration, that is, to carry the war into the heart of the country, (cheers.) never to slacken or stop until every spark of free-state, free-speech, free-niggers, or free in any shape is quenched out of Kansaz!

 (Long shouting and cheering.) And what is also pleasing beyond my powers of description, is the fact that, having above me, - as I speak the honest sentiments of my heart and the sentiments of the administration and  the blessed pro-slavery party throughout this great nation, - is the only flag we recognize, and the only one under whose folds we will march into Lawrence, the only one under which these d--d Abolishionist prisoners were arrested - who are now outside yonder tent endeavoring to hear me, which I care not a d--n if they do! (Cheers.) 

Yes, these G--d d--d sons of d--d puritan stock will learn their fate, and they may go home and tell their cowardly friends what I say! - I care not for them! - I defy & d--n them all to H--l. (roars & yells.) 

Yes, that large red flag denotes our purpose to press the matter even to blood, - the large lone white star in the centre denotes the purity of our purpose, & the words "Southern Rights" above it clearly indicate the righteousness of our principles.

I say under all these circumstances I am now enjoying the proudest moments of my life, - but I will detain you no longer. (Cries of go on, go on.) No boys! - I cannotstay your spirit of patriotism, I cannot even stay my own; - our precious time is wasting. - No hasten to work, - follow your worthy and immediate leader, Col. Stringfellow! (Yells.) he will lead you on to a glorious victory, & I will be threre to support all your acts & assist as best I may in all your acts, assist completing the overthrow of that hellish party, & in crushing out the last sign of d--d abolitionism in the territory of Kanzas. - (Three times Yells for Atchison.)


That's not surprising, other Southern documents, including official documents,  pointed out that slavery was "of God" and condemned the North for "radical religious error". 

Remember this, when your "history" teachers tries to paint Kansas settlers as the problem, as if there were a lot of pro slavery farmers in Kansas,  and those mean old abolitionist caused problems.

There was so little local support for slavery, that Atchison and Davis had to hire men from Texas, mostly, to do the killing.

And there were almost no slaves in Kansas, and even fewer slave owners, in Kansas.   The killers were imported, and paid.  Remember that. 

You didn't know that either. Shame on US text books for not making these most basic facts known, instead repeating the false narrative that "anti slavery zealots" just "would not compromise".

Shelby Foote, in his usual disingenious old grampa schtick, acted like it was just a "shame" America didn't "compromise"  because "compromise was our genius, but we didn't do that"  with Kansas.

  There was no compromise with Atchison, he was not about compromise, he was about conquest.

"For the South and the present administration, we take the war into the center of the country"   

 Keep in mind, this was five years BEFORE the Civil War.   
It seems unreal, right, no way. NO WAY.  You would have heard of this, right?

Well you should have. The speech itself wasn't known then, but the killings and terror he caused were known, well known. 

In fact, you probably didn't know anyone killed to spread slavery, much less that a US Senator did,  and that he bragged about it.

The US Senator worked for Jefferson Davis -- officially -  as "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.

Your history text book probably left that out too.  Nor have heard Jefferson Davis claimed killing to spread slavery was justified, because the US Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not human beings, but property.

Not only were blacks not human beings - they could not be "acknowledged" as persons.   See this from Jefferson Davis own book

From Jeff Davis Book
"Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government"
page 84

Jefferson Davis claims blacks are "so inferior" they are not human beings, and can not be considered persons, by order of the Supreme Court. 

According to Atchison,  bragging about it, he started the Civil War in 1856.

 Kansas Nebraska Act is taught as if Atchison and Douglas meant well,  that  he and others were "trying to bring peace" to Kansas. 

Yet the same Historical Society archives show quite the opposite.  Here is what they claim Kansas Act was -- 

"The Kansas-Nebraska Act set in motion a plan that was supposed to decide the Kansas question through a peaceful, democratic process.""

Jefferson Davis insisted it did not matter what the people of Kansas wanted - Dred Scott had rendered that moot, by finding blacks were not human beings, not persons, for purpose of the law


Atchison called it WAR.



Bullshit sounds smart -- and historians love to sound smart.   As the book "On Bullshit"  by  Frankfurt  essentially said, people love to sound smart by spewing bullshit.  That's what they really care about when writing a book, or whatever, they want to sound smart.  The desire to sound smart is more important -- yes it is - that the desire to get history right.  

History is no exception to that rule, and historians are just as guilty of it, as anyone, if not more so.   Bullshit increases in direct proportion the opportunity to use it, to impress others.  


Lincoln's letter about Kansas, to Joshua Speed, 1855

I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say if you were President, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections (ed Atchison);

 still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave state, she must be admitted, or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a slave State unfairly -- that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? 

Must she still be admitted, or the Union be dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. 

In your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would differ about the Nebraska-law. I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as violence from the beginning. 

It was conceived in violence, passed in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence.

 It was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members in violence of the known will of their constituents

. It is maintained in violence because the elections since, clearly demand it's repeal, and this demand is openly disregarded.

 You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing that law; and I say the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents.

 It is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first; else why does no Nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation?

 Poor Reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that any thing like fairness was ever intended; and he has been bravely undeceived.

That Kansas will form a Slave Constitution, and, with it, will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take to be an already settled question; and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn.

 By every principle of law, ever held by any court, North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet, in utter disregard of this -- in the spirit of violence merely -- that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang men who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights.

 This is the substance, and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners for their fate.

In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, so long as Kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a Slave-state, I shall oppose it.

 I am very loth, in any case, to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired, or located, in good faith; but I do not admit that good faith, in taking a negro to Kansas, to be held in slavery, is a possibility with any man

. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property, has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of this whole Nebraska business. 

But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company; but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not, on that account, attempt to dissolve the Union. 

On the contrary, if we succeed, there will be enough of us to take care of the Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten

. Standing as a unit among yourselves, you can, directly, and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day -- as you could on an open proposition to establish monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North, whose position and ability is such, that he can make the support of your measure -- whatever it may be -- a democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. 

Appropos [sic] of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in January. In February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats.

 These latter held a caucus, in which the Nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. In a day of two Dougla's [sic] orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!! 

The truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. The masses too, democratic as well as whig, were even, nearer unanamous [sic] against it; but as soon as the party necessity of supporting it, became apparent, the way the democracy began to see the wisdom and justice of it, was perfectly astonishing.

You say if Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a Christian you will rather rejoice at it. All decent slaveholders talk that way; and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way.

 Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly.

 No such man could be elected from any district in a slave-state. You think Stringfellow & (Atchison) amp; Co. ought to be hung; and yet, at the next presidential election you will vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. 

The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes.

 You inquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point -- I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that.

 I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery.
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people?

 Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." 

When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

Mary will probably pass a day to two in Louisville in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this letter, I have more of her sympathy that I have of yours. And yet let me say I am