Wednesday, June 18, 2014

US Senator brags about killing to spread slavery. Then kills to spread slavery. His speech should be in every US text book.





Meet David Rich Atchison -  US Senator, the man who got Kansas Nebraska Bill passed, then immediately went to Kansas to kill and terrorize to spread slavery -- against states rights.




No one ever told you this, did they?


 Kansas voters again, and again voted against slavery -- once by 98% of the vote, they rejected slavery. 

But first -- Atchison went to Kansas, hired Missouri men, then Texas men, to kill (that's the right word) to spread slavery. 




This was well known then -- US Senator Charles Sumner was beaten almost to death on Senate floor, moments after talking about Atchison and his activities in Kansas. 

It's just not taught now.  Southern school boards refuse to allow books that even mention this stuff, to be in their "schools". 


Lincoln got in politics because of what Atchison did.

John Brown went to Kansas because of what Atchison did.   

So those idiots who claim Lincoln started the Civil war - idiot, please.  Southern leaders were calling it a war, and killing, and bragging of it, before Lincoln even ran for office.

Lincoln got back in politics cause of these bastards and what was going on in Kansas.  So if your teacher tells you Lincoln started a war -- bullshit. Lincoln ended the war. 

Before North started fighting back in 1861, Southern leaders were already killing to spread slavery from 1854 on.

Southern idiots and apologists blame Lincoln for starting the Civil War.

This is what the speech looked like, in writing, at the time.  

Where the speech is kept  now. It's not a secret. It's just not mentioned in US text books.

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.

Atchison was Jeff Davis life-long friend, and officially his "General of Law and Order" in Kansas, when he started his killing sprees, which lasted 11 years.

Atchison claimed  the "happiest day of my life"  is the first killing spree into Lawrence Kansas.


Remember that -- this is a US Senator -- not some drunk at a bar. He worked for, got paid by, Jeff Davis as Secretary of War. 

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

Problem is, Atchison was killing for two years, before Dred Scott decision. And Jeff Davis was paying him to do it.  Jefferson Davis arranged for the Dred Scott decision after -- after - the killing sprees he paid for, did not work. 

No one disputes this is Atchison's speech -- he gave other comments  like it, bragged about coming back to kill more.  

And he was not the only one bragging about killing to spread slavery --the other leaders of the killing sprees, also working for Jeff Davis, spoke and wrote and bragged of it.   

In fact, together, the leaders of the killing spree  wrote a pamphlet, available at the same Kansas history web site.

 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. They just started with David Rice Atchison.

Your text books just gloss over such facts.  Why not show what Southern leaders bragged of, and did, at the time?

Good question. 


"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, & 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

[Page 2]

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 & yells of yes, yes.)

YesI 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 & 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 d--n 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 & 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 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, & in crushing out the last sign of dammed abolitionism in the territory of Kanzas. - (Three times Yells for Atchison.)





Before Lincoln ran for the Senate. Before he ran for President. 

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".

It did  not matter to Atchison, or Davis, if the citizens living in Kansas then wanted slavery or not.  Turns out 95% of them did  not want slavery.   

According to Atchison, the Civil War killings started in 1855.  He should know, he led the killers.  

But the North was not fighting back then.   

The untold story  is that only a few farmers out in Kansas Territory were fighting back.  At first they did not fight back, and Atchison made fun of them.

Big mistake.

The Kansas farmers took a while -- they faced armed killers, financed by Jeff Davis.  Yeah, I know no one told you about that -- but that's what happened. Davis is the guy paying Atchison and the killers.  Read the speech -- Atchison brags about that.

If not for John Brown going to Kansas and fighting back -- and giving the killers a dose of their own medicine -- Kansas would have gone as a slave state, and with it, the rest of the west.


It almost worked.

Atchison was the US Senator, with Stephen A Douglas, who got Kansas Nebraska Bill passed.   Then Atchison raced to Kansas to force slavery into Kansas.

But 96-98% of whites in Kansas were against slavery - as votes would show.     

Atchison clearly thought violence and threats would work -- that's how slavery spread anyway.    And it almost worked in KS.  At first, Atchison made fun of the coward abolitionist (anyone who was not eager for spread of slavery, to Atchison, was a "damn dog abolitionist")


Atchison calls it war -- he brags this is war. His words -- war. His bragging -- to spread slavery.  FOR THE SOUTH.

Atchison speech is a "pep" speech, as you will see, urging death and violence.  It's a killer speech -- no pun intended. He just met these men, which he hired, from Texas.

FOR THE SOUTH --   As you can see, he again, and again, and again praised the Texas men for fighting to spread slavery for the SOUTH.

  Remember that.  

Atchison was Jeff Davis life long friend.

Davis appointed Atchison as "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.

Davis paid Atchison,  from his position of Secretary of War. Davis also paid the Texas  men.

Sounds bizarre, right?  

Bragging about killing to stop people from speaking against slavery? No way, right?

Actually every slave state had laws against speaking or writing against slavery, and even preachers could be, and were, whipped for owning the wrong book.  Not only could you not speak or preach against slavery, you could not own a book that questioned slavery.

People just don't understand that today.  It's not taught.   

Atchison claimed laws that he made up, made it a crime to speak or write against slavery.  In a perverse way, everything he did, including killing and terrorizing, were based on the laws he announced. Jefferson Davis said Atchison's actions were constitutionally required.

But no one was surprised at the time -- and the Kansas killings were common knowledge.   

Another US Senator was beaten almost to death on the Senate floor for his speech exposing Atchison.   Senator Charles Sumner.  You may have heard he was beaten almost to death on Senate floor-- but no one told you what he said in his speech, did they?

Sumner spoke about Atchison, he spoke about the violence, killings, and oppression of free speech there in Kansas.  And the day after his speech, Atchison led the first killing spree.   The violence Sumner revealed was bad enough, but it quickly grew much, much worse.

So why not teach it?  Good question.  It was big news then. 

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 was almost no one in Kansas who cared much about spreading slavery at all, much less to kill to spread slavery.

But pay destitute Texas men -- they would, and did, come for the money.  Not ideology  -- MONEY. They would have killed to stop slavery, if someone paid them to do that. 

Remember that - virtually everything Atchison did, all the killings, the terrorizing, the tortures (yes, he had people tortured)  was done by men who got paid for it.  There was very little organic -- local -- support for slavery, and none for killing to spread slavery.


Who kills who, and why, is real history. 

Historians love to sound smart, insightful,  and to do that, they lay on all kinds of bullshit.

But real history -- especially about slavery -- boils down to, who killed who, and why.

If you don't even get that right, you can't get anything else right, no matter what your bullshit says.    

Atchison tells us what he was doing, and why, and who paid him.    And it was not just this speech -- Atchison and his friends, actually published pamphlets, and gave other speeches, that backed up this speech.

Atchison was very clear -- their job was to kill and terrorize.  See his speech.

Immediately after this speech, he and his men invaded Kansas, and attacked citizens in Lawrence Kansas.  This would be the first of three killing sprees into Lawrence, the last time, burning the city to the ground.

A US Senator. He did not admit it -- he bragged of it.  Remember that, he BOASTED out the ass about it. 

Atchison failed -- in the end.  He did  not have enough men from Texas.  He had no local "free" support.  Apparently, all of his killers were hired.

 He promised to get 5000 more men, and just "kill them all" next time.  But he could not find 5000 men, until the US Civil War. And by then, guess what?  The Union was fighting back. It was  not 1700 paid killers, against some farmers in Kansas Territories.

(Atchison, like all cowards, hated a fair fight. He actually deserted during the Civil War, went back to Texas, and didn't show  himself until after the Civil War.)

People in Lawrence kept on speaking and writing against slavery, though Confederates would burn the city down later, because of it.

Bet you didn't know that either.    



Atchison worked -- officially and with great joy -- for Jefferson Davis. 

Davis had a passion -- from 1850, till he died, to spread slavery into Kansas.  Even after Kansas became a free state, admitted to Union, Davis demanded, as a war ultimatum, that Kansas "accept and respect" slavery.

Davis paid Atchison.  Remember that.

Davis paid Atchison's men, the killers from Texas Atchison speaks to. Remember that too.  When he gave this speech, he was Davis employee, life long friend.   Later Davis justified Atchison's actions as "constitutionally required".

This was not a drunk at a bar, this was a guy who passed the Kansas Nebraska bill. This guy was the official "General of Law and Order" in Kansas, a job Jefferson Davis gave him.

Now -- why the %$^# are we not told about this in our history books?  Well, we are, in a completely watered down way, watered down so not to offend Southern school systems. 


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.


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

    Local artist draws the third killing spree into Lawrence.


These folks survived Atchison killing sprees, picture taken 1890

Atchison Promised to "kill ever damn  abolitionist dog" 
if he found them.
These folks got away, and lived to tell about it.
Too bad 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.

This may sound odd, or be new information to you.  Killings to spread slavery, and the role of Jeff Davis in paying for violence, was well known.   Shame on our school system, and "historians" for glossing over the vile actions of Southern heroes, Jeff Davis and Robert E Lee, particularly.  

Senator Atchison got the Kansas Nebraska bill passed, under the pretense of  "letting the people decide" slavery.  Till then, slavery was off limits there, and in the West, due to Missouri Compromise.

But white people in Kansas did not want slavery - in fact, they voted against in by votes of 95%.

You'd think Atchison and the Southern leaders -- they loved "states right's they said -- would respect Kansas citizens votes and overwhelming rejection of slavery.

Not so much. 

 Atchison gets Kansas bill passed,  then mediately, before the Senate session is through, rushes off to Kansas to begin his killing and terrorizing.

   Atchison first hires about 50 men from Missouri, to invade Kansas and take over an election, where he creates his own "legislature" .   Atchison and his men pass  laws to stop anyone from even speaking against slavery and he brags about that too.

 This is important -- Atchison made it a crime -- punishable by whipping, and death to resist, to speak or write against slavery.   

This might sound bizarre to you -- but it was well known then, as you will see.   Another US Senator (Sumner) was beaten almost to death on Senate floor, for his speech about Atchison, and what was going on, in Kansas. 

 The white citizens of Kansas  were farmers, and could not fight back initially.  Some ran away, left Kansas,  but many kept speaking against slavery.

  Atchison and Davis essentially tried to "bluff" the Kansas farmers by a show of force.  It didn't work.   The Missouri men were not It took Atchison about a year, but  hired more men -- over 1000 more, eventually, most of  them from Texas. 

Jeff Davis -- his life long friend -- appointed Atchison officially as "General of Law and Order" in Kansas, to enforce the draconian laws Atchison himself had passed.   Remember that when you read his speech.


The only reason any of this sounds odd to you -- is that Southern edited text books have never allowed publishers in their states to include anything that made their heroes look like the  violent killers and terrorists they were.

This is as basic as it gets, for leading up to the Civil War. Southern leaders killing, and bragging of it, to spread slavery.   

As you will see, Southern leaders hated state's rights, when that got in the way of spreading slavery.    

But even more -- Atchison brags -- BRAGS -- of killing to stop people from even speaking against slavery.  

Killing, torturing  to stop speech against slavery?  You didn't know that?  It was actually common, and shame on US text books for not telling us about it. 

And this US Senator bragged out the ass about it. Remember that. 

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. 

Instead, Texas and other Southern states told their children bullshit - like  state's rights.

  Killing to silence opposition to slavery? Not one word.   Killing to spread slavery against votes of 95 and 98% against slavery  -- not a word.   

  Have you ever -- and I mean EVER -- heard one word, about every slave state's violent oppression of free speech?  They even controlled what preachers could preach.  Preachers could be, and were, whipped for just owning the wrong book.

Did your history teacher tell you? Hell no. He or she never heard of that.   But that was common knowledge at the time.

Atchison's speech is important, because he brags out the ass about things Southern apologists dare not whisper about, even if they know.

And they won't get this from history class. No where, even in the North, do US text books (almost all published in the South) tell you.   

So you still think Southern leaders gave a rat's ass about states rights?  Killing to force slavery  into a state that rejected slavery - does that sound like states rights to you?

Orwell much?

Sending killers, paying killers, to force slavery  west and  silence opposition to slavery?

The only way anyone can say Davis, or any Southern leader, gave a rat's ass about state's rights is to not know what they did and bragged about -- to kill not only to spread slavery, but to silence opposition to slavery.

See the speech by US Senator, and Jeff Davis official "General of Law and Order" brag about killing and starting the war, in 1855.


Texas killers?.... Promise to kill?...... We kill for the South (seven times)....Ride under foreign flag?

Most  of the men just arrived from Texas, as you can tell in his speech.  And they were all paid, and paid well, he told them.  
The first raid was into Lawrence, one of three separate raids into that city, over the next years, the last raid burning it to the ground.

Between raids, en masse, the Texas men were busy being bullies. But when led by their boss-- first boss was Atchison -- they rode together, and did exactly as they were paid to do. 


Atchison didn't admit he killed to spread slavery, and killed to silence anyone against slavery -- he bragged about it.



The amazing thing about this speech -- He bragged about who he killed, why he killed. That's direct, honest speech, not Orwellian bullshit about state's rights, when actually you hated and killed to stop states rights.

Yes -- Atchison could give speeches about GOD and state's rights.  But that was to suckers -- this speech was to his hired men, as you can tell if you read the speech.

Atchison did not mince words or speak in Orwellian double talk, here, like Davis, his boss and childhood friend,  was so skilled at doing.

 Official, paid Southern killing sprees did start, as Senator Atchison bragged of,  in 1855.  

This was no surprise - slavery was always a violent enterprise, and the men pushing it, were violent.  

Nor were Davis and Atchison the only ones demanded the spread of slavery.   They were killing to spread slavery, but others were demanding the spread of slavery, too.

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".   

In reality, they worked against anything that stopped the spread of slavery, which to them meant wealth and power -- not to mention the ability to take slave girls and do with them what they wanted, a basic truth that never gets mentioned. 

States rights was the perfect claim -- when actually they hated states rights if and when it stopped the spread of 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.

Remember that, if your stupid teacher tells you Davis was a state's rights man, or just was following the constitution. Davis hated states rights.  You can find him saying he was for state's rights -- but not for slavery, he wasn't.

Nonsense, Davis big hard on in life, was the spread of slavery.  That's what the facts show. No one else comes close to pushing slavery west -- by killing and terror if need be -- than Jeff Davis.

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.




The killing sprees -- and Atchison's bragging about killing -- was extremely well known then.    Charles Sumner spoke about Atchison and the killings in Kansas (which grew much worse later) and was beaten on the floor of the United States Senate, for it.

   Every Southern (slave) state had laws against speaking or writing against slavery -- so this was not unusual to Southern leaders. 

  That's a fundamental and profound fact -- making it a crime to speak or write against slavery. How did speech against slavery become a crime in Kansas?

 Before Atchison hired the Texas men, he hired Missouri men -- by all accounts thugs  These men made a mockery of an election, daring anyone to stop them from voting, repeatedly, dozens of times a day, in Kansas, though they were not citizens of Kansas.

When Atchison succeeded in in perverting the election, he set up  his own "legislature" forever since called "bogus legislature", that made it a crime to speak or write against slavery.

So it really was, literally, a crime to speak or write against slavery. Even this basic fact -- so well known then -- seems to escape some "historians" today. 

And Atchison is very proud of that, in his speech.  

You really need to read his speech four or five times.  It won't seem real.  No one teaches this, because our text books omit it, or give a very watered down, even Orwellian distortion about it.  


Many things we find in original documents, see outlandish, almost unbelievable now, like the killing to stop speech against slavery.

Violence against those who spoke against slavery was common -- let me repeat that,  because no one every told you.   Violence against those who spoke against slavery was common -- it was illegal, yes  illegal, in Kansas (per Atchison's orders) for people to even speak against slavery.

Likewise, it was a crime in all slave states to speak openly or write openly against slavery.  

So when Atchison claimed it was illegal for KS folks to speak against slavery, NO ONE was surprised. You are surprised, because that part of our history has been white washed.  Even preachers could be, and were, arrested for things like owning the wrong book, that questioned slavery.

US Senator Charles Sumner was beaten almost to death on the Senate floor, for speaking about Atchison and the "Crimes Against Kansas"

Do you get the irony of beating Senator Sumner almost to death, on Senate floor?  He was beaten because he spoke clearly and powerfully exposing the crimes -- and the biggest crime, according to Sumner, was the violence against those who spoke against slavery.

Sumner even mentioned Atchison in his famous speech, that he was beaten for. 

So these "experts" today who seem oblivious to the killing sprees in Kansas, must not have even bothered to read Sumner's "Crimes Against Kansas Speech".   Seriously, how stupid can you get?  If you don't know what Sumner's speech was about, you have no  business writing a book, or speaking to a group, about anything leading up to the Civil War.

 The killing and violence to spread slavery was basic US  history, the South was proud of it.  Their leaders were adept at violence, and the slick religious rhetoric needed to excuse it.   Sumners beating, the killing sprees in Kansas, were well known then, but violence and killing was how Southern leaders treated slaves. Kill, terrorize, oppress.  Cover that up with lofty sounding bullshit.  

Yes -- he did.  And you will see in his speech, he brags about that too.  

This all was known then, the newspapers were full of stories about Kansas. Lincoln got back into politics because of Atchison's actions, John Brown went to Kansas because of Atchison, and Jefferson Davis sent 1700 paid killers to KS in 1856, to help Atchison.

Why didn't we hear about this in school?  Well you did -- the watered down version,  allowed by Southern school boards.   But that version  omits the paid killing sprees,  Jeff Davis and David Atchison role in the killers -- in fact,  the Southern allowed version does not even mention the killings.

Nor does the Southern allowed version admit  the fact that virtually no citizen actually living in  Kansas wanted slavery. Those who fought and killed to force slavery, came from outside Kansas, mostly Texas.  Bet you had no clue. 

Who killed who?  You aren''t told that.

Why the killers killed? You aren't told that. Your text books make it seem as if there were two groups of "extremist"  that "just could not compromise".

Bullshit.  The men killing were paid -- they were not from Kansas, not citizens of Kansas, and they were there as hired men.  There were very few, if any, citizens of Kansas willing to kill to spread slavery.  Those men were HIRED. 

Yet who killed who, and why, is basic, real history.  To not mention that, yet add a bunch of bullshit to that, is not history.

So if you aren't even taught those basic facts,  how the hell would you know what actually happened?  There is no way to know.

Lawrence Kansas let a newspaper operate, that was against slavery.   That is why  Atchison hired the men from Texas, and invaded Kansas.

And he says so -- read the speech.

Atchison does not admit it -- he BRAGS about it.

Nor was this the only such speech -- it's just more clear and emphatic about who he would kill, why he would kill them, and who paid him, and who paid the Texas men.

Don't believe me? He says as much in his speech.  The "damn dogs" who spoke against slavery.  You will learn below, how Atchison, and the entire South, passed laws against speaking against, and writing openly against, slavery.   A very basic part of US history no one told you about, either, played a huge role in this killing spree.

Atchison was not some nut in a bar.  Atchison was not some "historian" later trying to make the South look bad. This was US Senator David Rice Atchison, at the time, officially working for Jefferson Davis as "General of Law and Order" in Kansas. And he was proud as hell about the killing spree, proud as hell about killing to spread slavery, and proud as hell about violence to stop folks from speaking against slavery.

Sound like anything you learned in history class? Hell no. That's why this is so important.  

Oh it was mentioned -- but in a way Southern state's school boards didn't object too. Really. As a consequence,  most people have no idea who killed who, or why, leading up to the US Civil War.

Atchison  was not operating on his own, or with his own money. Remember that. He was, officially, the General of Law and Order in Kansas.  And he was paid, his men were paid, and the Texas men were paid, all by Jefferson Davis.

Atchison was the Senator who, with Stephen A Douglas, pass the Kansas Nebraska Act not long before he got these killing sprees going.

When Douglas and Atchison got the Kansas Act passed, both men insisted slavery would never go into Kansas -- they just wanted Kansas folks to have the right to vote on it.

Opening up Kansas for a vote -- but you can't vote against slavery. Catch 22, Atchison Style. 

Strange thing -- neither man would allow the Kansas Act to specifically say, voters could reject slavery. They kept that out -- and you will see why.

Did the "entire South" want killing and war, in Kansas or anywhere else?  No, but this is the kind of shit Atchison told the hired help (1700 men from Texas, before it was over)  in the speech as they were just about to start the first killing spree.

See his speech below -- he welcomes the Texas killers he had hired through newspaper ads, that he had never met before. He tells them what they are about to do: kill and terrorize.

He tells them WHY: to spread slavery and kill anyone who speaks or writes against slavery.

He tells them who will pay them:  Jeff Davis, as the "administration" in Washington. 

Some smug history teachers - mostly in the South -- claim Lincoln's election started the Civil War.

Well,  according to Southern leaders at the time, bragging about it, the war, the killing war, started in 1855.  Lincoln was not even involved -- he was still an attorney in Springfield. Atchison made it clear, this is a war, a WAR, and it was a violent war the South would win. 

It was ALREADY a war to Southern leaders, and they said so. 


You think if Lincoln hired killers from Texas, sent them to Kansas, five years before the Civil War, and the man you put in charge bragged out the ass about killing to spread slavery -- then killed to spread slavery -- it would get a few sentences in your history book?

Yeah -- I found it odd too.     

This IS in your history book, but in Orwellian double speak.    YOu are not told who killed who, and why.

History is this -- who killed who, and why.    Anything else is bullshit.   

The good thing about Atchison's speech -- he brags about who will kill who, and why. It's clear, he is not using double talk bullshit like we hear now about state's rights, he hated state's rights and killed to stop it.

 Why did Atchison hire 1700 men from Texas? You arent even told he was there, or what he did, so you sure as hell didn't know he hired 1700 men, most from Texas. 

Nor do you know  who paid the killers from Texas.   Atchison tells you, in his speech -- Jeff Davis paid them, as Secretary of War, the "present administration."

You are told none of that. Ever. Not in your entire life, has anyone told you that. 

It's not in any US text book.  Almost certainly, your history teacher has no clue, either.

But in this speech, US Senator brags about all that.  

Atchison should know. He was working for the Secretary of War -- Jefferson Davis, officially. Atchison was "General of Law and Order in Kansas  Territory" - a position created out of thin air, by Jeff Davis.

Why  not?  Because US text books have been published in Texas -- and have always omitted the specific vile actions of their Southern heroes. 


States rights?   Actually, at the time, Southern leaders hated states rights when Kansas rejected slavery overwhelmingly.

No one even told you that, did they?   But Davis, Atchison, and those running the show, wanted slavery into Kansas, and beyond.  All the way to, and including, California.  

In fact, Davis and Vice President of Confederacy, both bragged they would spread "the great moral truth" of slavery as ordained "of God" to rest of the (white world). 

Yes, we know California was already a free state. Kansas was a free state too, when the Civil War started, and the South demanded Kansas accept and respect slavery.    You do not know, because you have never been told,  that Southern leaders were violent, and promised more violence, to spread slavery.


Goal is to stop speech against slavery?


Atchison  was very clear -- he was killing to STOP those folks from speaking.  Yes stop speech  - against slavery.

He was not the only one, others bragged about killing to stop the "heresy" of equality.

But even five years later, after Kansas became a free state, accepted as such by Congress and President Buchanan, Southern leaders demanded, as a war ultimatum, slavery spread into Kansas.

Spreading slavery into Kansas was Jeff Davis personal obsession, it was  he who sent Atchison, he who named Atchison "General of  Law and Order in Kansas"

It was Jeff Davis who paid the Texas killers -- remember, this is long before the Civil War  -- when he was Secretary of War.   Jeff Davis and Atchison were boyhood friends.   Atchison, Davis, and Stephen A. Douglas had worked together to pass the Kansas - Nebraska Act.

David Rice Atchison clearly emphatically and specifically said the "entire" South wanted the war.   

Was he some nut at a bar?  No, he was a Senate leader, a US Senator who went to KS officially, for Jefferson Davis, as "Generla of Law and Order".

Amazing what your text books leave out of "history" of SOuthern leaders before the US Civil War.


As you will see, this speech is to his men, just arrived from Texas, and paid for by Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War.

That's right, the men were from TEXAS -- they were not US soldiers, in fact, Atchison claimed proudly he and they would not ride under the US flag -- which he hated.

They would ride -- Atchison said -- under a red flag, to denote the blood they would spill to spread slavery.

Why get Texas men?   Because Atchison could not find -- even for pay -- enough men anywhere else. There were virtually no KS men for slavery, nearly every killer Atchison used, he hired, he paid, and none of them were KS men.   

OF all the things glossed over, in US text books, about Kansas before the Civil War, the fact that Jeff Davis and David Atchison hired Texas men, to do the killing, is #1. In fact, the narrative of text books about Kansas during this time, gives the false impression there were local folks in KS who were pro slavery, and just wanted "their rights" to have slaves in KS.

There were virtually NO slave owners in KS.   In the 1860 census, a total of 2 slaves were listed for KS.   Most likely, those were the "body servants" of men who brought slaves with them, to work for Atchison.   The point is, overwhelmingly, the local whites in KS were against slavery.

These were not soldiers -- in fact, Atchison says he hates the United States, and rides under a foreign flag, though he and the men were paid by US Treasury.

Atchison tells them (see entire speech below) they were they would be "amply paid"by the "present administration." 

Oh and they can keep what they steal in the raids.  He tells them that, too. 

Who was the present administration?   Jefferson Davis was Secretary of War -- he appointed and paid Atchison, and the men.  Stephen A Douglas was Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas Territories, and Franklin Pierce was President.



While the killing sprees started in 1855, and the Texas men got there for the large killing sprees in 1856,  this did not end there.   The killings lasted up to, and through, the US Civil War, over the same issue -- spread of slavery into Kansas.

Yes, after the South lost, the cry babies acted like they were for "states rights" -- not the spread of slavery.   Bullshit, they had bragged out the ass, and by their own killings, tried to force the spread of slavery into Kansas.

In 1861 specifically, Southern leaders said Kansas must recognize and respect slavery.   Never mind that Kansas by 1861 was already a free state, in the Union!

Southern leaders didn't suggest it, didn't hope it.  The Five War Ultimatums listed proudly in Richmond papers --    and remember, Kansas is, by this time, already a free state, in the Union. It is not -- not - a territory, for those idiots who think it was okay to kill to spread slavery into a territory, because it was not a state.   They also killed to spread slavery there, when it became a state.   Try to understand that, your history teacher probably does not.

No one was surprised, therefore, when Southern headlines -- again bragging about it in 1861 --  called the "TRUE ISSUE"  the spread of slavery into Kansas.

No one said "What do you mean, your war ultimatum is for the spread of slavery into Kansas?"

No one said that, "why are you bringing that up now?"  because the spread of slavery into Kansas was already the issue, and everyone knew it. Southern leaders made it very very clear. 

Years later, writing late in life, Jeff Davis insisted that Kansas should have been a slave state.  THe resistance to slavery in Kansas was "the intolerable grievance" he wrote.

Oh -- you didn't know that, did you?   Hell yes.  GO read his own book.  

David Atchison made it clear -- it was not just Kansas territory (which was huge)  it was about slavery in the rest of the West, including all the way to the Pacific Ocean -- including California.   Yes, California was already a free state, but Kansas was a free state too, and Southern leaders demanded Kansas change to slave state, as one of their war ultimatums in 1861.

Bet your history teacher never told you that.

So when Lincoln spoke of "We will be all free (states) or all slave (states) he was not exaggerating. As you will see, the "logic" of turning Kansas into a slave state, when 95 and 98% of the voters rejected slavery, (because of Dred Scott decision)  that changed everything.  

When Jeff Davis wrote his book justifying the South's actions, and claiming the "intolerable grievance" was the resistance to the spread of slavery in KS,  you won't find him mention anywhere that KS voters already rejected slavery, overwhelmingly.    They had already been accepted by Congress and President Buchanan -- before Lincoln -- as a free state.

But Jeff Davis demanded Kansas "accept and respect" slavery anyway.   

Sound like he gave a shit about states rights?

In fact, the first guy Jeff Davis put in as governor of KS -- he just acted as if  he had the power to do so -- later turned on Davis, when it became clear, all Davis wanted was to spread slavery.  

Davis doesnt mention that in his book, either.  Funny  huh?

But why on earth do text books not mention that?  WTF? To an astonishing extent, US books and teachers have idiotically accepted much of the "Davis bullshit" narrative, and like Davis, they never mention the facts.

Davis wrote later that the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas was the intolerable grievance.  

Of the five ultimatums issued by the South in 1861, the first two were  the spread of slavery into Kansas.

So you think spreading slavery was a side issue? Here is a clue, their own leaders said it was the TRUE ISSUE. 

It was KANSAS where Davis sent Atchison.

It was KANSAS where Davis sent the 1700 men from Texas

It was KANSAS that Davis and Southern leaders demanded -- as a war ultimatum in May of 1861 -- must accept and respect slavery.

States rights?  Does that sound like states rights to you? If so, get the hell off my blog, you are too stupid to be here -- seriously.

Jefferson Davis, and his hired men, were killing to spread slavery. They weren't trying to convince folks slavery was the way to go, they weren't advocating slavery.  They were killing to spread slavery, and  they were bragging about it.

And they were doing that -- in KANSAS.

 Kansas white males voted repeatedly against slavery -- overwhelmingly.  Ninety and 95% against slavery.   How  is that state's rights?  

In fact, Atchison killed or jailed anyone  who even spoke against slavery.  Before Atchison's killing sprees, he and his thugs formed a "bogus legislature" (still called bogus to this day"  and made it a crime to speak against slavery.

That's right, let me repeat that.  Atchison and his thugs passed their own laws, that made it a crime to SPEAK against slavery.

Got that? Too complicated?  That's the kind of shit going on by SOuthern leaders.  And  have you ever heard that in your school text book? Hell no. 

Don't believe me -- read his speech. He says so, not me.

And it was not just his speech -- this was the overriding issue in Southern and Northern papers.  This is was caused the Civil War to be inevitable.

This is what got Lincoln back into politics.

This is what got Lincoln to travel to Kansas.

This is what got John Brown to go to Kansas.

This is what got David Atchison to hire 1700 men from Texas, and have them invade Kansas.

Do you understand the wheels Davis got moving, when he paid Atchison, paid the men from Texas, and had them invade Kansas?  Or not.

This should be standard information in US text books -- but you won't find it there.    You will find some watered down bullshit, acceptable to cry baby SOuthern school boards, and that's it.

That's not history.  That's bullshit. 

Once Southern leaders like Davis and Atchison killed to spread slavery, once they had their ego and status attached to that spread, they were not going to say "Oh never mind" when Lincoln was elected five years later.

Davis especially, who had based so many of his actions on spreading slavery into Kansas for years,  including sending Atchison there, including paying for the Texas men, had to keep demanding the spread of slavery into Kansas.

And he did. Over and over, before, during and after the CIvil War. 

Only when Southern leaders lost, did they changed their excuse.  They told their children and grandchildren the bullshit about "states rights".   But at the time, they were bragging out the ass it was about the spread of slavery.


After Atchison brags that he will kill to spread slavery -- guess what he did?

He killed to spread slavery

 Who killed whom? And why?  

Sound like state's rights to you?




Southern leaders never gave a rat's ass about "state's rights"  -- but it sounded good to stupid people, and still does.   Men who sell children and have slave girls whipped, and even burn to death men black men who fight back, do not care about rights, and never did.

But being humans, Southern leaders needed an excuse -- State's rights would do - until KS rejected slavery.

Sadly, US text book publishers never explained that the "state's rights excuse"  got replaced by Davis's "Dred Scott" excuse"

If your history teacher knows David Rice Atchison at all, likely he knows him for being, supposedly, technically,  President of the US for one day. 


Atchison was the guy who got the all important Kansas Nebraska Bill passed -- which according to many (including Lincoln in his House Divided Speech) was the first step in forcing slavery into Kansas and beyond.   

Atchison's friend and business partner  was Stephen A Douglas. His other best friend was Jefferson Davis.

Once Atchison got KS bill passed, he didn't even wait for the Senate secession to end, he went to KS immediately, and began forcing slavery into Kansas.   Ironic, because Atchison and Douglas had given lofty speeches about "let the local people decide their local institutions".

In fact, letting the local people decide was the last thing Atchison wanted.

Atchison gave this  powerful speech to his group of Texas killers, just before one of three killing sprees into Kansas. 

Proudest day of his life? That's what he said.

Killing to spread slavery?   That's what he said.

Hired men from Texas, to do the will of the "South"?

That's what he said.

No Orwellian double speak from Atchison.



In fact, Davis essentially repudiated "States Rights" when Kansas rejected slavery.   Davis explained the "logic" of forcing Kansas to accept slavery, by the Dred Scott decision, which Davis claimed trumped state's rights.

Thats what Jeff Davis was talking about, when he said current evens show that the majority rules.  He was making excuses for using force in Kansas, to spread slavery. 

Davis was well aware that most whites in Kansas were against slavery -- which is exactly why he sent Atchison there to force slavery into Kansas.  He didn't send Atchison there for grins. He didn't send Atchison there to convince locals to accept slavery.




Davis claimed the Dred Scott decision trumped states rights, and it didn't matter what the people in Kansas wanted.   But if you buy that bullshit -- and stupid people do to excuse Davis -- consider this. Davis came up with the Dred Scott excuse AFTER the killing sprees.

That's right, Davis killing sprees, Atchison's speech, Atchison's killing sprees, all happened BEFORE DRED SCOTT.

So if your dumb ass thinks Dred Scott was a good excuse for killing- - stick this up your ass.  Davis and Atchison were killing long before Dred Scott came out.   In fact, when Kansas kicked Atchison's ass, when Kansas fought back, that is when Southern scum came up with the "logic" of Dred Scott.

Try to grasp that. Cause that's what happened. 

Most stupid people think Davis was for states rights. Hell no, he hated states rights when Kansas rejected slavery.  But do you really think men who sold children and screamed at girls as they were whipped, gave a shit about rights?


Try to grasp this -- Southern leaders were into slavery and power. Whatever fucking excuses they could find, they found.  They didn't give a rats ass about anyone rights, including states rights.

And this was WELL KNOWN at the time, in fact US Senator Charles Sumner was beaten on the floor of the US Senate, the night before Atchison's speech, when Sumner mentioned Atchison by name.

He is paid for killing, by the "present administration."   Jefferson Davis justifies it as "Constitutionally required".

Bet you never heard of any of this.

Atchison was outspoken -- not so much on the floor of the US Senate, when he and Stephen A Douglass pushed through Kansas Nebraska Bill.    But in Kansas, he could be blunt as hell.

This was not the only time Atchison bragged of killing -- he said if this didn't work, he would get 5,000 men, come back, and kill "every damn abolitionist in the territories".

Keep in mind -- Kansas whites voted against slavery time, and time again, and Atchison knew very well most folks there were against slavery.  Don't forget that, because you are taught by stupid people that there was some kind of "disagreement"  or "problem" in Kansas, where the two groups were "unable to reach an agreement.

Orwell much? Atchison was killing to spread slavery, and killing to stop people from speaking against slavery.   Your history teacher wants to make it seem complicated -- no, it wasn't. The excuses are complicated. The bullshit people make up is complicated.  Atchison was killing for the reason he said -- to spread slavery, and spread it to California and the entire west. 

.  Kind of refreshing, because others used Orwellian double speak to justify or say much the same thing.

Not Atchison -- Im killing to spread slavery, Im working for the "present administration"    and Im here to kill anyone and everyone who speaks against slavery.

You might be surprised --Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of war, paid them.  And by the way, Jeff Davis never repudiated anything Atchison did, but rather defended it, in that slick way he had, as claiming  You might have heard that Southern leaders cared about state's rights?  Not so much. 


But Atchison was much more than a killer in Kansas.

 He and Stephen A Douglas, his good friend from Illinois, passed the famous "Kansas Nebraska" bill, which they claimed gave those nice people in Kansas the "right to vote, up or down"  on slavery.    Popular sovereignty, they cried. They didn't care "one iota" said Douglas, what the people in Kansas decided, they just wanted the "wisdom of the local people to decide".

Sounded wonderful -- right?  Douglas even said no one believed Kansas would vote for slavery, there were no slaves there, no cotton,  and the climate and soil were not what slave owners wanted.   They just did it (opened up slavery for a vote)  for the "principle"  of local control, or popular sovereignty.



 Blacks are not persons -- per Jeff Davis.

Oh you didn't know about Davis "logic" that Kansas voters had no right to keep slavery out?  

It did not matter what Kansas voters wanted, or not, said Davis.  Blacks were "not persons" and indeed, they were officially "property"  per the Dred Scott decision.   

As property, Davis claimed, slavery had to be protected.  Kansas "must accept and respect" slavery -- Davis said in 1856, in 1861, and in 1870.  Davis never wavered in that. 

Look at this -- his own book.  

But Jefferson Davis didn't go along with popular soverienty, for Kansas.   Davis claimed that made all the difference.

It was Jeff Davis than named Atchison "General of Law and Order".  It was also Jeff Davis who financed the men from Texas - and sent them to Kansas for the expressed purpose of pushing slavery in to Kansas, well aware most people in Kansas did not want slavery.

Douglas backed Atchison in Kansas, by the way, claiming idiotically his good friend "was the kindest man I ever met -- and the most patriotic".    Keep in mind, Atchison says in his speech, he hates the US flag, and rides under a red flag, red for the blood he would spill to spread slavery.  




Difference between an excuse -- vs -- reason.

This may be over the head of most "history teachers"  but there is a difference between what lying bastards claim to be the reason, in public(we just love popular sovereignty, Atchison, Douglas and Davis said earlier) and what the same lying bastards boast about, in private.(kill to stop popular sovereignty, is what they did after Atchison went to Kansas) 


This depicts the last of three killing sprees into Lawrence -- Atchison led and paid for the first

Atchison's goal, and he tells his men in bombast terms what his goal is, is to spread slavery, and silence opposition to it, by force.     Does that sound like he was for "state's rights".  

Atchison was "General of Law and Order" in Kansas, during these killings. He used men, mostly from Texas, to do the killings.   He and his men were paid by the Secretary of War.

Stephen A Douglas was Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas Territory, a very powerful position, where he controlled what the Congress of the US even considered regarding Kansas.   

Douglas prevented -- deliberately -- documents to accept Kansas into the USA as a free state, that the people in Kansas voted for, while his friend Atchison was killing folks in Kansas.

Only when Douglas lost his Chairmanship, and could no longer stop Congress from acting on statehood for Kansas as a free state, did Kansas come into the US, as a free state, just before Lincoln took office.  

 Bet your history teacher has no clue about that, either.


Actually, Atchison's speech should be read aloud to every history class in the USA, as well as Jefferson's Davis demands to spread slavery in Kansas, even after Kansas fought and voted 95% against slavery.

You thought it was about state's rights, didn't ya?  Your history teachers told you that, didn't they?

   No -- Southern leader hated states rights, when Kansas tried to keep slavery out. 

Southern leader US Senator David Rice Atchison  said the most joyous day of his life, was when he could kill to spread slavery.

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

No one disputes this is Davis Rice Atchison's speech, nor that he did exactly what he was bragged about -- kill to spread slavery.  And kill for the SOUTH, with the approval of, direction of "the present administration".

 Nor does anyone dispute he worked for Jefferson Davis. 


Usually, Southern leaders were more clever in speaking than Atchison, more Orwellian.  

But as the violence grew -- and to certain audiences -- Atchison was candid, even proud, of the killings.

As you can see here, Atchison could be stunningly candid and proud when speaking to his  hired killers. As Civil War grew closer, others in the South got more candid, like Alexander Stephens in Cornerstone speech.


Some of the "DAMN DOGS"   Atchison wanted killed, got away -- here is a picture of the surviving dogs, in 1890.

IN 1890

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

Jefferson Davis paid for the killers --and later justified his efforts to spread slavery into Kansas, though in repeated votes, 95%+ of white males voted against slavery in Kansas.

Bet you didn't know that either.   

It would take a while for Kansas white males to get guns, and fight back.   But they did -- certain men left Atchison, like the early governor of KS, named by Jeff Davis, when he saw the killings were about one thing -- to spread slavery by force, into Kansas, the people of which were clearly and overwhelmingly anti slavery.

  Southern leaders wanted Kansas as a slave state -- and the rest of the West -- as slave states, all the way to California.


Push had come to shove -- and the Taney Court had to "settle the dispute" so no amount of votes in Kansas could keep slavery out.

WHen it was clear Kansas voters were against slavery -- by repeated votes -- that changed everything.

How to pretend you were for popular sovereignty, but then ignore the overwhelming votes against slavery?

The South's solutions - - Dred Scott decision.

 The Dred Scott decision ordered-- yes ordered-- the federal government to "protect it" -- protect slavery.   This is from the Dred Scott decision. Shame on every "history" teacher you ever had, that did not tell you. 

Blacks not persons -- blacks are property. See for yourself.  Go on, see.  This is from the order -- not the "dicta" . This language is in the COURT ORDER.

Bet you didn't know that.


  Bet your history teacher never told you the US Supreme Court -- literally  pledged the US government to protect slavery -- never mind that 98% of people in Kansas opposed slavery..

The Taney court PLEDGED the government to protect slavery in Kansas.  And found -- completely out of thin air -- that the Constitution recognizes slaves as not persons, but property.

Did you know that? Hell no you didn't.

But this is exactly how Jefferson Davis explained it, himself.

BLACK S so inferior they were not persons, but property.


 The Dred Scott decision -- claiming blacks were not persons -- was not the law of the land when Davis and Atchison were killing in Kansas. Only when Davis and Atchison failed to get Kansas in as a slave state, did the Southerners on SCOTUS go to work.

It was two years  AFTER Davis and Atchison got the killings in Kansas going.   Dred Scott came out March 1857,  Atchison and Davis were killing from 1855 on.

Only when Atchison and Davis failed to get slavery into Kansas, did Davis and his friend Roger Taney then use the Dred Scott decision to do by fraud and vile use of the courts, what they could NOT do by killing.   Remember that, cause your history teacher sure as hell does not know.

REPEAT     Dred Scott decision "pledged,"  aka ordered,  the federal government to "protect" slavery, even though in Kansas 98% of the people there were against slavery.

Here it is again.  This is from the actual decision.  Remember that. 

Seriously, blacks are NOT PERSONS?  

Officially, by decree -- right, blacks are NOT PERSONS.   By direct statement, finding, order -- of the United States Supreme Court  --- blacks are NOT PERSONS BUT ARE PROPERTY.

This is what Davis "boasted" of, in sense he used it to justify spread of slavery, even when KS voters rejected slavery.  

This is what Lincoln decried, when he said Dred Scott decision was part of the "machinery" to spread slavery nationally -- especially west.   

And you never heard that -- did you?    Hell no.Don't feel bad,    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.  

Davis boasted blacks were not persons -- he used that in his own book to justify pushing slavery into Kansas.  David didn't whisper this to a duck, he fucking wrote this down and that was his excuse.

So why -- please tell me why -- the fuck we are not taught this in history class?

The US Surpreme Court declares blacks NOT PERSONS, and orders the fed gov to protect slavery, even in the territories where 98% of the people where against slavery -- and why the fuck is this like trivia?

Why do more people know the name of Robert E Lee's fucking chicken, than know this?

We are NOT taught the ugly truths about Southern leaders-- not about Davis, not about Roger Taney, not about David Atchison.  

Is your history teachers stupid?  No -- but history teachers are paid to repeat narratives -- they are not paid to think or look at original sources.   This whitewashing of US history is an affront to the people who died as a result of he killing to spread slavery.  Some of what we learn is not history at all, but based the myths Southern school boards don't object to.

It goes beyond Southern School boards, however.  Mainstream historians, like supposed Lincoln expert Eric Foner - idiotically -- says Dred Scott was a "rather narrow ruling" about citizenship.  Fucking idiot.  Really, he is a fucking idiot. 

Narrow ruling?   A ruling that ordered the federal government to see blacks as not humans?  The ruling said nine different ways blacks are so inferior they are property, and then ORDERED the government to protect slavery, despite overwhelming votes and pubic rejection of slavery. How the hell is that a narrow ruling?   

That's narrow?  Either Foner is an idiot, a liar, or he never read the decision -- which is probably the case. Seriously, he would not the first "historian" to not bother to read the document he it telling others about. Foner would have to read it, because this part of the decision, where Taney orders blacks to be seens as property, not persons, is not mentioned in most text books. And the parts -- 9 times -- claiming blacks are inferior beings, that too is not mentioned in text books. Foner apparently reads texts books, regurgitates them, acts like he is some kind of historian. He isn't any more a historian as anyone else who relies on text books for his material.

Narrow ruling -- sure as hell Davis bragged otherwise -- and used that logic to kill, and keep killing.How is that narrow?

Idiotically, Foner specifically gets it wrong, saying Dred Scott prohibited Congress from outlawing slavery in Kansas.  Fucking hell - the Dred Scott decision ORDERED blacks to be seen as non human -- as property.

How does Foner miss that? It's IN THE FUCKING DECISION.  The only way you can miss this, is not read it, and not read anything like Jeff Davis repeatedly bragged this decision is what gave him and other the right to force slavery into Kansas. 

Remember, this was very well known them.   How do you miss that? How do claim Dred Scott decision was a "narrow ruling"?

He is either stupid, or deliberately misleading others, to make his narrative of Lincoln seem valid, which it's not.

And the SAME part of that order, declared the federal government will PROTECT SLAVERY --  not just in Kansas, but everywhere. Kansas was not an issue in DS.   The Court did not say "Just in Kansas".  Everywhere -- remember that - everywhere in US was the jurisdiction of the Taney Court.   SO it's fucking important what they said and what they specifically ruled.

And Foner gets that wrong? No wonder so many history teachers don't know their ass from a banana on this -- either do the supposed "experts". 


But finally people fought back.  One of them was John Brown.

Atchison's men had killed Brown's brother -- and Brown went to Kansas because of that.  Brown's later actions WERE violent -- but before he ever saw Kansas, Atchison and his paid killers were there.

To understand Brown, you have to understand the paid killers that were there, and what they did. Brown reacted to them -- and yes, his actions were violent. No kidding.

Kansas whites had no choice -- remember, Jeff Davis was Sec of War, and Stephen A Douglas was in control in both the US House and Senate, for Kansas.    

Atchison, Douglas, and Davis worked together -- when Kansas whites appealed for help from Washington, Davis did more than ignore them, he had them arrested.   And he had his killers in Kansas doing what they did.

No -- this is not taught, but this is what happened.  And if you don't know what happened in KS, you won't know much about Lincoln, or the Civil War.   The Civil War killings started in Kansas, and were paid for by Jeff Davis, and he hired a US Senator to do it.


You can make Kansas "issue"  complicated if you want, but it's actually simple. Who killed who, and why.

When you know who killed who, and why, you won't be so stupid -- so easily swayed by the bullshit about "Trouble in Kansas"  or those "violent abolitionists".

Fucking hell, the violence started with killings by Atchison.  Official, paid and in Davis mind, legal killings.

That's when the shit hit the fan.

 Atchison killed in Kansas, not long  after Atchison and Stephen A Douglas got the Kansas Nebraska Bill passed. Lincoln exposed that as "the first step" in spreading slavery against the will of the people. 

Yes, Atchison and Davis were killing to FORCE slavery into Kansas, when Kansas voters and whites were overwhelmingly against it.

THere were very very few slaves in Kansas -- in fact, only 2 slaves in the entire state of Kansas according to the 1860 census.  

Your "history" teacher won't know this -- but there  was NOT a group of slave owners who wanted Kansas as a slave state.   Almost all those killing to spread slavery, were hired -- paid.  And they were not from Kansas.

This was a few lunatics who wanted very badly for Kansas to be a slave state, even though 90% of the people there wanted to be a free state.   Sadly, your text books give the impression there were two sides of "extremists"  -- bullshit.

There were the Kansas farmers who wanted to be free -- and yes, EVENTUALLY they fought back.  But the killing sprees came first, a basic fact your history teachers is unaware of.  It took a while for Kansas farmers to fight back.

John Brown's sons started to fight back, and John Brown's brother was killed by Atchison's men.  John Brown went to Kansas and started fighting back.   The way this is presented in most text books, is some crazy guy (John Brown) started killing.   He did kill -- after several killing sprees by Atchison, yes.  And if he did NOT fight back, the history of the US would have been drastically different.  

The killing sprees would have worked, if not for men like John Brown. 

Remember that too. 

No one disputes this is his speech, nor that he led these men into Kansas to do exactly as he said -- kill to spread slavery.  He tried his best, he just could not kill them all.

It took about a year, but Kansas men finally fought back effectively, against Atchison, and Davis paid thugs. Then, like most cowards who urge others to kill and die --Atchison ran away from the fight.  The  US Senator who was so brave when urging others to kill and die -- ran back to Texas, when he couldnt outnumber his victims 10 or 100 to 1.   


"You heard of it, but in a whitewashed way, as "Trouble in Kansas" -- an Orwellian way to describe paid killing sprees to stop speech against slavery."

  "Southern school boards have never allowed the ugly truth in text books, like the speech about  1700 killers in Kansas, paid by Jefferson Davis to kill people who voted and spoke against slavery.."
Bet you never heard about the killing sprees to spread slavery -- led by former US Senator, paid for by Jeff Davis as Secretary of War.

So why --we want to know why -- are the bragging about the killings, and the killings themselves -- not mentioned in an honest way in US text books?  

Davis BOASTED, in that smooth double talk, that blacks were "inferior beings" and ordained by God to be enslaved. Davis claimed that it was proper to force slavery into Kansas, despite votes of 98% against slavery in Kansas,because of the Dred Scott decision. 

Yet, even before Dred Scott decision, Davis was killing in Kansas - via hired killers -- to stop people from even speaking against slavery. 

 Yes, he was, as you will see.   So as vile as Dred Scott decision was, Davis used that after his paid killers were already killing. 

Why not explain that in our US text books?

Good question. We answer that, after the speech by David Rice Atchison, about his killing sprees. 

According to Jefferson Davis -- it did not matter if 95% of the people in Kansas were against slavery.   Did you read his book about it? I bet you didn't. 

But Davis had an excuse for that --did you know how Davis justified spreading slavery into Kansas?  He justified it, in his own book "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.  

Southern apologist still today quote Davis on "State's Rights".

Davis  did not claim state's rights for Kansas.   Another basic fact glossed over.   Davis claimed blacks were not human beings -- not persons -- but property, and therefore, as property, even if 95 or 98% of the people were against slavery, owning slaves was a "protected right".

The Dred Scott decision literally ordered -- yes ordered -- the fed government to protect slavery, and to treat slaves not as human beings (not persons) but property.

This is from the Dred Scott decision. Bet you were never told about this -- 

 Did  Davis know KS  whites rejected slavery overwhelmingly? HELL YES he knew. That's why he sent the killers, that's why he sent Atchison -- because he knew.

And that is why Davis had to come up with an excuse to force slavery into Kansas.   He came up with Dred Scott decision.


Some stupid people will claim that Dred Scott meant Davis was right --slavery must be protected in Kansas, and blacks were not human beings, not persons, but property.

Bull shit.  First, Davis and Atchison were ALREADY killing in Kansas.  They had been killing for two years, BEFORE Dred Scott.  Dred Scott came about because the people in Kansas did not buckle under -- they claimed state's rights!!

That's right, people in KS claimed they could decide slavery issue themselves.   Remember, Davis supposedly was for state's rights.   But when KS rejected slavery, Davis had to come up with a different Orwellian double speak excuse.

He was already -- already -- killing in Kansas to spread slavery.

 Later, Davis would claim he was simply doing "what the Constitution required".   

Davis -- in his own book -- Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government -- explained his view (his excuse actually) on why the South could demand the spread of slavery into Kansas, even when 90% or more of the people there voted against it, and even when the people in Kansas fought a bloody war for years -- against the killers Davis sent.

Remember -- this is from Davis own book. He wrote this.   It's in his own book.

BECAUSE blacks were not human beings, they were property.  Don't blame me for that --and are not "part of the people".  

That's what Taney had written -- in the Dred Scott decision.    Here it is again.  Read this.  It claims the US (by this opinion) recognizes slaves as property. Do you see that or not?

AND  -- notice the and -- pledges (orders) the Fed gov to protect slavery.  

Indeed, Davis was right -i n that his buddy Roger Taney wrote that blacks are NOT persons for purposes of the US Constitution.

 However, if blacks are not persons -- then the South should have lost most of it's Congressmen, remember the 3/5 of a person for slaves, as counted for representation in Congress?

By this ruling --that blacks were not persons -- over half of the Congressmen in the South, had no right to office.  

Notice this "not persons" bullshit didn't apply to representation in Congress. Southern scum still wanted to count 5 million blacks as persons for that.  But not as persons for slavery -- they were property.

See how fucked up and foul Davis and Taney bullshit was?

You are not taught that either. 

Slaves are PROPERTY -- not human beings.   Not persons,   Taney actually wrote the words NOT PERSONS.

According to Davis -- slaves were not human beings -- not persons.  They were "inferior beings" because the Supreme Court of the United States said so -- really.  And Davis had a point -- that is indeed what the US Supreme Court ruled.

Taney wrote -- "The Constitution of the United States [hereby] recognizes slaves as property -- and pledges the Federal Government to protect it.

HERE THAT IS -- this is from the order of the court.   This is a jpeg from the order, this is NOT someone giving their opinion, this is the decision ITSELF.

Bet you didn't know the SCOTUS said blacks were inferior beings, did you? Hell no, they don't teach that.

Killing  people who spoke against slavery?   You mean a US Senator and Jefferson Davis had people killed for speaking against slavery? Uh -- exactly.


And Atchison was not some nut working alone -- as you will see, he was funded by Jefferson Davis, who was then Secretary of War for the US. 

Nor was this an isolated series of events -- this was the basic push, vs the basic shove.   Davis and Southern leaders decided Kansas would be their killing ground, to push slavery there by force, because Davis himself controlled the US Army, as Secretary of War.

What Davis could not get done by the US Army, he would get done by his paid killers, from Texas.  

Davis killers -- hired by Atchison -- were an illegal army of 1700 men, from Texas, flying under a foreign flag, paid by Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War, led by a US Senator. 

 Sounds preposterous, right?

Only preposterous because you have never learned, nor did your history teacher, some of the ugly violent "details" of Southern leaders rabid efforts to spread slavery.

It was common knowledge at the time.   

Atchison's speech fit  nicely with his other comments at the time, and perfectly with his own supporters statements.   Remember that -- no one, not Jefferson Davis, not Atchison, not Atchison's supporters, claim he did not say or do what he said in the speech.

It's  just that this speech has largely been glossed over -- yet it's a gold mine of who paid the killers, where the killers were from, and why and who they killed.


Atchison and his buddies in Kansas were not shy -- they were loud and proud -- they were trying to scare the shit out of 10,000 Kansas farmers, and the louder they were, the more extreme the speech, they hoped to kill enough, but  scare the rest.

That's a definition of terrorism -- and Atchison was no less a terrorist because he was paid by Jefferson Davis.

Luckily the original transcript of his speech still exists. 

  Furthermore, newspapers in Kansas reported Atchison's killings, and the bragging of other involved, like this. The newspaper clip below, is a quote from Atchison's right hand man, he too, bragging of killing, and for the same reason.

WE will continue to lynch hang,.... drown .... every abolitionist who dares pollute our soil."

For killers -- these guys were honest.  Unlike politicians, like Davis, who could make stupid people believe killing to spread slavery, and slavery itself, was ordained by God and the Constitution.

But then, remember this,  Atchison and the other killers were trying to terrorize -- scare the crap out of most of the farmers, kill who resisted.  And as you will see, they had the "authorities" on their side, in Washington. 

The killers did not fear the US Army -- because the guy who led the US Army was Secretary of War, and he was the guy who PAID Atchison and these men.     


Davis had sent the Army to disperse Kansas farmers trying to form a state government -- but those soldiers would not do what Atchison's killers would -- kill.

Remember that.  Davis did use the US Army as much as he could, but the US Army would not actually kill people for speaking against slavery -- that is why Atchison had to get men from Texas, and pay them.   They were NOT regular troops, they wore no uniform, and they rode under the Confederate flag, and Texas flag -- as you can tell from the speech. 

Your "history" teacher has no clue of any of that.    It's astonishing, really, how stupid most "history" teachers are about this aspect of the Civil War -- the violent spread of slavery, by killers, who were financed by Jefferson Davis when he was Secretary of War.

So your teacher would also not know about Davis defense of killings in Kansas -- and his defense was the Dred Scott decision, never mind that it came out AFTER  the killing sprees started. So your teacher would miss that too. 

  It took the Civil War to stop this shit -- and Lawrence was attacked repeatedly during the Civil War, eventually burned to the grown, and all men who resisted, and caught, were killed. 



The original is in the vault  at Kansas Historical Society.  
The speech looks like this.  CLICK TO SEE SPEECH @ KS HISTORY SITE     

Southern leaders KILLED to spread slavery, and spent a lot of money, time and effort, for years to spread slavery into Kansas. 

And they BRAGGED of it.   Out the ass, in public, and for years.

It wasn't a secret -- to anyone.  It might SEEM like a secret now,  because the killing sprees to spread slavery are not mentioned in our US text books -- at least, not in a candid way.

And the speeches by the killers themselves, you will not find in any US text book.

 From 1854, all the way up to, and then through, the US CIvil War, Jefferson Davis himself was obsessed -- as you will see -- with spreading slavery into Kansas. Even after the war, for the rest of his life, he insisted slavery should have been forced into Kansas, as he claimed slavery was, by decree of the United States Surpreme Court, a "protected right" and the federal government, under Lincoln, should have protected slavery in Kansas, even AFTER Kansas whites voted again, and again, and again, to reject slavery.

Davis was a lunatic about spreading slavery -- see his actions, and his words, below.

Remember this -- Davis insisted Kansas whites had no right to reject slavery.   Don't believe that bullshit about Davis defending states rights -- he hated states rights when Kansas rejected slavery.

Even though, as you will also see, 98% of the white males in Kansas were against slavery.

Of course,  this is contrary to the narrative (a bullshit narrative) that Southern leaders cared about state's rights. 

Your text books always mention bullshit about "state's rights".  Actually, Southern leaders hated states rights when a state rejected slavery, and killed -- as you see above -- to STOP state's rights.

Don't believe that crap about Southern leaders concern for state's rights -- it was a lie then, and is a lie now.  Jeff Davis and other leaders actually killed to SUPRESS  state's rights.  Don't let history teacher get away with the nonsense about "many reasons" for civil war, and a "difference of opinion" about state's rights.

 Actions speak louder than words, particularly murder, killing, at terrorizing actions.  It's disgusting that we are given boooshit in our text books

   Yes, Southern leaders used words -- the bastards were word smiths, smooth lying bastards.   But they terrorized, killed, and BRAGGED of killing at the time -- when people in Kansas rejected slavery. Don't forget that.

    Nor was it "one or two extremist" who did the killing. Jeff Davis sent Atchison to Kansas, to do exactly that -- to kill to spread slavery.

Yes, US Senator David Atchison, in 1856, had 1700 men, hired mostly from Texas, killing and terrorizing folks in Kansas.

Bet your history teacher "forgot" to tell you.  If your teacher told much, they likely used the narrative to "Trouble in Kansas"  or "Border Wars".

That narrative -- as you will see -- is nearly Orwellian nonsense.   This was not "trouble" ;  this was a well financed killing spree by a US Senator and later Confederate general, that lasted for nine years. 

Nor was this a "Border" dispute.  As Atchison bragged of, this was about the spread of slavery.  He didn't say a damn word about borders, but he said a lot of words about killing to terrorize and spread slavery. 

Another bit of misdirection -- you might have heard of "Border Ruffians".    Yes they were called that.   But the connotation of that term now, is some midly aggressive folks.

No, these were killers -- and they were hired for that purpose.  You can see for yourself how Atchison makes that clear in his speech to those killers

Atchison's speeches tells you who they would kill, who paid them, and why -- and he was bragging of it.

Who killed who-- and why.  By a man that was doing the killing -- not bad for real history.

This is not some new finding -- everyone  knew this at the time -- as you will see, from Charles Sumner's "Crimes Against Kansas Speech" delivered the day BEFORE this particular killing spree. 

Bet your history teacher will say he/ she knows "all about" Crimes Against Kansas" speech.   But I bet he/she can't tell you what it was about .

Sadly, the "who killed who" and "why" part of these killing sprees has been replaced by the narrative we showed above -- double talk about "conflict" and essentially saying both  sides were "extremists".

Bullshit. The killers were all hired-- and paid.   They were paid by Jeff Davis.  They were led by David Rice Atchison.  They killed people who even SPOKE against slavery.

That whole bullshit narrative about "extremist" on both sides is almost as vile as the killings themselves.    Yes, finally, people DID fight back -- of course.  They had to fight back or move out of Kansas.  Many of them did die

You can easily be fooled if you don't know that facts. 

Unless you learn of the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS 

  Even before Sumner was beaten almost to death, on the Senate floor no less, the killing and oppression in Kansas was well known.

Atchison's  Lawrence killings was a whole new level of killing -- because for the first time, as you will see in his speech, he is using killers from Texas.   These killers did not go away, some of them stayed up to and through the US Civil War.

And just like Atchison focused on Lawrence Kansas, the killers he brought up from Texas, also focused on Lawrence during the Civil War. These guys were real, real pissed, that people in Lawrence stood up to them.

That's another thing you history teacher likely doesn't know.

Point is --  Atchison was loud and proud of it, as you will see in his speech.  

Yeah, Atchison gave a proud speech about the killings -and he had already killed.  This was not his first killing, nor would it be his last.  This is the one we have his speech about.


Ironically -- and pathetically - Jefferson Davis was so good at Orwellian bullshit, his words (carefully selected) still fool stupid people today, even though some consider themselves "history teachers". 

This is as basic as it gets-- this is not "out of context" or some nut on his own.  This is US Senator, working with Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War, to kill folks who just spoke against slavery in Kansas.


Remember -- as you can see from his speech -- Atchison used men from Texas to terrorize and kill the men in Kansas. 

Why?  To spread slavery.

 Why men from Texas?   Because he could not hire men from Kansas to do the killing.   Later votes in Kansas showed that 90% plus of white men in Kansas rejected slavery --  another tid bit your history teacher won't tell you, mostly because of stupidity.

Atchison never met the killers from Texas before this speech --as you can tell from the speech itself.  They were newly hired.

Although Atchison had hired some men from Missouri, there were not nearly enough to spread the terror necessary. 

Atchiton bragged to these men that they would be well paid, and that they rode under the Texas and Confederate flag -- that he hated the US flag, and that he was doing these killing for the "authorities" -- meaning Jefferson Davis, who had named Atchison General of Law and Order.

That's right -- Atchison boasted out the ass about what flag he rode under, when he killed.   And he detested the US flag -- yet he worked for the Secretary of War of he United States as he killed.  


This would surprise no one in 1856.  

In fact, Charles Sumner gave one of the most famous speeches in US history (your teacher will claim he knows "all"  this speech, but likely never read it) about Atchison and killing in Kansas. 

  Ironically, Sumner gave his speech about previous killings in Kansas   --- Sumner gave his speech  the day before Atchison invasion and massacre of Lawrence.   In other words, after Sumner was beaten almost to death on the Senate floor for exposing the crimes in Kansas, Atchison's most lethal killing sprees began, with the help of his newly hired Texas killers.   

"The Crimes Against Kansas" 

This was not even denied by Southern leaders in 1856-57-58. 

 Jefferson Davis would forever defend his actions (via Atchison) in Kansas.   Davis, of course, would not have given the honest speech pep-talk to kill.  Davis would have, and did, phrase his killing sprees in Orwellian double speak.

Also, Congressional hearings later, had testimony about Atchison's statements -- including other statements, like he would bring 5000 men back  next time, and kill everyone against slavery (apparently he was not happy with the results of his 1700 men).

Bet you didn't know the SCOTUS ordered slavery protected in Kansas, even though 95% plus votes against slavery there.  Hell no, they don't teach that.

It's not some conspiracy -- it's just the bullshit narrative that US text books and most history teachers stupidly repeat.  And repeat. And repeat.  


Lincoln exposed this vile "machinery"  as he called it -- go read in House Divided Speech.  Or any of the LIncoln Douglas debates -- this is what Lincoln was talking about.  



Atchison was a slave owner from Texas, who moved to Missouri and became US Senator, back when the public didn't vote for Senators -- the state legislature did. He was violent, crude, but honest about what he did. He said who he was going to kill, then he did. He explained why he was going to kill.

He did not mince words -- unlike his political bosses, who were word mincing experts, as you will see. 

Atchison is the guy who -- with Stephen A Douglas -- got Kansas Nebraska Bill passed. Doubtless your history teacher will pretend he knows "ALL" about that.  

Yet the guy that gets Kansas bill passed, rushes out to Kansas, raises an army from Texas, and invades Kansas, then  BRAGS about killing.   


Jefferson Davis might  glorious speeches about  "state's rights".  But by 1856 he was most profoundly against states rights to keep out slavery, in Kansas.

Stringfellow was Atchison's aide --

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

As terrorist (Atchison and his killers were terrorists) WANTED people to know. They wanted Kansas farmers who apposed slavery dead, afraid, or gone, AND THEY SAID SO AND KILLED TO MAKE IT SO.

 Atchison, Davis, and all of them men insisted Kansas was theirs -- never mind that clearly the vast majority of white males in KS rejected slavery overwhelmingly.   

It would take a while for a few good men to fight back -- but fight back they did. 


Charles Sumner's famous "Crimes Against Kansas" speech,  named Atchison specifically --  and Sumner was beaten almost to death on the Senate floor, moments after the speech. Just like Atchison's main goal was to close newspapers and prevent speech against slavery, as you will see.
"The Crimes Against Kansas" 


Davis claimed local people could not decide the issue -- therefore, it did not matter what the people in Kansas wanted.   See much more about Davis "logic" below. 

The problem is, we do NOT teach from original documents --- especially the history of killing to spread slavery, that was the overarching reality of political and military life from 1800-1865.  


You MIGHT have heard about Charles Sumner being beaten on Senate floor -- but I bet you didn't grasp what he was beaten for.

He was beaten because he gave the "Crimes Against Kansas" speech --  exactly what David Atchison was bragging about, in his speech, Sumner was exposing on the Senate floor.  

So it's not like this is a "detail" -- or a temporary event, or the actions of one killer, or even one group of killers.  

This was an ongoing  effort by Southern leaders to spread slavery --by any means, including, proudly, killing to stop people from rejecting slavery in Kansas. 


The problem was the rhetoric -- the speeches, books and documents -- written by hate mongers, who could convince Southerners they were going to be killed -- really -- if slavery did not SPREAD. 

You heard right - Southern speakers, like Davis, Yancey, Toombs, A. Stephens, could get crowds cheering, chanting, bragging about their hate.   

It's no accident that the FIRST thing Davis and Confederate leaders did, still in Montgomery where they created the Confederacy, was to demand the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas. 

That was not the second, or third thing they did -- that was the FIRST thing they did.

It was not a side issue, then or before. 

No one was surprised -- literally no one -- that Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas.  New York papers the next day suggested Lincoln OBEY the Five Ultimatums, as SOuthern papers called them.

That's right SOUTHERN newspapers called these "The Five Ultimatums"  and the first two were about the spread of slavery into Kansas.  Keep in mind, Southern leaders knew very well that Kansas rejected slavery by war and by vote, the vote was 98% against slavery.

Yeah -- you heard about "popular sovereignty" and "states rights".

Try to grasp this -- those lovely sounding platitudes did not line up with the years of killing and terror in KS. You might be surprised to know, people ALWAYS have lovely sounding excuses and Orwellian double talk, when they kill, oppress, and enslave.

Stupidly, you are taught the platitudes uttered by men like Jefferson Davis and Stephen A Douglas.  Sadly, you are not taught about what they did.  Shame on the text books that push the bullshit, and don't even mention their actions. 

The SPREAD of slavery was a violent issue, just like slavery itself was based on violence.  The men who enslaved, tortured, whipped, and boasted God ordained it, were the same men who pushed for more slavery, more territory to have their slaves.  

Your history books never told you that simple fact.

Southern leaders promised violence again, and again for decades, over the same reason -- to spread slavery.


You probably heard about  the "Compromises" of 1820 and 1850  - but you didn't know they were compromises like a 7-11 robbery is a compromise.   Each time Southern leaders promised violence if they could not spread slavery. Each time they had enough power in Congress -- and slave owners or apologist in White House -- that they got what they wanted. 

Remember that.

White males in the North were racists too -- they sure as hell were not going to fight the Taliban of the day  (Confederate leaders) over black slavery.  Why bother?   

Lincoln's biggest problem would be  how to harness the energy and power of the North, to get rid of slavery.   Southern leaders made it impossible for Lincoln to ignore the spread of slavery - -in fact, before he even took office, Confederate leaders had killed, tortured, attacked. 

Lincoln had no opportunity to allow the spread of slavery into Kansas, if he wanted to, and he did not. Southern troops attacked 12 places (not just one).   But Southern leaders already had killers in Kansas, for years. 

Lincoln was willing to do ANYTHING to keep the Union together, because the only way the South could spread slavery was to dissolve the Union.  The only way to push slavery any further, was to end any influence of the North.   Push had come to shove.



This is conjecture -- of course -- but if Davis and Atchison could have gotten slavery pushed into Kansas, and as they wanted, the rest of the West, there would be no need for them to secede. 

If Dred Scott had worked, when Atchison's killing did not, there would have been no need for secession .

  As you will see, even in 1861, Confederate leaders were STILL demanding the spread of slavery into Kansas, as a war ultimatum.  (See below).

Once people in Kansas fought back, and once it was clear Davis could NOT push slavery by the technique he wanted (terror and the Dred Scott decision)   secession became inevitable. 


In 1856 -- the difference was, interestingly -- the telegraph. 

You don't realize this, but by 1860  US  cities were "online" by telegraph.  In fact,  even Kansas had some telegraphs. 

When Atchison killed on Tuesday, people could know about by Thursday.   And those stories would be telegraphed on, yet again.

This never happened before -- never in human history.    Before, those who killed to spread slavery, didn't have to worry about people knowing, till much later, and by then, no one cared, and the story was altered anyway.

 When Jeff Davis and Franklin Pierce defended killers -- using lofty language or not -- people knew what the hell was going on. Unlike today, where people just accept Davis Orwellian double speak as gospel.

That's how Charles Sumner knew so much about the Kansas killings - those BEFORE Atchison went on his first large scale killing spree.   Atchison was killing BEFORE the Texas men showed up, it was just not working.  He needed more men for more killing.  So he got the Texas guys.

The "Crimes against Kansas Speech"  was the most famous speech leading up to the Civil War, other than Lincoln's House Divided Speech, which was about the same issue -- the spread of slavery by violence and fraud.  

Yet you have idiots today claim Jeff Davis speech was so famous.  If you don't know the facts, scum like Davis will fool you every time.

So news about killings in Kansas -- the tortures, the arson, the promises of more killing -- got around.   Before that, when spreading slavery by violence before, no one could be sure what the hell was going on.  Slave power could do what they wanted, and no one could stop them, few could even know what went on.

 The violence, the killing, did not start in 1856,  slavery was itself a violent enterprise and always was - no matter what you saw in Gone With The Wind.

You need to understand -- slave owners  got their way by violence, by torture, by killing, or the threat of it.    They used the same mentality - and cruelty - in spreading slavery to more and more land.

 Even "moderates" like Lee regularly had slaves whipped (yes, he did    LEE CRUEL CLICK

Every new state coming into the Union was an epic battle of it's own -- and just like in KS, slave power used killing and violence to spread it.  Kansas folks, as stated, got the news out, even if they had to go to St. Louis or Quincy  to use the telegraph, they did.

Once any newspaper had the story -- it was also picked up by other papers, information flowed with astonishing speech, compared to all times of previous history.   The role of the telegraph, and how it helped defeat the spread of slavery, is a stunning topic, by itself. 

As ever new state came into the Union, slave vs free  nearly caused wars several times before the Civil War, with Southern leaders being more like the "American Taliban".  Southern leaders were feared, the slave owners were the violent bullies -- killing politicians, beating Sumner almost to death on the Senate floor.  

These guys -- the slave power folks - DID NOT BLUFF.  The leaders themselves were often cowards - but they did not back down. Davis would send - as you can see - 1700 killers to Kansas. He was  not about to back down from his promise of spread of slavery into Kansas. 

We have white washed this  80 years of violence  to spread that preceded the Civil War.  That should stop. 


Atchison  could not kill all the people against slavery --- as you will see, 98% of the people in Kansas in 1856 were against slavery.  Even with 1700 men, he could not kill 10,000 men.

Atchison was really a terrorist -- kill as many as you need to -- make it loud and proud, to frighten the rest.  And he was loud and proud about it.

When the people of Kansas kept speaking against slavery anyway, Atchison promised he would come back and kill them all -- with 5000 men. 

The terror Atchison used didn't work. It almost worked.  


As you can see, from Atchison's own speech, he was working for Jefferson Davis and Franklin Pierce, then US President. He tells his men that,  even brags that they (Pierce and Davis) and the "entire South" wants this war carried into Kansas!     

What war?  The Civil War is five years away. 

The point is, Atchison was not just some kook who liked to kill.   He was a US Senator, working for the Secretary of War. (Bet you can't guess who was Secretary of War was).

What the hell is the Secretary of War doing -- sending anyone to Kansas to kill, or even interfere, in Kansas politics?   According to Davis, later, he said he was doing what was "constitutionally required". 


They killed by hanging, drowning, torture, chopping people up, and shooting.   Remember they were proud of it -- they were paid for it. 

 These were not local men with a "difference of opinion" about slavery.  That's very important to know, because as you will see, stupidly US textbooks give the impression it was a local dispute of extremists. Bullshit. Yes, Kansas men fought back -- as soon as they could. But it took a while.


 Davis was US Secretary of War, in 1856. 
Davis named Atchison
"General of Law and Order" in Kansas



Photo of Abraham Lincoln

As Lincoln warned -- over and over  -- if Southern leaders could get slavery spread into Kansas (see the House Divided Speech)  then no state was safe.    Lincoln warned of the Davis
logic  that meant no matter what Kansas voters voted for, no matter what they did -- Southern leaders "logic" in spreading slavery to Kansas meant no state was safe.

You may think Lincoln was wrong about Davis wanting to spread slavery in all other states -- but he was not wrong  at all.  Davis boasted more than once he would spread slavery in the North too -- and in the West.

And yes, Davis knew well that people in Kansas rejected slavery overhwelmingly.

So by the "Davis logic" that states had no right to keep slavery out (see below)  it was not just about Kansas -- but about the entire US.   Lincoln was not being an alarmist --the killings were going on for years before he gave  his House Divided Speech.

And your history teacher will claim he knows about the House Divided speech. I bet he or she doesn't have a clue that LIncoln laid out exactly the plan for Davis and his buddies to spread slavery, against the will of the people.   That's what Lincoln's house Divided Speech was, an expose of the killings and "logic" of South pushing slavery, by force if need be, into KANSAS.

And of course -- he was right.  Southern leaders bragged loudly they would spread slavery where they wanted -- that the Dred Scott decision gave them the right.    


Southern leaders were using a "two prong" approach to spread slavery -- the Dred Scott decision, and killing.

Really. Those were the tools Southern leaders used -- Dred Scott decision, and killing.  Interestingly, Atchison's failure to kill enough people to make Kansas a slave state, very likely was  the reason Taney and Davis went so extreme in the language they used in Dred Scott case



Remember -- Kansas rejected slavery overwhelmingly when they finally got to vote.  Kansas entered the US as a free state in January of 1861, confirmed by Congress and the President, Buchanan.

Did even that stop Davis and South from demanding  slavery in Kansas? 

You never heard this, did you. After KS was admitted as a FREE STATE, even President Buchanan agreed to that, Congress passed it, Davis demanded Kansas accept and respect slavery anyway.

Davis never did relent and say "Oh, Kansas doesn't want slavery, okay, my bad, carry on".   Even 11 years later, when Davis wrote his book, he STILL claimed Kansas should have accepted and respected slavery, and said the resistance to slavery in Kansas was "the intolerable grievance".

Get your head around that. 

  Surprisingly, President Buchanan,  for once in his life (possibly his  hate of Douglas)  signed off on Kansas becoming a free state.

But STILL Southern leaders, especially Davis, STILL demand the spread of slavery into Kansas.  These guys are un -fucking -real. They are obsessed with pushing slavery into Kansas!

Did the Kansas voters rejecting slavery over and over, sink in, to Davis?

No - -for the rest of his life, Davis insisted Kansas should have been a slave state.  

 Did it matter that 90% and more voters rejected slavery again and again in Kansas?


In fact, Davis said the resistance to the spread of slavery into KANSAS was "intolerable".   This guy was one crazy piece of shit. 

THE TRUE ISSUE -- per southern newspapers, and documents and speeches at the time -- was the spread of slavery into Kansas.  That's not what we said -- that's what the Southern leaders said at the time.  

And that was in 1861 -- five years after Atchison was killing to do that, in 1856.  Remember that.

Why aren't you taught that?   The South was proud of  it then, bragged about it then, killed to spread slavery then.

Why are we not taught what they boasted of -- and did?

Seems Southern school boards keep this kind of factual truth out of our history books.  Can't offend anyone.

And our Southern friends love to pretend Southern leaders cared about state's rights -- can't show Jeff Davis role in killing people to stop state's rights, if you show them Davis Atchison's speech and actions. 


       Jefferson Davis and David Atchison wanted slavery IN Kansas.  

They got the help of Stephen A Douglas, to open Kansas up for slavery, in exchange for their support of railroad route that Douglas hoped would make him rich.

 When you hear about Douglas being for "popular sovereignty"  -- thats bullshit.   He helped his buddy (He and Atchison were close friends, Douglas insisted Atchison was "the kindest and most patriotic man I ever met) kill people in Kansas.    Douglas SPOKE about popular soverighty -- he never meant a word of it. 

BASIC  FACT: There were about 10,000 whites living in the entire Kansas Territory.  About  98% of them are against slavery, as future votes will prove.  A small but violent minority of people -- almost all from out of state --tried to push Kansas to be a slave state and they were paid to do so.



Henry Ward Beecher, the most famous abolitionist preacher of the day, called it correctly in 1856. If we allow the killers to prevail in Kansas, he essentially said, we will have Civil War all over.  Beecher wanted the killers stopped in Kansas, because that would stop the spread of slavery.

 But the killing never stopped in Kansas,  Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas as a war ultimatum, May of 1861.  The killing continued in Kansas all through the Civil War itself. 

Translation "Damn Dog" = people who dared to speak against slavery.


The usual way into Kansas at the time, for settlers, was the Missouri River.  But Atchison put sharpshooters on the river, and just shot anyone who tried to pass who was anti slavery

LANT TRAIL  A man named Laned created a Northern route, over land, with armed camps for people to sleep at night along the way, to protect them from Atchisons men.

Bet you didn't know that.  This article above, while true enough  fails to point out, that "pro-slavery" folks were NOT settlers, they were all hired.    


The Dred Scott decision came AFTER -- remember that -- AFTER the killings in Kansas started. AFTER Atchison hired the 1700 men, AFTER  Charles Sumner was almost killed on  Senate floor, AFTER Jeff Davis paid for the killers from Kansas, and AFTER Franklin Pierce and Stephen A Douglas helped the killers.

The Taney Court wanted to "settle forever"   the question of slavery -- and they did it while the killing was going on. Jefferson Davis could not have written the decision any more perfect to spread slavery.

In fact, it's possible, though conjecture, that Davis told Taney what words to use.

Not human beings    Not persons    But property
The Taney decision declared blacks to be "so inferior" they were not human beings but "inferior" beings -- specifically, by decree PROPERTY.  More about that below. 

You never heard this in your history class did you? 

Tell the truth -- you never heard that the most important Surprem Court decision in US history, said that.  That blacks are "so inferior" they are not persons.  Not human beings, but "inferior beings".

You get some booooshit about "citizenship" -- instead of the ugly truth that per Roger Taney, blacks were not even human beings -- not persons. Literally, officially, by order of the court, NOT PERSONS but property.

Now -- why the didn't your history teacher tell you that? 

This is IN the decision itself.    That is what it SAYS!  So why didn't you know it?

Probably because  your history teacher just believe the watered down boooshit.  But all you have to do is read the damn decision itself.

 Point 4  is from the order of the court -- the "real deal" part of the decision.  Slaves are "property".

The part about "so inferior" was in the decision.   

This, however, is how Dred Scott is taught -- as a "citizenship" issue and about Congress can't exclude slavery into Kansas.


Bullshit 1 -- the order says specifically blacks are NOT PERSONS -- why the hell not mention that in history classes?

Jefferson Davis bragged about it -- Lincoln railed against it. It's not a minor point, it was the most basic point possible. Are blacks human beings, or not?  Jeff Davis said they were not -- and the SCOTUS said it too -- blacks are inferior beings, and ordered, yes ordered, blacks be "recognized" as property (NOT HUMANS BEINGS)

That's far more that not being "citizens". 

Your history teacher, and almost every book about this, yaps about "citizenship".  Bullshit -- according to Dred Scott, blacks were NOT PERSONS, not human beings!  . They were INFERIOR beings, by the specific language of the court.

Remember -- according to  the SCOTUS -- blacks were not persons. 

Remember -- according to SCOTUS -- blacks were not persons.

Remember -- according to SCOTUS -- blacks were not persons. 

Why the fuck do so few know this -- and why the fuck is it not even mentioned in schools?  Instead this bullshit about "citizenship"

Yes, they also used the word citizenship.    But they also said blacks were so inferior -- and not persons.   Why the fuck do your text books not mention that?

Try to grasp this -- the SCOTUS said blacks were "inferior beings" not persons.  Got that? Going too fast?

And how does your teacher teach this?  

Never mind that 98% of the people in KS didn't want slavery -- in fact, fought a bloody war against it.  That DID NOT MATTER to the SCOTUS, nor did in matter to Jeff Davis.

Bet you didn't know that. 

And the government had to protect SLAVERY  in Kansas, by specific language of the court. 

Bullshit 2  -- the order specifically orders the government to protect slavery.   Even though 98% of whites in Kansas rejected slavery.




 the resolves of the entire South, and of the present Administration, that is, to carry the war into the heart of the country, (cheers.)

 to carry the war into the heart of the country, ???

Atchison just told his men, above, the "entire South" wanted these killings and terror. They wanted this "war carried to the heart of the country" 

What the hell war is he talking about?  

Jefferson Davis -- in his public speeches -- said no one on earth tried harder to avoid war than he did. Really he said that.

Davis also

The CIvil War was five years away -- Kansas had only months before been opened up to even the possibility of slavery.  So there were not many slave owners in Kansas. 

Don't forget that - when you read the narratives of this period, it's easy to assume Kansas had hundreds of slave owners there defending their "rights".   No -- there were almost no slave owners there at all!

 Who was there were largely the men paid to be there. Like 

“We can tell the impertinent scoundrels of the [New York] Tribune that they may exhaust an ocean of ink, their Emigrant Aid Societies spend their millions and billions, their representatives in Congress spout their heretical theories until doomsday, and his excellency Franklin Pierce appoint abolitionist after free soiler as governor, yet we will continue to tar and feather, drown, lynch, and hang every white-livered abolitionist who dares to pollute our soil.”



John Geary, the unelected governor of Kansas - named by Jefferson Davis and Franklin Pierce-- was pro-slavery, indeed that's why Jeff Davis appointed him governor.

98% of people in Kansas, as events would prove, were against slavery, but Davis appointed, naturally, a violent and pro slavery governor.   Stephen DOuglas signed off on that, by the way, as Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas.

But Geary eventually turned on the lunatic killers.  The endless killings -- for just speaking and writing newspapers against slavery, was too much for Geary.

 Geary eventually gave copious evidence and documentation about Atchison and Davis to the Congress, which apparently persuaded the next President - Buchanan -- at long last to recognize Kansas as a free state, and reject the violence and bogus legislature BS of Davis and Atchison.   

Just before Lincoln took office -- Kansas officially came in as a state -- a FREE state.  

See the testimony from Geary's physician and personal assistant, at the bottom of this page.    Both Geary and his assistant finally figured out, the only thing Davis and Atchison cared about -- was the SPREAD of slavery, by any means, including killing, all the while claiming lofty motives. 

"[Geary now] repudiates that new plank which has been surreptitiously inserted into the Democratic platform, that gives to the single idea of slavery extension an ascendancy over every other consideration."


None of this is a surprise to anyone alive at the time -- Slave Power loved it, Jefferson Davis defended it as "constitutionally required".  There is not one text book in the US that even mentions Atchison's speech, though a few teachers tell their students about it. 

You should read Sumner's famous speech -- sadly, almost no one does now. CRIMES AGAINST KANSAS LINK HERE

Remember, Atchison had not even started his famous killing sprees -- he spoke May 19 -20, 1856, a two day speech.

Atchison led the first killing raid the next day May 21.   His speech was May 21. AITCHISONS KILLINGS SPREES GREW MUCH WORSE.

The cane used to beat Sumner for giving this speech, was and is kind of an honored symbol, of Confederate apologist, even today.  What did Sumner do to get beaten?

He spoke about Kansas.   

But early on. in KANSAS,   he boasted of killing -- he would continue to boast for years, and continue to kill.

IN a way Atchison was more honest than others who paid him to kill and helped get him an army of 1700 men from Texas.   They stayed in Washington DC and pretended to care about justice and the Constitution.

An excerpt from Atchison speech --which is below
"Faint not as you approach the city of Lawrence,... draw your revolvers and bowie knives, and cool them in the heart's blood of those damned dogs that dare to defend that damned breathing hole of hell... "
Damn dogs of hell?  That's those folks in Lawrence Kansas who dared let the anti-slavery newspaper print their paper.

Charles Sumner, US Senator from Massachusetts, was beat almost to death on the floor of US Senate, one day before Atchison's speech about killing and terrorizing.


Oh, your text books in school KIND OF mentioned it. They did mention "Bloody Kansas."  But they left a few things out -- we tell you why they left out, and what they left out.

Worse, our text books give you the IMPRESSION that those "FREE STATE" radicals were troublemakers.   No, they went there to live, and intended to live in a Free State -- Kansas was known to be a free territory, because slavery was prohibited there by treaty, and by the Compromises of 1850 and 1820.

Notice -- and this is important -- FIRST Atchison as US Senator, got the Compromise of 1850 struck down, and with the help of Stephen A Douglas and Jefferson Davis,  opened up Kansas for the possibility of slavery, if the people there chose it.

But 98% of the people in Kansas did not want slavery, as events and elections proved! 

Even this basic fact is overlooked in our history books.

Go check any history  text book in the US - while they all do mention Kansas, it's almost a side issue, and we have yet to find one that mentions Atchison's army of thousands hired by Jeff Davis.

And not one text book mentions that when the voters could vote in honest elections, slavery was rejected  by 98%- 2%.



"He is the kindest man, and best patriot, I have ever known"

 The speech shows the difference between what the great speakers said in public, vs what they did in private.   Atchison, Davis, and Douglas especially.   They claimed' state's rights and popular sovereignty.  Their speeches SOUNDED great.


The thing to understand --- Free soilers were 98% of the white people in Kansas.  Kansas whites voted against slavery 98% -2%, and other lopsided stats, when they were finally allowed to vote.  Atchison was trying to frighten and kill enough to get Kansas admitted as a slave state, by stopping all speech against slavery.

That was not at all unusual -- it was already against the law, and had been for 20 years -- in all slave states, to speak or write openly against slavery. Even owning the wrong book got preachers whipped.  SO passing anti free speech laws when Atchison set up the "bogus legislature" was par for the course.

 Atchison had to hire men from Texas to ride with him. And they rode --as Atchison made clear -- under a foreign

 Only a small number of people in Kansas wanted slavery -- and most of those came because they were paid, by guys like Atchison.





Davis biographers "deal" with Davis role in Kansas by several clever and dishonest ways.  

They make it SEEM like those bad old Kansas farmers were beating up and terrorizing folks.  And they throw John Brown in there -- but John Brown reacted after TWO YEARS of killing and terrorizing, and after Davis, as Secretary of War, sent killers to Kansas, like Atchison.    And he was one guy (with his sons).  Remember there were 1700 killers paid by Davis already IN Kansas, killing and terrorizing when Brown started fighting back!  

See how clever this passage is, by a Davis biographer, who knows about Atchison's speech, but avoids mention of it.

Typical Orwellian double speak spin about
Davis and his role in Kansas killings.

You do hear about  the "Trouble In Kanas" in your text books, but its watered down so pathetically, it's meaningless.  They don't even tell you who did the killing, who was killed, or why.

Notice how he first says "Kansas was in constant aggravation" -- KANSAS?   How about mentioning a name, and tell who did what, to whom, and why.   Try to grasp this "Kansas was in constant aggravation" is Orwellian bullshit. 

Notice he then cleverly  inserts some nonsense about "shot guns" brought in by those mean old free state folks.   Never mind that already Atchison was killing folks -- those bad guys brought in shot guns. Very typical slick BS. 

 Bullshit -- recall Atchison made fun of the guns those free state folks had, the "Breecher Rifle"  The "Breecher Rifle" was the bible. and Atchison is laughing about it!   

The narrative guys like WC Davis takes work, carefully avoiding any mention of Davis paying for the 1700 men riding under a foreign flag, to kill and terrorize people in Kansas. 

The Kansas farmers got armed - - AFTER the attacks,  and of course WC Davis knows that. But he doesn't tell you.

Then guys like WC Davis claim that crazy old "John Brown"  was killing people in Kansas. Yes, AFTER Atchison killed his brother, and AFTER two years of terrorizing people and hiring 1700 men from Texas to help him kill and terrorize.

Scum sucking pigs like WC Davis  is as cowardly and deceptive as the original Jeff Davis.   Just like Jeff Davis "forgot" to mention in his speeches that Kansas rejected slavery over and over, and fought against slavery for years, WC Davis does exactly the same bullshit.

Shame on the book reviewers that gave WC Davis any support.   

When finally someone fights back -- as John Brown did -- that is the bad guy?    Yeah, Brown was violent -- after he saw some of his own family killed, after years of killing by Atchison.  



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" -- fucking hell, he hired the bastards, paid the bastards, and bragged bout their killing. WC DAVIS -- ever the coward and liar -- writes "supported pro slavery groups"

As to the violence?  WC Davis --- piece of shit in our book  --seems to blame the Kansas farmers, for the violence, and says "EVENTS QUICKLY GOT OUT OF HAND"

No, not that.  Atchison quickly started his killing spree.

And remember, Southern "historians" like Davis know this -- they know David Atchison speech, they know he bragged about killing, they know all that better than I do.

Why -- it's 150 years later. Why would guys like  Davis (and others, Shelby Foote, ect)  gloss over this?   

No -- the cause of the Civil War was not complicated -- the excuses they make up are complicated, the boooshit double talk is complicated.  But the incessant violent efforts to spread slavery caused the US Civil Sar.  Not slavery itself -- but the crazy violent efforts to spread slavery. 

Ironically, Davis and Lincoln agreed on this -- it was the SPREAD of slavery that mattered --to Davis, who wanted the spread, and to Lincoln, who wanted first to STOP the spread.

Sound like "states rights" to you?

And remember Atchison bragged about the goal.  To kill and silence every god damn abolitionist in Kansas. Why do we not teach that?

And it's not like this is the only record -- this speech. There are plenty of newspaper articles at the time, books, and other documents showing what was going on, who was killing who.


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?

You think they don't know Davis was Secretary of War?   Do you think they don't know Davis named Atchison "General of Law and Order".

You think they don't know about Crimes Against Kansas speech, by Charles Sumner?  YOu think they don't know about Atchison's speech?

Do you think they don't know Atchison  got this army of killers from Texas, and paid them "amply". 

Of course they know.   They just hope YOU don't know.


YES -- John Brown did killing of his own in Kansas - but this was AFTER the killing raids by Atchison and others.

TRY to grasp this.  Brown went to Kansas, BECAUSE of Atchison. Atchison's killing sprees grew worse, and Brown had enough -- he fought back.

And yes, Brown was violent. So the fuck what?   He was fighting back -- something that so many stupid people do not grasp, because no one told them about the killing sprees.   

In fact, Brown's sons went to Kansas and were attacked by Atchison and others like him.  Brown's brother was killed by them.

If you don't know what happened before Brown even got there -- you don't know shit.   If you don't know of the killings, tortures, burnings, you don't know shit.

It's not your fault you are stupid about this, your text books don't tell you. Movies or folklore, doesnt tell you.

If Atchison and others were not killing, torturing, burning, looting Brown would not even go to Kansas in the first place.  Too complicated for most "historians" who don't seem to grasp Kansas was bloody before Brown set foot there.   He was fighting back.

It took five years to straighten out this mess, and get Kansas admitted as a free state


 Atchison speech indicates where those men came from, and how paid them.  The more you read that speech, the more you go "WTFH"? 

  • Atchison 
  • bragged about riding under foreign flag
  • bragged he was funded by federal authorities (Davis)
  • bragged the men could keep loot they stole
  • bragged they were there to terrorize and kill
  • bragged "authorities" wanted the war taken to Kansas

Atchison's killings did not work. 

The killings did not work because men fought back.

Atchison was  a coward -- and ran like one when he and his men did not outnumber those he was killing 

Remember that -- men like Atchison were brave in groups, but like Jeff Davis himself, was a coward when he did not outnumber the victims.

Sound like "states rights" to you?  


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.

Think they forgot when writing their books? 

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

EXPANSIONISM was an issue?  Hell, that does not tell you who killed who, or why, does it?  No. And K Davis, nor any other Davis biographer, will tell you about Davis role in these killings. 

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?

Sound like "states rights" to you?

Davis boasted that blacks are not human beings but inferior beings -- property. As property, Kansas, according to Jeff Davis own book, and own speeches, MUST PROTECT slavery. It did not matter to Davis that  98% or 100% of the people in Kansas were against slavery. The public had no say in slavery in Kansas, according to Jeff Davis.


What pissed Davis off in 1855, still pissed him off in 1861 when he demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, and STILL pissed him off in 1870 when he wrote his book, Rise and Fall of the Confederacy.

Of all the "grievances" Davis had with the US - -do you know what he said the INTOLERABLE one? Go on, guess.

The resistance to the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas.

That's right -- he was pissed off enough in 1855 to send Atchison there and fund those killers.

He was pissed off enough in 1861 to demand the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas -- never mind that by then, Kansas had come into the Union as free state, lawfully, signed by President Buchanan and passed in the US house of representatives. 

And he was STILL pissed off about resistance to spread of slavery -- into Kansas -- in 1870 when he wrote "Rise and Fall". 


Think about this  for a while --  every day, for all those years, Davis knew that 90% or more of the people in Kansas rejected slavery.  The votes were overwhelming!  But according to Davis  twisted mind -- that didn't matter, because of Dred Scott.

Yes Dred Scott, according to Davis -- changed it all.   It no longer mattered what the people wanted. It no longer mattered what congress said. It no longer mattered what the Territorial legislature said -- they rejected slavery.

Because Dred Scott decision said this -- read it. Its from Davis book.

Text books do cover this -- but in a very superficial way, repeating watered down nonsense.  


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". 

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

See for yourself, Atchison mentions this repeatedly in his own speech, he points out the Texas men again, and again.

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".

That's right -- the Southern narrative, from Shelby Foote and others, is that Kansas voters "would not compromise".   

Seriously. Compromise?  Are you kidding?   They were being killed, attacked, arrested. They were arrested for speaking against slavery.  They were attacked, some were killed, some tortured.

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

Give him credit, he was proud of it, he did not pretend he was doing it for "state's rights" -- in fact, he hated states rights.   He was not pretending to be one thing, while doing another.  At least, not in this speech he wasn't. 

"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.