Killing to Spread Slavery ... Southern leaders brag about shit you never heard

under construction...  









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

Killing to spread slavery -- against states rights, and bragging out the ass about it, at the time.

Remember that -- against state's rights.






Atchison was doing exactly what all slave states did already -- stop free speech against slavery. Very basic, and your history teacher not only didn't tell you, they didn't know that either.

S    P    R   E   A   D 

They bragged.  The goal of the US Civil War -- said those who started it --- loudly and proudly, was to SPREAD slavery. Not keep it. Not maintain it.  But to S  P   R  E  A  D it.

There are entire books about the "causes" of civil war, that do not mention Southern War Ultimatums, Southern killing sprees, and Southern leaders speeches and actions about killing to spread slavery against states rights.

They can't show you that -- because there was ONE reason for the killing, ONE reason for the tortures, ONE reason for the War Ultimatums, and they said so at the time.

The spread of slavery.  If you showed these things, you could not say the bullshit about South cared about state's rights, or it was a "
complicated issue".

Not so complicated.  Excuses later were complicated. 

And spread it against states rights. 

Not kinda. Not sorta. Not in a way.   The only reason you are stupid about that -- you were never told.  You were never told about Southern War Ultimatums.

Only later, AFTER they lost, did Southern leaders go "Slavery? Us? Kill to spread slavery for God and spread it to the Pacific?   Oh no no no.  No way.  Who told you that?   

Idiotically, we have let Southern apologist bullshit cover up the really ugly, and basic stuff. 



You were never told that Southern leaders bragged they were killing to not just spread slavery, but to silence and torture anyone who spoke against slavery. You had no clue.

The first thing Senator Atchison did -- he made it a crime to write anything against slavery.  His raid into Atchison (one of three raids, once with his Texas men) was to destroy the newspapers there, and kill anyone defending the newspapers.

He bragged about that. He didn't admit it-- he BRAGGED about it.

Did we mention brag?

That's not your fault.

 It's the fault of "historians" trying to sound academic, instead of telling you the basics -- who killed who, and why, is real history.  All else is bullshit.

The killings -- and Atchison -- was common knowledge at the time








There is  not one text book -- high school or college -- that shows  basic development -- --the man who got Kansas Act passed, then immediately goes to Kansas and starts killing and terrorizing to spread slavery and stop free speech.  

 Yet that is what Charles Sumner was talking about.

Oh, the speech is quite famous --  Charles Sumner's "Crimes Against Kansas"   Speech.    Sumner and the fact he made a speech, that he was beaten almost to death on Senate floor, your teacher will tell you.

But idiotically, your teacher WILL NOT tell you the basics of that speech.   Sumner was exposing what I am telling you on this page. The man who got Kansas Act passed ( Atchison) left immediately for Kansas, and there started killing, and bragging of killing, to spread slavery and to stop free speech.

Remember that -- the Senator who got Kansas Act passed, then rushes to Kansas and starts killing and terrorizing.


Sumner's speech was two days long. Hour, after hour. In maddening detail, Sumner listed the names, the dates, the tortures, the oppressions against free speech.

Who was Sumner talking about -- by name -- and what did that man do? That should be an easy question to someone who teaches history.  Yet they do not know.

The answer is -- Sumner was talking about David Rice Atchison, and Sumner explained how Atchison got Kansas Act passed, then immediately went to Kansas, to start killing and terrorizing there.

 Specifically killing to stop free speech, specifically killing to spread slavery. And specifically that Atchison worked with the back door deceptive support of Stephen A Douglas. 


Even if Sumner was wrong (he was not) your teacher should know.  Sumner was beaten for this speech.

That's right, Sumner was beaten on the Senate floor -- for this very speech.

Over, and over, for hours, for two days, Sumner went over the details. He said the details. For hours.  In the most famous speech of that era, until Lincoln's House Divided.

Atchison was in Kansas killing to spread slavery, and killing to stop free speech.   That is what Sumner was talking about. And your teacher could not tell you that, to save their life. They have no clue. 

WTF. Really -- WTF???


Lincoln got back into politics -- because of ATCHISON.

Ask 1000 "history" teachers why Lincoln got back into politics, there aren't five that are smart enough to tell you -- because David Rice Atchison got Kansas Act passed.

But that's why LIncoln got back into politics.

Try to grasp that -- it's news to you.  Atchison got Kansas Act passed. He bragged about that. Remember -- Atchison bragged in got Kansas Act passed.  Then went out to Kansas immediately -- immediately -- and started his terrorizing there.

This is what Sumner was talking about -- how the hell do "history teachers" miss this??   This is what SUMNER was talking about when he was beaten, and this is why Lincoln got back into politics.




Sumner was not the only one speaking.....Atchison, gave a speech two days later, May 21 1856, essentially bragging about things Sumner had talked about, as Atchison welcomed his Texas men.

In fact, Atchison added details that were amazing on top of that -- for example, that he was paid by Jeff Davis, and the goal was to spread slavery all the way to the Pacific.  That included states that were already free states, he would make slave states. 

Furthermore, people like John Brown, and everyone in Kansas, believed Atchison would make good on his promises of endless killing -- because he had done exactly as he said already.

Atchison was a braggart -- but he did what he said, or rather, he paid others to do what he said.

Atchison had ALREADY killed to spread slavery by the time he made these further promises for killing. He promised to kill to stop folks from speaking against slavery, via newspapers, and he tried.

Atchison, however, made a big mistake, when his men killed John Brown's son, Frederick. 


What your "history" teachers forgets to mention, but was exceedingly  well known at the time.   In fact, US Senator Charles Sumner was beaten on the floor of the US Senator, for talking about what I am showing you, here.



"Gentlemen, Officers  Soldiers! - (Yells) This is the most glorious day of my life! This is the day I am a border ruffian! ( CROWD 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. ( Jefferson Davis, as Secretary of War, created a "Generalship" and named Senator Atchison as "General of Law and Order of Kansas Territories)

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.

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 program 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 damned accursed abolition hole; break through every thing that may oppose your never flinching courage! - (Yells.)

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

Tear down their boasted Free State Hotel, and if those Hellish lying free-soilers have left no port holes in it, with
your unerring cannon make some, Yes, riddle it till it shall fall to the ground. Throw into the Kanzas (river) their printing presses, ; let's see if any more free speeches will be issued from them! (Atchison had made it illegal to speak or publish a newspaper against slavery)

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.! (Again, Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War approved this -- and Atchison sent reports to Davis on progress of hangings)
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. (In other words, they can keep what they steal)

- 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 destroy, until every vestige of these Northern Abolitionists is wiped out.

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

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

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

Never slacken or stop until every spark of free-state, free-speech, free-niggers, or free in any shape is quenched out of Kansaz!........(Long shouting ; cheering.)

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

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

.....Yes, these G--d d--d sons of d--d puritan stock will learn their fate, .... I defy ; damn them all to Hell. (roars ; 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.)


The details Atchison gives are amazing -- killing to spread slavery.

He is paid by present administration 1856 to kill and spread slavery, in Kansas and beyond. True.

He makes the men promise to kill. True.
He is killing to stop people from speaking against slavery.  True.

He promises to spread slavery all the way to Pacific Ocean. True

Atchison works for -- is paid by -- Jeff Davis, personally. He writes reports to Jeff Davis about the progress of killings.

Davis claimed everything Atchison did was "Constitutionally required," (including the tortures, killings, and terror).

Your history teacher will claim they know all about this -- no they do not. If they knew, they would tell you.  They never mention it, it's not in any US text book, in candid ways. 


The hate demagogues  had Southern whites  convinced if slavery was not spread, their daughters would not only "Sleep with Niggers"  as Stephen A Douglas said, but the white race will be exterminated.

Because whites will be exterminated if we do not spread slavery - Robert Toombs, CSA Secretary of State.  Did he believe it?

NO -- but it sounded good to crowds, who cheered. 

 Atchison, political and business partners with this guy....




Do you see the area in white border? Southern leaders, by violence, using paid killers, by manufacturing wars,  by  religious bullshit to excuse the killings, had pushed slavery into that area by 1850.

Now, in 1854, they were doing it again. Again by violence. Again by terror.  Again by paying the killers.

Most people are so stupid, so misinformed, they think slavery spread "on it's own"  by magic.

No---  all expansion of slavery was by VIOLENCE.  All maintaining slavery was by violence. Not sorta, not kinda.

Slavery never spread anywhere, BUT by killing and terror.   If anyone thinks there were elections about slavery -- go show them to me. Idiot history teachers assume someone at some time voted for slavery. NO DUMB ASS THEY DID NOT.

There is a lot here your "history teacher" never heard about, but should have, not only because Atchison boasted of it, as you will see, but Atchison used killing and terror to bring it to pass -- and almost succeeded.

Atchison promised -- loudly and proudly -- he would push slavery into the area outlined in red.





TO CHEERING CROWDS.  Get that in your head.  Cheering crowds about spreading slavery for God. Cheering crowds about punishing the black race.  This was not some wacko on his own either -- this is the kind of thing that worked, that got stupid people up in arms, proud and eager to wage war.   The power of hate demagogues, really is the underlying story of the US Civil War.

 We are doing the will of God to PUNISH slaves for their sins in the bible 

The crowds loved it.   Nor was this something unusual for the crowds to hear, or the Southern leaders to say, in person, in private, in letters.  God knew and intended for slaves to feel pain, it is "necessary for their instruction".    Very common, and never taught now, at least not in a way that shows how basic and pervasive the cruelty and defense of it was, by leaders at the time. 



What most people  don't know -- Southern leaders were bragging about killing and starting the war, specifically to spread slavery -- long before Lincoln ran for Senate or President.

This idea that the Civil War started at Fort Sumter is the single most stupid  piece of shit in US history. I can't help that most  history teachers say that, they were always wrong.

The North finally started fighting back -- officially -- at Sumter, yes.  

In fact, the violence by South after Lincoln was elected, is nothing more than what they had been doing, and what they promised, already, just on a much larger scale, and with troops that were once US troops.   In fact, Jeff Davis had been planning a coup against Lincoln, so he would not even take office.  When that did not work, Fort Sumter happened, and a dozen other places, too.





People tortured for owning the wrong book -- by a court of  law, not a mob.  Legally prescribed torture -- for owning the wrong book.   And not one fucking teacher in the US teaches that -- the widespread and violent oppression, very ISIS like, of those who dared speak openly, and write openly, against slavery, in the South.

Not just before the Civil War.  Southern states all made it a crime to publish newspapers or preach only against slavery.

They had to --  remember this, they HAD to make it against the law to speak or preach against slavery, because otherwise, slave owners would be shamed, and people could think for themselves.




Virtually no US high school or college "history" teacher have a clue about Atchison speech -- below, in its entirety.

As you can see, he is very clear.  They are killing to stop people from publishing an anti slavery newspaper.

 This was well known, as you will see.  Atchison only put in the laws that all Southern states already had -- laws against speaking or publishing newspapers against slavery.

Preachers could not preach against slavery either.

This was exceedingly common from 1840 on, in the South.  SHame on your teacher for not making that clear.  Atchison, in his own legislature, a group of men he had form what is now called "bogus legislature" -- make it a crime.

This is the big reason slavery could not end in the South. It was illegal to preach, write, publish newspapers, against slavery.

Preachers could  be, and were, arrested and tortured (torture is the right word)  for preaching, or even owning a book, that was anti slavery.

Why the hell doesn't your teacher tell you ?  Because they don't know. They do know that some books, like Uncle Tom's Cabin, was illegal to own.  But they were always too stupid -- there was never a law against that book by itself. There was never a list of banned books.

ANY BOOK. ANY NEWSPAPER   ANY SERMON that "might dissatisfy" a slave could illegal. 

Of course, blacks could not speak against slavery, write against slavery, etc.

But these laws -- in all the South, and which Atchison put into Kansas in his "bogus legislature"  prevented whites from speaking, preaching, and writing against slavery 

Kansas MUST accept and protect slavery, Davis wrote.  Not just accept- - but protect slavery. Never mind that Kansas was already a free state. 

This is why Atchison was taking his men (Texas men) into Lawrence, and he says so. HE SAYS SO. Atchison specifically said that's why he and the 1000 Texas men were going there -- to shut down the newspaper, and kill anyone who got in the way.

Did we mention, he SAID SO?

Read the speech below!


The South, claimed Davis hilariously, would have given up slavery entirely if Dred Scott decision went the other way-- but Dred Scott decision (see below) ordered -- ORDERED -- did we mention ordered, blacks to be seen as not human beings, but property, and also ordered that the federal government protect slavery.

Davis probably wrote the part about ORDERING slaves be seen as not human (Davis had always said that, in different ways) and ORDERING the government to protect slavery (Davis was Secretary of War).

Whether Davis wrote those parts of Dred Scott, or not, there is no way that decision could be better crafted to spread slavery and give Atchison legal cover.

Crafted -- the decision was "machinery"  as Lincoln described it correctly, and machinery perfectly fitted to Atchison's killing sprees.

That is why Jeff Davis would say -- in that some sociopath way he had -- that everything Atchison did was "CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED

See -- Davis claimed, correctly, that Dred Scott ordered slavery PROTECTED even in areas that rejected slavery.  Basic as hell - that's what the decision said. And Davis  used that to justify the killings, the oppression of free speech, stopping those who would vote against slavery.

  This is exactly what Lincoln was talking about in his House Divided Speech -- how Kansas Act, then Dred Scott were "machinery" crafted especially to spread slavery, where otherwise slavery could not possibly go.

By the perverted "logic" of Dred Scott, it was now impossible to stop slavery anyplace in the US.  Lincoln said this too -- and was correct.  Making blacks as "non humans" -- property - and then ordering slavery be protected as if property, set up a dynamic that made it impossible for ANYONE, any legislature, even by 99% vote, to keep slavery out.

Stupid people -- like most history teachers, will tell you some crap about "citizenship".  Over and over they repeat this bullshit -- citizenship. Yes, the word citizen ship is in the decision, but so is the language about not human beings (not persons) but property.

Eric Foner, the dumb ass who everyone thinks is an historian, claims Dred Scott was a "rather narrow ruling" about citizenship.

 Did he bother to read it?  Bother to learn how Davis used that decision to defend and justify Atchison's killing sprees in Kansas?




Since your "history" teacher does not even know Dred Scott ordered blacks to be seen as non human, and ohe government to protect slavery even in areas where slavery was rejected overwhelmingly by the white male citizens, your history teacher is likely also too stupid to know Atchison was ALREADY killing before Dred Scott, in his efforts to "protect" slavery.

Jeff Davis, of  course, never mentions that detail.

To read Jeff Davis book, he was just following the Constitution that blacks were not human, but property, and following their order for the government to protect slavery.

The fact Atchison had already been killing and terrorizing for years, didn't bother Davis.   And when these idiot "history teachers" have their students read Jeff Davis book, the teacher and the students think Davis was just a well meaning guy, who cared about the Constitution.

It's clear to me, Davis and Atchison thought the Kansas Act -- which Atchison had passed -- was going to be enough. But the people of Kansas were much tougher than either of them imagine.


 Read the decision -- Jeff Davis was right.  The Dred Scott court actually, specifically, in writing, ORDERED that blacks are not human beings (not persons) and ORDERED that the government protect slavery, even in Kansas, even after 90% of the citizens there rejected slavery.


Slap your teacher for not telling you.

Almost every speech on Youtube, every book I've ever seen, yaps on and on about Dred Scott's life -- and then gives some bullshit about "citizenship"

What the FUCK?  Are you kidding?


Dred Scott is the "excuse" to throw state's rights out the window. 

So it's a B F D .

It no longer mattered a dayum,  because of Dred Scott, what the people in the state wanted, or the legislature wanted, or what Congress may decided.

No one ever told you that. You get this shit about "citizenship".

How watered down can you get?

What do you think LIncoln was saying? He said how Dred Scott turned logic on it's  head, he said that Dred Scott made spreading slavery now almost a "sacred right".

DO you think he was kidding? Joke time for Abe?

No, he wasn't kidding.  He and Davis agreed on this -- Dred Scott made it impossible to keep slavery out of Kansas, even when 90% of people in Kansas were against slavery.

Very basic. It does not get more basic.

So -- why the hell do they just give this yappy bullshit about citizenship?

Here is why -- because someone said that, and the next dumb ass repeated it. Not some big conspiracy, but a parade of stupid shits who repeat bullshit.

It was no longer up to anyone -- no one could stop the spread of slavery -- by the logic of Dred Scott.

And Lincoln pointed this out. Idiotically, history teachers don't even report that.   They do not report that Lincoln was right about Dred Scott-- though Jeff Davis is the one that outlined the logic of states rights not applying to slavery.





 Well known at the time -- hardly mentioned, and never taught, even at University level, now.
'Atchison -- US Senator, and officially "Governor of Law and Order" in Kansas, and a delightful way of boasting of things -- not admitting, not denying,  he boasted of things...
And Atchison made it very clear what he and the South was after -- spread of slavery not just in Kansas territory, but all the way to the Pacific...



    AND WHY ??   

So far, 100% of "history" teachers we have interviewed, answer that Stephen A Douglas got Kansas Act passed -- and idiotically add, he did so was because folks in Kansas were asking to vote on slavery.

Wrong. That's what their own college text books claim, but that was never true -- in fact, the basis of the Civil War was the fraud of Kansas Act, how it was exactly the opposite of popular soverntiy, as repeatedly explained by Lincoln and others.

How do you miss that?  It's very basic in Southern speeches, and actions, including Atchison himself, who got Kansas Act passed. Really, seriously, what the fuck else do you need? The guy who passed Kansas Act, according to his own bragging, then went to Kansas and started his violence to stop folks from speaking or voting against slavery.

Go on, "historians"  -- what else do you need?

But there is plenty more than Atchison's own speech, others explained this is great deal at the time. It was a fundamental part of Lincoln Douglas debates!

And-- it was the basic speech Sumner gave, explaining it in detail, for hours, upon hours, for two days.  The speech he was beaten for.

How the hell do you miss that?



Douglas had been a the "go to" man in the "Compromise of 1850" which doubled the area for slavery.  At the time, Douglas called this a "solemn agreement"  that "no one would be foolish or vile enough to undo"

Guess - go ahead, guess, who was the front man, just two years later, on destroying that "Compromise".  Go on, guess!

It was Douglas.  ALmost overnight, out of the blue, Douglas was inexplicably pushing to destroy Compromise of 1850.   The South got to double the area for slavery -- if they kept it in the South.

But now -- that was not good enough.   And Douglas led the way.  Why?

Very simple answer -- Atchison made him.   In documents from that era, Atchison bragged he got Douglas to be the titular head of destroying that "Compromise" -- remember, it doubled the area of slavery, and made slave area much larger than free.

Now, slave folks wanted more -- much more, as Atchison and Jeff Davis made clear.  

As Lincoln said "what compromise".   But your  history teacher does not even know that much.

Douglas said no one would ever be fool or foul enough to try to rescind the Compromise of 1850 -- he said it was "an unbreakable pact upon which our nation depends"  kinda bullshit, at the time.

But overnight -- literally, overnight, Douglas is eager as drug addict for dope, to get rid of Compromise of 1850.   

So who got Kansas Act passed? 

Wrong on both counts. According to Atchison himself, and the leader of the Senate, Atchison got Kansas Act passed. And he made it clear a few months later, the real reason why.

Why?   By his actions - Atchison made the purpose clear -- to push slavery -- by force -- not just into Kansas Territory, but all the was to the Pacific Ocean.



Atchison even bragged Southern flag was red in color -- for the blood they would spill to spread slavery.  And spread it, against states rights, against the will of the Kansas citizens. 

As you will see by his actions and speech, and the "laws" he passed in his "bogus legislature"   Atchison made it a crime to even write against slavery.    His raid into Lawrence, as he boasts of himself, was to destroy the newspaper there that dared to continue publishing articles against slavery.  He did not admit it -- he boasted of it.

After 1857, Atchison had some kind of  perverted "logic" to shut down newspapers and kill to spread slavery, when Dred Scott decision came out.   But Atchison was killing long before Dred Scott came out. In fact, it's clear Dred Scott decision came out because Atchison needed some kind of fig leaf, some kind of paper to refer to, to justify his actions. 

You are not told that story either -- about his killings, or how Dred Scott decision came about, to justify them.

Jefferson Davis was very clear why state's rights did not matter for the state of Kansas -- blacks were not human beings.

 See  his explanation below.





Atchison was not quick enough -- he was about two years late.  Possibly if he got there in 1850, or 1852, he could have been waiting for the 20,000 or so settlers from the North and killed them or terrorized them much earlier.

By 1854, Overwhelmingly, as events proved, the new citizens of Kansas did not want anything to do with slavery.  

Oddly, most "history" teachers just assume Kansas had a lot of folks who wanted slavery. No,  not at all.


In fact Atchison had to pay almost everyone that got involved in his killing sprees and invasions of various cities.   The men on his first raid into Kansas, were paid.  

The men for his second raid -- were paid.

The third raid, which completely destroyed Lawrence -- those men were paid too.

Idiotically, those few text books that even mention this, never tell you that much.   They will say "Atchison's supporters" . No, they were EMPLOYEES.  And Jeff Davis paid them. Atchison made it clear who paid them -- and he said "the present administration"  was paying them.

Remember that.



The first thing Atchison did -- wisely -- was to simply bring 4 or 5 thousand men with him from Missouri, and set up their own "government"  called now "bogus legislature", because it was bogus, and violent.

Immediately the "bogus legislature"  made it illegal, made it a crime, to publish newspapers against slavery.  

Really. That's the first thing they did.  In fact, Atchison's second raid into Atchison, with the Texas men in 1856, was to enforce those laws against publishing anti -slavery newspapers, as you can tell by the speech itself (see below.)


The Kansas Act, which Atchison and Stephen A Douglas pushed through Congress, did say folks in Kansas will be "perfectly free" to accept or reject slavery as they saw fit.

Uh -- not so much.   And this clearly was planned before, because Atchison rushed to Kansas from DC, and immediately used violence to prevent folks in Kansas from rejecting slavery.  Some had predicted this exact series of events -- they knew Atchison and Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis.  

When it became clear to everyone -- because Kansas citizens rejected slavery in repeated votes, one by 90% and another by 95% against slavery ---  Davis said majority does not rule.   Popular soverighty was out -- Dred Scott was in.

Dred Scott, Davis claimed, changed all that. It  no longer mattered if 99.999 percent of folks in Kansas did not want slavery. It was not up to them anymore.  A basic fact everyone knew at the time -- but is not taught now.

The big flip flop.  There was no real flip flop -- states rights and popular sovereignty  was always an excuse.    Now the whole country could see -- even those who previously believed in Jefferson Davis and Stephen A Douglas turned against them.  They wanted the spread of slavery, period.  Whatever excuse they had to use, they would use.
And whatever violence they had to use, they would use.






We show you the speech, in its entirety, below.



That is not taught in any US  history text book, inexplicably. The man who gets KS Act passed in Senate, rushes -- rush is the right word  -- to Kansas and begins his terror there, first by taking over an election with paid Missouri thugs, then by setting up his own "bogus legislature,"   then by passing Lecompton "constitution"  and a series of laws making it a crime to even speak publically against slavery, specifically a crime to publish newspapers against slavery.

Very basic. Very well known at the time.

This led directly to Southern War Ulitimatums, when Kansas still rejected slavery despite the violence and Orwellian legal nonsense of Kansas Act and Dred Scott. 

From Atchison's reports to Davis, it's clear Atchison thought he would run the free state folks out of Kansas, as he had run the Mormons out of Missouri 15 years earlier.  He apparently promised Jeff Davis he could do that quickly.

But there were 1000 times as many free state folks in Kansas, and they weren't going anywhere.  And a guy name John Brown joined the fight, after Atchison's men killed his son.

As important as the raid into Lawrence -- with the Texas men sent by Davis- - almost entirely overlooked is that the same day, Atchison's men killed John Brown son.

Brown was no longer playing games, and within days, gave back to Atchison supporters, what they had given others. 

As one historian said, this whole sorry violent episode,which led directly to the US Civil War, may have begun with the bragado if Atchison, telling Davis he could secure Kansas, and thereby the West, for slavery, and trying to do so by Kansas Act, and a quick bit of terror.

That did not work -- but Atchison was not going to say "Oh well, can't blame a guy for trying, now can ya?" 


When Atchison's violence did not work -- Davis got the justification for governmental violence in Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, which ORDERED, yes ORDERED, the federal government to protect slavery in Kansas. 

Your history teacher is so stupid, they don't even know the Dred Scott court specifically, SPECIFICALLY, ordered the federal government to protect slavery in Kansas, even though Kansas rejected slavery by a vote of 90 and 95%.

Seriously, that is how stupid "history teachers" are.  

Lincoln knew what he was talking about when he said (as did others) that Kansas Act and Dred Scott were the "machinery" created to push slavery where by popular will it could not go.


1856 1856  1856  1856   1856  1856  1856

Survivors meet.

Survivors meet.

Survivors of Atchison's first invasion of Lawrence actually held a reunion 40 years later.  Lawrence was not the only city invaded -- just the one best known.

The same day, Atchisons men killed John Brown's son.

That was a BFD, too.


Atchison would invade Kansas twice , once with over 1000 Texas men, paid by Jeff Davis.  He also promised to get 5000 men and come back, to simply kill every abolitionist in the territory (an abolitionist in his mind, was anyone that would not swear to support slavery).

During the war, Lawrence was attacked  a third time completely burned to the ground, because they resisted Atchison before.


Lincoln was always careful to speak diplomatically of the Southern leaders and their "quandry" about slavery.   If he was born where they were, and lived as they did, he said, he would not know what to do, either.

Lincoln repeatedly spoke in a way that SEEMED to almost agree with some prejudice of the day -- and then would backtrack, and obliterate that sentiment.  For example, in his Peoria speech, he SEEMED to agree that colonization (voluntary) of blacks to Africa might be a solution.   Southern leaders, on the other hand, were speaking of genocide of blacks, if they were ever freed!

Yet, later in the same speech, Lincoln obliterates colonization as cruel and unworkable.

In his private letters, Lincoln was far more blunt.  Lincoln was of course acutely aware of the killing sprees, tortures, by Southern leaders in Kansas.   He wrote in the most powerful terms about it, in his letters to Speed, for example, saying that slavery was always violent, always spread by violence, always maintained by violence.  He castigated the violent lying slave owners -- he clearly knew exactly what was going on in Kansas, down to the last detail.

People today just do not understand how violent Southern leaders were -- at home to their slaves, and to anyone who got in the way.    Lincoln knew -- and wrote about it, very clearly, in his letter to Speed. Of course, everyone knew about it, this was not some secret thing.

But your history teacher will likely characterize this is Orwellian or euphemistic terms, in passive voice, never giving a clear presentation of who killed who, when, and why.


If you torture slave girls at home, and get your power and wealth by terrorizing others -- you do not suddenly become a peaceful person who negotiates,  when push comes to shove.

As George Mason, one of the founding fathers said of slave owners born and raised to think slaves are inferior beings ordained by God to be enslaved -- these men were essentially sociopaths, dressed up for church, though he used the vernacular of that era. As vile as anyone in history, but with the dress and mannerisms of a "gentleman" to hide it.

Mason's view fits most Southern leaders to a T.

What most "historians" and "history teachers" do is take a few quotes from Jeff Davis or Robert E Lee, and pretend like those were valid statements.  For example, Davis once said, idiotically, that all the South wanted "was to be left alone".

No statement could be more false.  They were killing in Kansas, and promising more killing to spread slavery, and bragging about it.  Why not teach that?  It's true.

Southern leaders were "bragging out the ass" about violence, they were steeped in violence, they created a culture of violence. There is no way on earth they were going to sit back and let the people of Kansas decide slavery.  Contrary to what people think today, slavery was ALWAYS spread by violence, maintained by violence. 

Southern leaders actions in Kansas - the killing sprees, sending 1000 Texas men there, stopping newspapers and preachers from speaking against slavery,  and most of all, their War Ultimatums are perfect example. 


  Senator Atchison not only killed to spread slavery - and boasted of it -- he killed to stop people from speaking against slavery, after  he made such speech illegal.

The overwhelming % of citizens in Kansas were against slavery.  Eventually they voted 95% and 98% against it.

Even after -- after -- did we mention after -- Kansas became a state, Southern leaders demanded they flip to be a slave state.  




Remember, Atchison -- the guy who was killing in Kansas, got the Kansas Act passed.   

To those idiots who now claim Kansas Act was for popular sovereignty,  you should slap your teacher.     Nothing -- nothing -- was more clear, than Lincoln was right about Kansas Act, it was the OPPOSITE of popular sovereignty.

What the hell do you idiots think Lincoln was talking about in House Divided?  This is what he was talking about.  From 1854 Lincoln again, and again, and again, and again, exposed in speeches, writings, and debates, that Kansas Act was a ruse, a fraud, it did exactly the opposite of popular soverity -- by design.

To those morons -- and there are many -- who claim Kansas Act was something for popular sovereignty, you idiots are repeating Jeff Davis fraudulent talking points, and essentially saying Lincoln had no clue what  he was talking about.

The thrust of Lincoln Douglas debates, was about the fraud of Kansas Act.  Lincoln's god damn House Divided Speech was same thing.

And Atchison -- the guy who got Kansas Act passed -- was personally out in Kansas killing to SPREAD slavery against the will of the people there, not for it. 

Try to grasp this -- if you are a history teacher. How the fuck could it be any more clear?  Lincoln was CORRECT in House Divided speech.   Atchison was boasting of it. Kansas Act, which Atchison passed, was a ruse.  Atchison passed Kansas Act, then immediately went to Kansas personally and started his violence AGAINST popular sovereignty .

Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums, loudly and proudly, AFTER Kansas became a state officially.  Kansas MUST accept and protect slavery.  Yes, and your history teacher has no clue of this basic fact. They should -- it was headlines in Southern newspapers boasting of it.

But the killing had been going on for almost a decade. Atchison had been in Kansas, officially, working for Jeff Davis since 1854.  Atchison was the US Senator that got Kansas Act passed.

The raid into Lawrence, and three other cities, with his Texas men paid for by Jeff Davis, was to enforce those laws he made against speaking against slavery.

Speaking  -- writing a n ewspapers -- could get you killed in Atchison's empire.  Atchison and his men passed their own laws -- laws that made it a crime to SPEAK against slavery.   Not kind of, not sort of.

The Southern states had those laws for 20 years -- your history teachers doesn't know that, either.   Even preachers could be, and were, tortured for owning the wrong book in the South.

Atchison was going full out -- full Monty -- on the violence, to deliver Kansas as he promised.



Atchison's men killed John Brown's son -- not a good move on their part, because John Brown started immediately to give back to Atchison and his men, like they gave out.  

 Most people -- even most history teachers -- think John Brown was sort of insane. Actually, Brown just got tired of Atchison's men being brutal -- torture, drownings, hangings, chopping people  up.

When they killed Brown's son -- two days later he paid them back, in kind.  He was not nuts. He was pissed off. And rightfully so.

Most "history teachers" who even mention  Kansas, act as if a bunch of "radicals" on both sides "would not compromise".   How do you compromise with people who traveled thousands of miles and promised to kill you if you resist slavery?

Teachers often assume the raids into Kansas -- three separate raids, along with hundreds of other acts of violence, killing, torture, and terror -- were done with "supporters" -- the fail to mention a basic fact -- they were paid.

Yes, there were some who would have helped Atchison for nothing. But Atchison men were all paid, to do the vile dirty work, Aitchison and Davis paid people.

There were not enough Missouri men - paid or otherwise-- to get the job done, so Atchison had to hire men from Texas.

John Brown became one pissed off father, because of Atchison. Atchison's men killed Brown's son - Frederick, on one of the raids, as Frederick stood in the dirt road.  Together with Atchison bragging he was killing to spread slavery, and his 1000 men from Texas, no long was Brown going to "play fair".

He would pay back Atchison in kind.  And a Civil War was then inevitable, as Atchison could not back down -- not after he promised Jeff Davis he would kill enough folks in Kansas to get rid of anyone against slavery.

In fact, no one connected all these men -- Lincoln, Douglas, Davis, Sumner, like Atchison did.  He was at the center, because he was not just talking,  he was doing. He was doing the killing, doing the passage of Kansas Act, doing the promises for more killing, doing killing to stop folks from speaking against slavery.

How do you miss that, historians?  Seriously, how the hell did you miss it?

Both Sumner and Atchison gave very important speeches making it very clear.

Lincoln gave that House Divided speech -- maybe you heard of it? -- because of what Atchison did, though he did not mention him by name.

How -- tell me how -- did you miss it?

 Just some of the amazing about David Rice Atchison...









All very basic events

Strange that they are hardly mentioned, and not as a basic cause of Lincoln's entry in politics in 1854, or as basic cause of US Civil War.  
Lincoln stated several times, and so did his law partner, that Kansas Act got him back in politics.  The vile deception of Kansas Act was that supposedly it "gave the right" of the people of Kansas to "be perfectly free"  to decide slavery themselves.

IF people know about David Rice Atchison, and his actions and bragging, you would not hear this stupidity about Kansas Act coming about as a "sincere effort do deal with slavery issue" as Bruce Catton idiotically declared it to be.

Lincoln -- and most people in the North who knew Douglas -- knew exactly what Douglas and Atchison were doing.

Most of Lincoln's focus in those debates was about showing that the Kansas Act was a ruse -- not for popular sovereignty at all, but only for the pretense of it, while actually Kansas Act and Dred Scott were designed to prevent people in Kansas from rejecting slavery.  How do you "teach" history about Civil War and miss that?

It's amazing, but they do.   Even if LIncoln was mistaken (he was not) why not report what the basic issue was in Lincoln Douglas debates -- Kansas Act as a ruse to violently spread slavery, with some kind of "fig leaf" cover.

Atchison and Douglas provided the fig leaf.  Atchison went further and provided the killings.

Atchison's passage of Kansas Act, and his immediate rush out there to do violence to stop folks from rejecting slavery, prove Lincoln was not only correct, but if anything, was too polite in how he said it, in public.

In private, however, in his letters, Lincoln was not polite, and detailed to Joshua Speed, what everyone knew already (including Speed) that the only way Southern scum leaders could spread slavery, was by killing, torture, and violence.





Think Jefferson Davis believed in state's rights?  No, and importantly, from 1856 or so, until after the Civil War, he mostly used this excuse.

The words "state's rights"  was always an excuse, as you can tell by how instantly and violently Southern leaders got rid of that excuse, when Kansas rejected slavery.

When Kansas rejected slavery -- and everyone knew they did by 1858 or so -- Davis and Southern leaders could no longer pretend they gave a shit about state's rights, regarding slavery.

SO they came up with a different word game. You see this over and over in newspapers, speeches, documents, and books, in this period. Not states rights but -- OUR RIGHTS IN THE TERRITORIES.

 "Our rights in the territories".  

"Our rights in the territories" became the meme, after Kansas was clearly against slavery.

Davis stopped that whole "states rights"  mess then.   He inserted OUR RIGHTS IN THE TERRITORIES.

Never mind if 90% of the white citizens there voted to keep slavery out.   That did not matter.  

 But "our rights in the territories" sounded better. 


Atchison took credit both for passing Kansas Act, and -- and -- the violence, torture, and killings in Kansas.

 Remember, he immediately left the Senate, and rushed to Missouri, there raised paid men, to invade Kansas. 
Atchison was business partners, and close friends, with none other than Stephen A Douglas. Douglas helped Atchison in his position as Chairman for House and Senate Committee on Kansas.  
Together Atchison and Douglas  got Kansas Act passed.


Atchison claimed -- with reason -- he had the resolve (and money) of the "present administration".   He well knew that most people in Kansas did not want slavery -- and his goal in his raid was to shut down one of the newspapers that continued to print, in violation of his orders for them to stop publishing anti -slavery newspapers.

Sound like state's rights to you?    No free press -- no preachers could preach against slavery. No newspaper could write stories derogatory about slavery (already a law in all Southern states).

That's not taught in US text books either. Not because of some grand conspiracy, but because, seriously, history teachers are too stupid and lazy to learn what Southern leaders boasted of -- and did -- from their own official documents, their own newspapers, and their own speeches.

 Atchison had outlawed newspapers in Kansas that did not want slavery -- his raid into Lawrence was to specifically deal with that newspaper for violating his law.

Sumner predicted that Atchison would be forever famous as a traitor -- like Benedict Arnold. Sumner would never have guessed at the power of repeating BS over and over, like "states rights" as the motivation for the South.


Atchison worked officially for Jefferson Davis.  Atchison had Davis open and public approval, then and later.  



Speech to "pro slavery" forces as Kansas Historical Society puts it.

Why not say the damn truth -- speech to his Texas men, just arrived. Over and over there is this idiot tendency to "gloss over" Southern leader's violence and terror, by saying things in a way that hides, rather than exposes, the candid truth.

Yes they were "pro slavery"  but they were not from Kansas, because Atchison could not hire enough men in Kansas or Missouri.  They were paid men.  They were paid to kill.And they were from TEXAS.



Sadly, over and over, the killing sprees in Kansas are characterized as "TROUBLE IN KANSAS"   or  teachers will just say "oh, there was plenty of blame to go around there."

What the hell?  The anti slavery folks were to blame??  For what?  Living?

They had every right to be in Kansas -- they were living there, citizens, and overwhelmingly against Kansas. In fact, in 1860 census, there were only 2, count them 2 slaves.

But Southern leaders issued WAR ULTIMATUMS that Kansas must accept and respect slavery.  Remember, very few people in Kansas wanted slavery. When they finally had honest elections, 90 and 95% of the citizens there, voted against slavery.

So no -- there was no large   group of white  people in Kansas who even wanted slavery.   Your teachers does not know that -- it is never made clear in history books, which is dumber than hell. SOmeone writes some crap like that, others repeat it, and it sticks.

Atchison, by the way, was a candidate for President, by the "Pro Slavery" party in Kansas.   By Pro-slavery, they meant, those who have the most firepower, get to decide.  

As you can tell by what Atchison did,  even though the Kansas Act he passed said they would be "perfectly free" to decide slavery themselves, Aitchison and Davis had no intention of ever letting the people in KS vote on slavery, no matter what language in Kansas Act.   

Atchison was a presidental candidate -- in the "PRO SLAVERY"  party.

He and Jefferson Davis had one goal -- to spread slavery west.

Jefferson Davis even said so himself -- the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas was the "intolerable grievance" that led to the Civil War.

Did Davis and Atchison know that most citizens in KS were against slavery?

Of course.  In fact, that's why Atchison moved so fast -- literally leaving Washington immediately, after passing Kansas Act, going to Kansas, and starting his violence there.   He wasted no time.

Atchison first used Missouri men, when he first went to Kansas.  There simply were not enough Missouri men for hire, to do this.

Atchison took out ads in papers in South Carolina and Texas, for men "ready to fight".

This was 1856.  Kansas was not yet a state.   Overwhelmingly, as events showed, citizens of Kansas were against slavery.  Those who would help Atchison were not from Kansas, he got them there, in most cases, by paying them.

Texas men, mostly, but also from South Carolina.  The common denominator was money  -- these men were paid, not volunteers.

In the speech below -- read it closely -- Atchison boasts not only that they will be paid well, but that they can keep loot they steal.




Kansas killing sprees -- Jeff Davis sending Atchison 1,000 Texas men, used to invade Kansas, was common knowledge leading up to the Civil War.  

Extremely well known that -- glossed over, or not mentioned now.

This is what Lincoln was talking about, when he said Kansas Act began in violence, sustained by violence, and that the South was spreading slavery by violence, in his letter to Joshua Speed.

In public, Lincoln was more diplomatic, but made it clear in House Divided Speech, that Southern leaders were spreading slavery by means "foul and more foul -- specifically Kansas Act, which Atchison boasted of getting passed, and Dred Scott decision.

He was exactly right. And at the time, Southern leaders boasted of it.


People today think Lincoln had to be exaggerating.

History teacher never say it clearly, but they must assume Lincoln was kidding, or exaggerating, that South had a delibate "scheme" or "mechanism" that would by necessity make the US on giant slave nation, or would result in the end of slavery.

In other words -- either slavery had to go, or the Union would have to go.

No -- Lincoln was not only not kidding, he was right?   The Kansas Act, together with Dred Scott decision, gave the South what they wanted -- an opening to force slavery into the rest of the country.

If the South could spread slavery into Kansas -- which had rejected slavery by 95% vote, there was no logical reason they could not also spread it to Illinois, Ohio, Maine.  

The ironic thing -- Aitchison and Davis both said the same thing, in different ways.  Atchison, in his typical flamboyant boast, blurted it out repeatedly.  We will spread slavery by these means to the Pacific.

And he was the one actually doing the killing. He was the one that actually got Kansas Act passed. He was boasting of things others attributed to him.

No one who knew Atchison had any doubt he was sincere -- he did not bluff. He was already killing to spread slavery, and already bragging of it, years before Lincoln even ran for US Senate.

And Atchison reported to Jefferson Davis-- officially. Davis said everything Atchison did was "Constitutionally required".

Atchison worked officially under his friend Stephen A Douglas, who was Chairman of House And Senate Committee on Kansas.

Jeff Davis and Stephen A Douglas approved Atchison as "General of Law and Order in Kansas Territories." 


1856 -- according David Atchison, bragging about at the time, the war to spread slavery started five years before Lincoln takes office.

And he should know -- he was doing it.

1856-- This US Senator was already calling it a war to spread slavery. Not to keep slavery, but spread it to the Pacific.

This is the map Lincoln had to deal with -- where slavery had already spread, and where Southern leaders were bragging they would spread slavery, next. 



This was not some secret. In fact, Atchison's killing sprees, Jeff Davis use of Texas men, and the assorted criminal attempts to spread slavery, was common knowledge, North and South.

Jefferson Davis made sure President Pierce helped Davis and Atchison's paid thugs.   But even that was not enough.  Kansas citizens were so overwhelmingly against slavery, not even Atchison and the Texas men were enough to force slavery.

That's right. You never heard this, either. Southern leaders demanded -- as a War Ultimatum -- that Kansas accept slavery, even after Kansas was a free state.

In 1861, before Lincoln became President, President Buchanan accepts Kansas in the Union as a free state.

Even then - Jeff Davis and Southern leaders issued War ultimatums, that Kansas must accept and respect slavery.



Even though the overwhelming % of KS citizens were against slavery -- and even  though Kansas became a free state in January of 1861, still, Southern leaders War Ultimatums, in March of 1861, were that Kansas accept and respect slavery.

That's right -- AFTER Kansas was a state in  the Union, Southern leaders still demanded Kansas accept and respect slavery. Kansas citizens voted against slavery by a stunning 95% in one election, 98% in another.

No one even pretended the citizens of Kansas wanted slavery.

But Southern war ultimatums -- not suggestions -- were that Kansas accept and respect slavery.

Your history teacher is pretty much worthless, worse that useless, because he does not know that, much less teach it.


When Southern papers ran the headlines "THE TRUE ISSUE"  they listed the Five Southern War Ultimatums -- all five were about the spread of slavery.

No one was surprised. At all. Not one human  person,  not one newspaper, not one speech, not anyone, seemed surprised by Southern War Ultimatums.

Spreading slavery into Kansas and the West, was the the big news daily, every day, for years. Every day. So when Southern newspapers articulated the five war ultimatums, that was old news, not new. 


Southern War Ultimatum s-- headlines in Richmond papers, bragging of it.  

How do we teach this?   Stupidly, we teach this  in euphemism as "Trouble in Kansas".

Show who did  what. Who killed who. That's real history. 

1861 was the first moment anyone could officially fight back -- Southern leaders were already bragging they were at war (we show you) in 1856.

And at war -- against states rights. Kansas rejected slavery -- by a whopping 95% vote.  Jeff Davis said that did not matter. States were bound, he said, by Dred Scott decision, which said blacks are not human beings, but property.


Therefore - because blacks were not  human beings (according to Davis and Dred Scott court order) states could not keep slavery out.  This was the central issue -- to Lincoln, to Jeff Davis, and to Davis Rice Atchison.


You don't even know that the basis of Southern "logic"  or excuse to kill to spread slavery, was Dred Scott.

It did not matter what the people in Kansas wanted, Davis said.  

 The Supreme Court ruled slaves were not human beings, not persons, and they were property.  That property -- they ordered -- will be protected by the federal government.

In other words  -- FUCK  you states rights to decide slavery.

Atchison is the reason Jefferson Davis claimed it was "constitutionally required" that slavery must be accepted and respected in Kansas, though 90% of the citizen there would reject slavery. 

Everyone knew Atchison then -- you should too.

If Atchison's men had simply not killed John Brown's son -- shot him down in the road -- US history might well be different.

John Brown was a little pissed about that.  And he stopped playing nice.  From that day on, Brown paid back in kind.

You would know all this  -- if your history teacher wasn't so  stupid  about who killed who, and why, leading up to the US Civil War.


Atchison was very much a braggart.  He bragged whereever he went.  The Donald Trump of his day, but Atchison would shoot you and hire 1000 men, brag to them about killing, and make them promise to kill.

Did you read his speech above?  You should. He makes the men promise to kill.  And they did.

Atchison ran the Mormons out of Missouri in the 1840s-- and did so by shooting some, scaring the shit out of others.

He expected to do exactly the same  thing in Kansas that  he did to Mormons --but to anti slavery folks.  He boasted of that in a letter to Jeff Davis.   No doubt he boasted to Davis before he went there, that he could do it to abolitionist in KS.

He was wrong.

There were many more citizens in Kansas in 1856, that there were Mormons in Missouri, 10-15 years earlier.

It was sure known at the time. But US history is taught in a way not to make Southern leaders look too wacko and violent.

Atchison  did not count on such stiff resistance.  Unlike the Mormons- - Kansas citizens had no intention of leaving, or of accepting slavery.

Atchison -- to his men -- bragged he was at war against the United States, and would keep killing until he spread slavery to the Pacific.  Nor did he bluff.


Atchison is the reason John Brown went to Kansas.


1854   June. Atchison goes to Kansas, there brags he passed Kansas Act, and starts his violence to spread slavery.

1856.  May. 1000 Texas men arrive-- Atchison gives a speech to them.

1856   May. Atchison boasts "Southern flag" is red in color for blood he would spill to spread slavery.

1856   Atchison is officially Jeff Davis's "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.

1856  Atchison calls it a war for the "entire South" to spread slavery: 

1856   Atchison's men invade three different cities in Kansas, and kill John Brown's son, Frederick. 

1857.  Southern dominated Supreme Court declare blacks are not human beings (not persons) and order the government to protect slavery.

1858.   Stephen Douglas calls Lincoln "obsessed with equality for the Nigger" who wants your "daughters to sleep with Niggers." Douglas is business partners with Atchison.

1858.  Stephen Douglas  calls Lincoln a traitor for questioning Dred Scott court order that blacks are "so inferior" they were not human beings but property. 

1860.  January. Kansas becomes a free state, despite Atchison's killing sprees and terror there. 

1861  May.  Southern newspapers declare Five War Ultimatums, that the "TRUE ISSUE"  is the spread of slavery into Kansas.


Your teacher probably doesn't have a clue -- but this was extremely well known at the time.  


This is the man who got Lincoln back into politics.   

This man got Kansas Act passed.

This man was in Kansas killing people.

This man demanded the spread of slavery to all of the Kansas territories -- on to the Pacific.

This man was extremely well known at the time.  Your history teacher probably has no clue who he was -- or if they know who he was, does not know what he did, and what he bragged about doing.


 Who brags they are killing to spread slavery?



Getting Kansas Act passed, BY ITSELF, is the biggest cause of what came next.   Lincoln got back into politics because of that -- he said so repeatedly, and so did his business partner, Herndon.

But Atchison was just getting started -- killing Frederick Brown, started John Brown down the path to Harpers Ferry.  Atchison was killing, torturing, and bragging of continued killing,  by thousands of men he claimed he would get next time.

Killing Kansas citizens, got the attention of everyone in Kansas, and when they finally could get an honest election, Kansas citizens voted against slavery by a stunning 95%.  They were admitted as a free state in January of 1861, by Congress and President Buchanan.


Southern war ultimatums came AFTER Kansas became a free state.

Some idiots claim what Davis and Atchison did was okay because Kansas was not a state yet.   To those idiots,  get the fuck off my page.   When KS became officially a free state, Southern lunatics actually declared WAR -- issuing war ultimatums is tantamount to an act of war --because Kansas was a free state.


  No, your teacher does not know.

It's almost 100% certainty, that your "history teacher" could not tell you who Charles Sumner was talking about, by name, in the speech he was almost killed for, on the Senate floor.

Yes, your teacher will claim they "know all about" Sumner's speech, it's one of the most famous in US history.  But ask them who Sumner was talking about by name, and what this man did, according to Sumner.


You gotta like Atchison, in a way. He boasted of things others would say only in double speak.  

 Atchison's partner in Kansas Act -- Stephen A Douglas, tried to explain away many of Atchison's truthful outbursts as "his way of talking".  

Exactly. In his vain, often drunken outbursts, Atchison would spurt out the truth.   To bad he couldnt get Jeff Davis drunk.


Not just killing to spread slavery -- as Sumner said in his speech, and as Atchison boasted of in his, Atchison also terrorized and would kill those who published newspapers against slavery.  Atchison had made it illegal to publish anti- slavery newspapers in Kansas.  

Atchison's raid into Lawrence was for the expressed purpose -- that means he said so -- to shut down the anti-slavery paper there, and kill abolitionists. 


Atchison worked officially for Jefferson Davis.





Atchison had a little problem with the US flag, even though he was paid by the US.  As he told his Texas men, in September of 1856....




None of this is in your history text book,  in a direct way, other than by the euphemism ."Trouble in Kansas".

If you can find a single text book in the United State, showing Atchison bragging about killing to spread slavery,  and the Southern War Ultimatums, I'd love to buy it.  I've looked for years now.

Basic history then -- buried in bullshit about "Trouble in Kansas" now, that tells you nothing about who killed who, and why.

Atchison tells his Texas men why the Confederate flag is red in color  -- for the blood they would spill to spread slavery.

 Lawrence Kansas would be invaded three times. The last time it was burned to the ground. 


This is a BFD -- and you never heard it, either. 

Lawrence Kansas was not the only city burned to the ground by Atchison and his men.    Atchison and his men went after three other towns too -  Osawatomie was another-- and killed John Brown's son as he stood in the road protecting that town.

Pissed John Brown off, more than a tad.

Atchison's killing sprees -- funded by Jeff Davis officially, approved by Jeff Davis officially, not only caused Lincoln to get back in politics, but caused John Brown to be one pissed off son of a bitch.  And Brown was going to fight back -- finally, as one editor said -- with the same ferocity as Atchison's men. 



Most "history" teachers today have no clue that the South rejected the excuse of states rights (it was always an excuse, never a reason) when Kansas rejected slavery.

Suddenly, it did not matter one iota that 95% of the people in Kansas voted against slavery.   No one told you that did they?  This has been glossed over, to the point its forgotten, and worse, stupid teachers teach that Southern leaders  cared about states rights and popular soverity.

 No they didn't -- they HATED states rights, when Kansas rejected slavery.  Hated it so much, they sent killers out there, issued war ultimatums, and eventually started a civil war, not for states rights, but against it.


No one was surprised at headlines in Southern papers about War Ultimatums being the spread of slavery into Kansas.

Least of all Lincoln.  Lincoln got back into politics because of what Atchison and Douglas did -- and Lincoln said so. Lincoln actually said he got back into politics because of Kansas Act, which Atchison pushed through. And his law partner said the same thing. 

In fact, when Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums -- Kansas was already a free state.  That's why Lincoln gave that note to Alexander Stephens.... the only real difference between us,  Lincoln wrote, was that you were for the spread of slavery. We don't want it to spread.

They didn't suggest Kansas accept and respect slavery. It was a war ultimatum. And Southern leaders had already been in Kansas using violence for years.


Southern War Ultimatums, per Richmond papers, bragging of them as "THE TRUE ISSUE" 


Southern "equality" in the territories meant to Davis,  Kansas must accept and protect slavery.  

Got that?  When you hear this bullshit about "Southern rights" in the territories, that's what they mean.   Not sorta -- not kinda, that is exactly what they mean.

It  did not matter that 95% of the citizen there voted against slavery.


Anti-incendiary laws.  All slave states tortured folks who spoke against slavery,  beginning in 1840's.   White folks. Try to grasp this -- white folks could be, and were, tortured and jailed for speaking and writing against slavery.

Bet you did not know that. 

They had to do that.  If they allowed free speech, if they allowed anti slavery newspapers in the South, or anti slavery preachers, or anti slavery books, slavery ends.

A basic fact of life well known then -- and no one told your stupid "history " teacher. So basic, slavery would have ended in the South, for same reason it ended in the North, slave owners were shamed.  They were spoken badly about in public, preachers could and did preach against slavery. Slave owners were yelled at in public.

Slave owners were ashamed to be slave owners -- as newspapers grew more numerous, books became easier to publish, and speakers grew more numerous against slavery.

So when Atchison invaded Kansas, the first thing he did was pass laws to stop free speech.

The second thing he did, was to enforce those laws through violence.  His invasion of Lawrence was expressly for this purpose. That means -- he said that was the reason.

When you read Atchison's speech -- notice he is bragging about stopping the newspaper in Lawrence, and all over the territories.

Atchison had made it a crime (through his "bogus legislature")  to speak or publish newspapers against slavery.

Bet you never heard of such a thing.

If you read Sumner's speech, you would know that already.  Atchison and his men were already arresting and terrorizing -- to stop folks from publishing anti slavery newspapers.   That may sound wacko to you -- but this was standard in all slave states, and Atchison was trying to make Kansas a slave state- - and all of the West.

The reason the US could not get rid of slavery, were these laws in every Southern state, called "anti-incendiary " laws.   Passed in every Southern legislature were laws forbidding newspaper, books, speeches -- even preachers -- from preaching against slavery.


The reason (excuse)   for outlawing speech against slavery, making it illegal to publish anything in writing, or import anything in writing, against slavery, was  that such speech and writing could "dissatisfy" a slave. 

That's right -- can't dissatisfy a slave!

Hilarious.   As if they cared about slave's satisfaction. 

The real reason,  if white people spoke and wrote  against slavery - - gave speeches, sermons -- slavery was going to end in the South too. 

Public humiliation of slavery, public condemnation, public speeches, sermons -- that's why slavery ended in the North.


As you can tell from his speech, Atchison invaded Lawrence Kansas with his Texas men, and had them promise to kill anyone who dared resisted.   Their crime? Publishing a newspaper against slavery.  And he says so.


The "Howard Commission" in Congress  gathered testimony of dozens of people from Kansas, reporting on what was going on, who Atchison and his men had killed or terrorized or tried to run out of Kansas.

Atchison was not ashamed- - he was bragging of it.  Atchison is rather unique, he boasted of things, others usually said by euphamism or double speak.

"Let Kansas sink into hell"  

In early 1854, Atchison told Douglas to get Kansas Act passed, to open slavery in Kansas.  Atchison said he would "rather let [Kansas and Nebraska] sink into hell, that have a free state next to Missouri."

  Douglas refused -- at first.  Atchison then told Douglas  he would take Douglas off the committee which gave Douglas much power.

To keep his position on that committee, Douglas got Kansas Act passed.  Atchison would later brag about that. Charles Sumner made it clear -- in that famous speech he was beaten almost to death for -- that Atchison did indeed get Kansas Act passed. So Sumner said Atchison got it passed, and Atchison himself boasted it was his doing.


Southern leaders, as Lincoln well knew, did not bluff.

  Yes, it was a killing spree.  As one witness said, the roads were littered with dead bodies, after Atchison and his men went through an area. Trouble?

Trouble?  Trouble is what happens when drop an apple pie on the kitchen floor.

This was killing sprees -- by a US Senator, sent to Kansas right after he passed the Kansas Act.

One of the dead bodies belonged to John Brown's son - Frederick Brown. He was 21.   Killing John Brown's son was a BFD.   Brown was not playing games, from that day forward.   For those who think Brown was some kook, some mad man, consider this. Atchison and his men had invaded Kansas repeatedly, promised to kill every "abolitionist" in the territorites, and he just got 1000 Texas men from Jeff Davis.   He was actually killing.

John Brown was not going to take this shit anymore.   Atchison would boast -- after invading Lawrence -- that Kansas men were cowards and would run away.  At first he was right.

Then they killed Brown's son.  For some stupid reason,  no one mentions this either. Atchison and his men killed the wrong boy -- John Brown's Boy.

Nothing would be the same in the USA, once Atchison's men killed John Brown's son. 

And get this -- before you started reading this, you did not know who Atchison was, what he did, what he bragged about, who  he worked for, or who he killed.

Now -- really -- you know more than most college history teachers, about this subject.

Atchison was not some nut -- he was US Senator.

Not just any Senator -- President Pro Temp.

Not just any President Pro Temp -- he was the guy who got Kansas Act passed. 

Not just any Senator to get Kansas Act passed -- he was the guy Sumner was talking about, for two days, in the speech he was beaten almost to death for, on the US Senate floor.

 When he went to Kansas, he officially worked for Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War. He reported to Davis.  Davis paid him -- and Davis paid his men.

Tiny "details" they forgot to mention in your text books, but should have.

Atchison was no nut -- he worked officially for, and reported to -- Jefferson Davis. Davis paid him, paid his men, and said what Atchison did was "Constitutionally required".


This was common knowledge at the time.  

 Remember that. You never heard of it.


Atchison worked for -- officially -- Jefferson Davis.
If you don't know that, you don't get this whole thing.


Davis publically supported Atchison -- then, and later.   Davis was Secretary of War.   Atchison wrote reports to Jefferson Davis.

The Texas men were not in the US Army. Atchison got them from placing notices in Texas and South Carolina newspapers.

But Davis would pay them -- according to Atchison's speech.

The only way Davis could pay them, in 1856, was with cooperation of Stephen A Douglas, which he clearly had.

Contrary to what most "experts" think, Douglas was NOT against Atchison killing sprees and Lecompton -- until it became clear that would cost him his position as Senator, in fact, the people in various cities were so furious when they found out about Atchison's killing sprees, and Douglas duplicity it in, he could not get off his train, or even show his face.

He had to back peddle very fast, which he did.

The US had plenty of soldiers --  Davis tried to get US soldiers stop citizens in Kansas from creating their own government, in 1852 and 1853. Davis could not use those for the "dirty work" that Atchison would do.    So Atchison got other men, and Davis paid them.

US soldiers, following Davis orders, did break up some meetings by Kansas citizens. But more than break up a meeting, for Davis, these soldiers would not do.  

If you do not remember anything from here -- remember this -- Atchison could not get volunteers. Atchison and Davis had to pay those folks who would kill and terrorize.  As newspapers showed then -- and Lincoln's private letters showed at the time -- everyone was quite aware, painfully aware, that Jeff Davis was sending killers to Kansas.  And they knew he first tried to use US soldiers, but they would not do what he wanted. A speech by Preston Blair in St. Louis paper is but one example.    

Davis got President Pierce to back Atchison and his killings / arrest/ terror in Kansas.  Davis claimed then -- and later in life -- that everything Atchison did was "Constitutionally required" 


While it's  not clear to you -- or even your "history teacher"   that the Kansas Act (the way Atchison used it) was going to push slavery by violence in the territories, and all the way to the Pacific - it was clear to Lincoln.

Atchison could not be more clear. He went to Kansas immediately after he got KS act passed - remember, Sumner said he was the one behind it, and Atchison boasted of that.

Lincoln quit being a lawyer for the railroads, got back into politics.  His speech exposing the fraud and violence of the Kansas Act is not as gory as Sumner's speech exposing Atchison and his killings, but they spoke about the same thing.   

 Senator Douglas had pushed Kansas Act -- supposedly to give people the right to vote  on slavery, but in fact, in action, quit the opposite happened.    And he knew it.

Douglas would forever stick to claim that he just wanted people to have the right to vote -- but everyone knew his business partner, and political ally, was in Kansas killing and terrorizing to STOP any real vote.

Douglas did not fool anyone who knew him. But because "historians" are so lazy and stupid, they just believe Douglas was for popular sovereignty -- he said so, many times. So he had to be for it. He said so!




 By the time Atchison made his speech - slave power had ALREADY used violence to spread slavery to the area outlined in white.

Texas -- taken from Mexico by war -- was the biggest prize. Lincoln challenged President Polk about this in 1846, as did others, during the war itself.  Lincoln said -- as many people knew -- that the war against Mexico was just a way to spread slavery further.

So Lincoln had an early start of pushing against slavery. He also tried to get slavery kicked out of District of Columbia. He also tried to get Wilmot passed forty times.  But the "historians" who like the BS that Lincoln was not really against slavery, seem to always forget that.


This map reflects the reality of what Atchison bragged his goal was -- spreading slavery to all the west -- not just Kansas. It was the reality of that day.

The fact most people can get out of college, and think somehow "Kansas Trouble" was some dispute by local folks over slavery there shows how bad our education system is. 

The fact many of these folks teach history, is even worse.

Lincoln was RIGHT. Southern scum really were trying to spread slavery, and by the means Lincoln said -- violence, Kansas Act, and Dred Scott.

Lincoln knew exactly what he was talking about.

US Senator Atchison made it clear -- he was killing to spread it to the area outlined in red. 




1)  Atchison gets Kansas Act Passed  using Douglas as front.

How do we know? Atchison himself boasts of that, and Sumner exposes that. 

2)  Atchison goes to Kansas and begins violent spread of slavery

How do we know?  Atchison himself boasts of that. The amazing thing about Atchison, he boasts of things most people used euphamism for.

3)  Lincoln gets into politics because of Kansas Act

How do we know?  Lincoln said so, and so did his law partners, then, and later. 

4)  Atchison brags he is killing to spread slavery.

How do we know?   Atchison's speech, and Atchison's friends also boasted of it. See below.

5)  Jefferson Davis own book declares the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas was the "intolerable grievance"

How do we know?  We read his book.  Funny how that works.


 Reading is Fundamental.

Atchison's assistant -- Stringfellow  - promises to keep killing, keep drowning, keep hanging every abolitionist in the territories.  

Those damn "cowards" and "dogs" Atchison boasted of getting rid of, kept messing up his plans. 

Atchison tells his men -- with reason -- he had the backing "of the present administration".   Davis would only say he ordered that violence be kept to a minimum.   Uh, strange, no one could find that order about keeping violence to a minimum.  Nor did Atchison do that, he kept violence to the maximum  he could muster.

When Kansas citizens appealed to Pierce for help -- guess who was there to convince Pierce these Kansas folks were breaking the law?   Jeff Davis was there. Literally by side of the President, telling him his version of events, and how his man -- Atchison -- was being disobeyed on lawful orders.

  Pierce sided with his Secretary of War, who controlled Pierce like the punk he was.   To be fair, Jeff Davis could make people believe up was down, liberty was slavery, he even once defined liberty at the right to own slaves.

Pierce, with no knowledge of what was going on in reality, in Kansas, of course backed Jeff Davis, and the weight of the US government went against the people of Kansas for a time.

Southern rights  meant -- literally to Davis and Atchison -- that  no one  could reject slavery.. Not the people of any territory, not Congress, not any legislature.  By default, the only ones that could decide who had slavery in any state, was the slave owner.   


 Davis and Atchison were clear --because of Dred Scott, they claimed no one could keep slavery out, by vote, by legislature, by Congress.   Davis specifically cited Dred Scott as  his justification for Atchison's violence in Kansas. 

Davis repeatedly pointed out, the Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision were justification, that Kansas must accept slavery.   Davis naturally "forgot" to mention -- he was the guy behind the scenes who got Kansas Act passed (with Atchison's help) and he was also the guy that got Taney to write those amazingly horrible orders --- yes ORDERS -- that blacks were not to be seen as human beings (not persons) but property.


Davis was not out in Kansas doing any killing - he was, however, getting reports from Atchison, and sending him all the support he could, including the Dred Scott decision, and men from Texas to fight, after the earlier Missouri men were not enough.


Davis made it clear -- Dred Scott decision changed everything.  

Now, Atchison was justified, because it was not up to the people of Kansas anymore. It was not up to Congress.  It was not up to the territorial legislature.   The Supreme Court took over the question of slavery -- and decided....

Davis was quite proud of it.

This is how Davis explained that the people in Kansas do not get to decide slavery issues, never mind the deceptive rhetoric about "popular sovereignty".  That did NOT apply to slavery, because by Dred Scott order (yes, it was an order) blacks were to be seen as property, not human beings.


 Davis writes emphatically about Dred Scott -- that the court rule dthat slaves are to be seen as property, not persons, "would be accepted as final".  

The Dred Scott decision that blacks are not human beings (not persons)

must be "accepted as final"

This was from his OWN DAMN BOOK about it.

Davis book "Rise and Fall of the Confederate government"  has been in print and continually published for over 100 years.   It's required reading in some schools.   Did anyone not notice he claimed emphatically blacks are not human beings (not persons) and that the Dred Scott decision declaring this was the reason the "resistance to the spread of slavery"   into Kansas specifically, was "intolerable".

What the hell does he have to do, rent billboard space  on your ass?

When Davis wrote that everything Atchison did was "constitutionally required" -- this is what he was talking about.

The court ordered -- yes it did -- ordered slavery protected in Kansas. Atchison was doing exactly that, in Davis's mind. 


While before Kansas Act, Atchison and others claimed their sole purpose was the "noble principle"   of "local control of local institutions"   and "popular sovereignty that was clearly bullshit, because that bastard immediately raced to Kansas -- left Senate immediately -- showed up in Missouri first, where  he  hired hundreds of men, broke into a federal armory (with the approval of his boss, Jeff Davis) got a bunch of guns, and invaded Kansas.

Sound like states rights to you?

Sound like popular sovereignty to you?

If that sounds like popular soverity, get the fuck off this blog, you are an idiot.

Indeed, on line Stephen A Douglas  used repeatedly -- Kansas Act would "make people perfectly free to decide for themselves" (except blacks, of course).
But as Lincoln and many others pointed out -- exactly the opposite was the case, as event proved.   

It almost worked.


Cleverly,  Davis tried to pass off the machinations of Kansas Act and Dred Scott, as being a mandate -- an order by the Court, to protect slavery in Kansas.  

Davis was proud of that. He pointed it out.  Your stupid history teacher probably doesn't even know what Dred Scott decision said,  because the meme is, it's about citizenship.   What bullshit.

It did not matter what the people of Kansas wanted, 95% vote or not.   That's what Dred Scott decision did,  made it immaterial, meaningless, what the citizens of Kansas wanted.  Made it meaningless what the Kansas legislature wanted, or Congress.

All that was gone -- per Dred Scott. Now -- because of Dred Scott, as Lincoln himself pointed out correctly, slavery have been made something of a 'sacred right"

Below is from the Dred Scott decision itself.  The most amazing sentence in any court decision, before or since. And you aren not told about . Everyone knew about it, then. 

THIS is how Davis explained it, in his book.

Congress does not get to decide slavery issues.  Kansas citizens do not get to decide., The territorial legislature do not get to decide?

Who gets to decide?  Davis never dares get that blunt, but as Lincoln pointed out (and others)  the SLAVE OWNER decides.  A slave owner gets to decide not just to take his slave anywhere, remember this - but that state or territory must protect slavery. The court ordered that.

One of Lincoln's own handwritten drafts of House Divided Speech.

Kansas was such a huge deal -- his first two words, in this draft, are "Why Kansas".   Lincoln went to Kansas.  Lincoln got back into politics because of Atchison and Douglas passing the Kansas Act.  It was a BFD. 

Lincoln exposed the "machinery"  of Kansas Act, and Dred Scott decision, as the vehicle to push slavery to all of the US.  The machinery, if left unstopped, would "by necessity"  create a nation of slave states, or end the Union.

It was all or nothing - and LIncoln had it right.

You are just not taught that he was right. 

He was exactly right - and Southern leaders were boasting of all -or nothing -- until they lost.



Dred Scott happened because Atchison was not able to get rid of abolitionist and anti slavery newspapers by force. 

He did not have enough men -- Kansas citizens fought back much harder than ATchison predicted. Atchison had made fun of the cowards in Kansas, only they did not stay cowards.

Lincoln was not alone pointing this out-- that Kansas, because of Dred Scott, and because of Kansas Act, meant it was all or nothing.

What do you think Davis was talking about, in a speech later, when he said he hoped US would reunite as a slave owning nation, North and South?  Yes, he said that.  

By going full monty, by Kansas Act and Dred Scott --as LIncoln called it, the first two bits of "machinery" designed to push slavery into the West, and eventually all of the US --  there really was no way to stop slavery.   Kansas Act destroyed the "compromise" demanded by the South that slavery be kept in the South. 

Then Dred Scott created a "right to take slaves anywhere" . Yes it did.   SO the the slave owner decides -- there is no legal basis to keep slavery out of anyplace, as long as Dred Scott is the law of the land.

Jeff Davis immediately used Dred Scott decision to justify Atchison's violence in Kansas.    Lincoln immediately exposed Dred Scott for that reason -- it ordered slavery be protected in Kansas, because blacks were not human beings, but property.



Lincoln -- and thousands of others -- knew exactly what Southern leaders were doing, and said so.  Lincoln famously in House Divided speech, but he said such things hundreds of times.  

This was not news to anyone alive in 1850s.  It might sound like a small detail now, on some history test.  



Lincoln went to Kansas -- he even went to the city named after David Rice Atchison.  


Kansas folks turned to President Pierce for help - he had them arrested.    Bet you didn't know that, either. 

 Let me repeat that, when Kansas folks turned to Washington, Pierce, led by the nose by Jeff Davis and Stephen A Douglas, had them arrested.

Kansas folks were in a world of hurt. They had Atchison and his Texas men trying to kill them. They turned for help to Washington, and the President sided with Jeff Davis, who had sent the killers, in the first place.

You now know more basic history - really -- about what led to the Civil War, than most high school teachers, who teach from the text book.







How the hell are our history books -- and "historians" so stupid, they don't even mention Southern War Ultimatums?

Instead, they give you this pure nonsense about how "Cotton Gin" expanded slavery. 

Excuse me - you idiots. There were no cotton gins in Kansas, or near it. And besides, cotton gins don't do shit -- people do.

People kill -- people enslave, people write war ultimatums.  People brag about killing to spread slavery.

There was not a cotton gin within 50 miles of Lee's slave plantation, he did not raise cotton, he raised SLAVE FLESH. He bought it (yes he did, and his slave ledgers show that) he sold it (yes he did, and his slave ledgers show that too).

Slave owners had slaves for profit and pleasure.  Where do you think those light skinned slave babies came from? Casper?

How stupid do you gotta be?   They get fools with Master's degress, even Phd's, walking around in front of a bunch of kids, telling them crap like the cotton gin was why slavery spread.  God what idiots.

Well, someone told them that, it sounded okay, must be true?

No, it's not true. And never was.  Slavery was about power, rape, prestige. They were spreading slavery, by killing, in areas that wouldn't have  a cotton gin except for a place to put toilet paper.

This should  not be a surprise. Cotton gin did it? You fucking idiots.


As if Kansas citizens didn't have enough trouble with killers sent by Davis, from Texas,  things got worse, when Jeff Davis got Roger Taney to declare that blacks are not even human beings -- not persons.

The court did not just declare -- they actually ORDERED blacks to be seen not as persons. They also literally ORDERED the federal government to protect slavery, even in Kansas.

No one would  help.  Kansas was on it's own.  

This is what LIncoln faced, not some watered down bullshit.




That Kansas citizens won -- against the federal government controlled then by Jeff Davis  --to become a free state, is the big untold story in US history. 

It's untold, because to tell you, you have to show what Jeff Davis and Atchison were doing -- who they were killing, who they hired, and what they bragged about then.  

They would have to tell you Kansas Act was passed by David Atchison, just as he bragged about, and Stephen A Douglas was helping him behind the scenes, just as most Republicans knew at the time.  And they would have to tell you Davis role in sending over 6000 men to Kansas, paid men, in effect private mercenaries -- while he was Secretary of Wary.

And they would have to tell you that Southern leaders hated "States Rights"  by Southern leaders.  In other words, they would have to admit their entire narrative is bullshit. Which it is.

 Jeff Davis himself made it clear, state's rights did not -- not -- not -- apply to slavery, because of Dred Scott decision.  See below.

Charles Sumner - the Senator beaten almost to death on Senate floor - was talking about Senator Atchison passing Kansas Act, then going to Kansas to kill and terrorize. Read his speech.

Everyone knew it then --newspapers, cartoons, debates, books, speeches on both sides, were filled with this exact issue :  SOuthern leaders justification for violent spread of slavery.

The famous (but today, almost no one seems to know what Sumner said in the speech) Sumner speech was about exactly this -- how Atchison got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas and started his violence, not just to spread slavery, but to stop folks from even speaking against slavery in Kansas.

WHo the hell teaches that? Hell, most "history teachers" could not tell you that Atchison's violence and passing Kansas Act was why Lincoln got back into politics --but it was.
It was violent spread.  There was no other way to spread slavery --other than violence. 

The violence to spread slavery is just stupidly glossed over,  as if "Southerners"  did it, nameless.

It was not Southerners -- it was men who had names, and they were famous.   Spread of slavery was very much a top down, demagogue driven phenomenon.   

That's why the Southern Ultimatums are important as hell -- yet there is not one text book in the US that even mentions them, much less shows them.

Shame on the text book companies.

But more -- shame on the bullshit "historians" like McPherson, Catton, Foner, who never mention the War Ultimatums either, and gloss over anything Atchison did, or don't mention him at all.

And not one of these "historians" have ever dared mention Atchison speech, or that he worked officially for Jeff Davis while he was killing to spread slavery, and bragging of it.



And it was not just Atchison -- though he worked for -- and wrote reports to - Jeff Davis.

Did you know the President and Vice President of the Confederacy both boasted that they created a nation-- first in the world according to the Vice President -- to do slavery right, as God wanted, to punish the inferior race for biblical sins?

Stephens -- the VP -- like Atchison, did not just admit it, he boasted of it, repeatedly in five different speeches.   Southern newspapers reported at the time, the crowds cheered.  More about Stephens after Atchison's speech.....





S  P  R  E  A  D

If your history teacher says something about the South fought to KEEP slavery -- bullshit.    

As they made very very clear at the time, over and over, in speeches, in documents, and in killing sprees, they fought to SPREAD slavery

This Southern General was already in Kansas, killing to spread slavery.   Not long before that, he was a US Senator. 

Oh, yeah and he was bragging about that.  His bombastic speech -- urging death -- is below. No one doubts it was his speech, he and others gave other speeches, even wrote in their own newspapers, much the same thing. 

I can't help it if your "history" teacher presents this in euphemism as "Trouble in Kansas"


Give credit to Atchison for trying - with money from Jeff Davis, with backing of President Pierce, they actually did kill, torture, and terrorize, under the color of law.  Kansas men finally started fighting back, you probably  heard of one guy who began fighting Atchison, much to Atchison's amazement.

Atchison had predicted a quick victory by a bold show of force.  

John Brown, after Atchison's men killed his son, and promised to kill the rest of his family, changed all that.   Yes, you hear John Brown was some kind of lunatic.  If someone kills your son, then promises to kill your entire family (and Atchison did not bluff)  maybe you would take actions too. 

Brown took the promise to kill his family seriously -- Atchison did not bluff.  He personally turned out to be a coward, but he would eagerly send other to terrorize and kill.   Atchison already proved he would kill, and was not boasting of it, and suddenly had 700 Texas men, just arrived.

Some in Kansas simply left -- or obeyed Atchison.  Brown had other ideas. 



"Trouble in Kansas"

You never heard of his speech, much less read it. Nor are we taught clearly what happened in Kansas  -- who killed who and why.  

Our history text books only speak of "Trouble in Kansas"  and give the impression anti-slavery folks were violent and both sides were "extremist" and who "would not compromise."  

As Southern apologist Shelby Foote tried to pass off, doing his aww shucks act, those folks in Kansas "just didn't compromise, our genius was compromise, and they wouldn't do it".


As you will see, Atchison did not use Kansas men for his killings and terror. He used Missouri men, then Texas men.  And he  had to pay those.  There was no "organic"  or local support of slavery, and certainly no local folks who wanted to use violence to spread slavery. Many "history" teachers stupidly assume many folks in Kansas wanted slavery. Bullshit -- almost none wanted slavery that lived there, and those few that were pro slavery, sure as hell weren't out to kill to spread slavery there.

The violence and bragging about pushing slavery -- came from Atchison. He simply didn't have enough men, in the end. His bragging and "mighty roar"  was not enough, because the overwhelming number of white males in KS didn't want slavery, and they hated the killers sent to push it down their throats.


 US Senator ATCHSION --his speech to his Texas men, (Atchison speech was to welcome the Texas men)  did not admit he was killing to spread slavery, he was boasting of it, and called it a war to spread slavery. 

He did not mumble.  He boasted of it.

This was in 1856 -- four years before Lincoln was even elected.  Atchison was the US Senator for Missouri, then Jefferson Davis named him, officially, as "General of Law and Order" in Kansas Territory.



Bet you didn't know that.

Stringfellow- - Atchison's right hand man -- bragged that no matter what happens, they will continue to kill  and hang and drown every "free soiler" who dares pollute our soil.

He was BOASTING of it -- he was not admitting it, he was BOASTING of it.

Try to grasp that.

Why the Confederate flag is red? Atchison told the Texas men why it was red in color,  in 1856.   For the blood they would spill to spread slavery. Yes, this was a "team speech"  much like a coach before a football game.   Still, he was urging  his men to kill, and telling them why.

What did Atchisom men have to promise to do? Exactly what they were paid to do.  He made it clear- - he put articles in Texas and South Carolina papers, urging the violent men to come to Kansas!!  And when they got to Kansas, he gave them an amazing speech.

Why are they  in Kansas killing ?

Atchison brags of it-- so does his newspaper.

They are in Kansas -- killing - not just to spread slavery, but to stop anyone from speaking openly against slavery.  Atchison had made it a crime to publish anti slavery newspapers, over a year before his raid on Lawrence.   His raid, with the Texas men, were a direct result of their publication of an anti-slavery paper.

He BOASTS about that, too.

Bet you didn't know this.   That's why his speech is so important, it's a history lesson, in itself.


And it did not surprise anyone, because already in all slave states, it was against the law to speak openly, to even preach, or to publish any newspaper against slavery.

Yeah, I know -- no one told you this.  But everyone knew it then.   It was a crime to own a book which was against slavery- you probably knew that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was banned?

Oh hell, they didn't have a list of banned books. Anything -- even a speech, a sermon, even owning the wrong book could get you arrested.  This is a topic by itself, and it's a shame we are not taught that either.

Here is how those laws against preaching or owning the wrong book worked --  bet you had no clue.


   Atchison -- first thing he did with his "bogus legislature"  -- was to make it a crime to publish anti slavery newspapers.  

 What the hell do you think Sumner was talking about -- oh, that's right, no one actually reads that speech. He was talking about Atchison -- after he passed the Kansas Act -- going to Kansas to spread slavery and stop folks from even speaking against slavery. 

You can pretend Sumner was exaggerating --  even though you had no clue what he even spoke about, till  you read it here.  The problem with that is, Atchison was boasting of these things,  he did not deny any of it. He boasted of it.

No, Sumner was telling the Senate, what Atchison was out in Kansas, not only doing, but boasting of.

Remember that. 

So what to "historians" like Catton, McPherson, Foner, say about Sumner's speech?   Not much, and certainly nothing clear, like Atchison was the guy he was speaking of, about killing to spread slavery, or that Atchison was the Senator that got Kansas Act passed.

NOne of this was a surprise at the time. Sumner did not speak anything that was not only factual, but most of the country knew it already, and Atchison boasted of.

So why the hell is this not in US text books, in a clear way?  Because it makes Southern leaders look like lunatic violent bastards, which they were.

And because "historians" like Foner Atchison and Catton, would rather piss on Lincoln for a out of context quote, than say anything clear about how vile Southern  leaders were, who they killed, and what they boasted of.



Get that - the crowds -- according to Southern newspapers, CHEERED when VP Stephens told them the Confederacy was based on the "great moral truth" not only that blacks should be enslaved, but more, that God was punishing blacks for biblical sins.

Did you ever hear that the Vice President gave a series of speeches (not just one speech) about the great moral truth of the Confederacy?

He would never say such nonsense later -- after the war, Southern leaders would not dare whisper, what they boasted of before, including Davis, Atchison, Toombs, Stephens, and many Southern editors, so eager to spread slavery and promise violence before. 

If you knew any of that, anything like it, you did not get it from US history books. All that, and much more, has been white washed or discussed in euphemisms.



No one was confused whatsoever at the time -- Southern leaders insisted they had all rights to the West -- to make the West slave states.    This was news to absolutely no one, and Southern leaders boasted of it.

The speech by Sumner -- about Atchison and his men in Kansas.
Sumner was beaten almost to death at the end of that speech.


Yes, on the surface, Kansas Act was supposed to allow Kansas citizens to vote on slavery.   But as everyone in the US knew (you do not) that Atchison  was the  guy who got Kansas Act passed in the first place --  he bragged he did.    And Sumner validated that, in his own speech, the one he was beaten for. 

But this was not news to anyone alive at the time.  Atchison was PRAISED for getting Kansas Act passed,  and then praised for going to Kansas as "General of Law and Order".  It was no secret.

This is what Lincoln pointed out -- and hundreds of others pointed out too -- after Kansas Act passed.  KS act actually forbid folks from rejecting slavery, while on the surface it supposedly allowed folks there to vote slavery up or down.

Read the Lincoln Douglas debates!

Few people even read the full Lincoln- Douglas debates, though every history teacher claims they did (they claim they read Sumners speech, too, and can't tell you who he was talking about).

You can't understand the L-D debates, they will be jibberish to you, unless you understand Douglas worked with Atchison to pass Kansas Act, and they put in the "poison pill"  that made popular soverighty and Orwellian joke -- Kansas citizens were not allowed to reject slavery.  The clever fine print in the Act prevented that, at least according to Atchison and his men, and supporters.

Guys like Sumner were telling anyone that would listen -- hey, this Kansas Act is a fraud, they will use this to force slavery into Kansas.  

Lincoln knew all that, of course, because Lincoln actually got into politics again, BECAUSE of this.  The fraud of Kansas Act is why he was running!  

His House Divided Speech, and much of his speeches, are about the the duplicity of Douglas and Southern leaders re Kanas Act.  Lincoln specifically chased Douglas around and around on this point - if you don't know the back story, you'd think Lincoln was nuts to go into such detail with his questions to Douglas.

Lincoln was just trying to pin Douglas down -- and Lincoln did point out clearly what Douglas and his friends were up to, in the debates.

Newspaper editors -- hell, even the public -- were quite aware, keenly aware, of what Southern leaders had done -- with Stephen Douglas help.   The newspapers of that time are livid at Atchison, Douglas, and Jeff Davis for this scam.  Lincoln was not any more aware of it that thousands of others.

The earliest newspaper reports of Douglas working with Atchison and their fraud to push slavery by Kansas Act, was before anyone even knew Lincoln as a public figure outside IL.   Stunning to read, let me link it here...


This is why LIncoln got back into politics.  

Did anyone even tell you that?

This is what Charles Sumner was talking about in his famous speech, the one he was beaten for.  Did  your history teacher mention THAT?

Instead, your "history" text books idiotically refer often to Kansas Act or it's authors as being for "popular sovereighty".


Here is something else watered down --  Jeff Davis bragging, and using this to justify Atchison's actions in Kansas.

Davis  insisted that blacks are not human beings, not persons, and officially not persons -- NOT HUMAN BEINGS.

They were, "inferior beings of a different caste"  said Davis, so inferior they are property. You might hear something about "no rights a white man must respect"  but it is damn rare you hear anyone say it bluntly (Lincoln said it bluntly).

Davis stated, writtin, official justficiation of the violence was that Dred Scott made slavery a right--because blacks were no different than a dog, or wagon, or bucket of shit, for purposes of the Constitution. (No, he didn't say bucket of shit).

Officially -- remember that -- Atchison went there as an official, with the grand title of "General of Law and Order"

Who killed who -- and why -- is real history. Everything else is bullshit.  Bullshit is fine, but get the part about who killed who, and why, correct. They add all the  bullshit you want.

Usually "historians"  like McPherson are vague as hell, even try to blame the citizens of Kansas, and not Jefferson Davis, not Atchison.  The favorite bit of bullshit is to blame "both sides" and not give a single declarative factual statement about who killed who, who paid for the killers, or what the leaders boasted of.

Quit a bit to "forget to mention".

McPherson has never -- ever --written a single sentence about what Atchison did in Kansas, his speech, who he killed, or that he worked officially for Jefferson Davis, and wrote Davis reports about the progress of his hangings and promises to rid Kansas of all opposition to slavery.

WTF?  Atchison and others are bragging about things at the time -- and "historians" like McPherson essentially do not mention it, in any clear way.

Not in his entire life has McPHerson even mentioned Southern War Ultimatums, though they were headlines in Southern newspapers at the time, under the banner "THE TRUE ISSUE".

Essentially McPherson has adopted Jefferson Davis approach to Southern history -- just leave out the killings, tortures, invasions, promises to kill, bragging about killing, and the actual killings, to spread slavery, even though Southern leaders bragged about it at the time.

Ironically, the best (maybe only) place to find out what Southern leaders actually did -- is from Southern books, Southern newspapers, Southern speeches, Southern documents at the time. 

From McPherson, Foner, Catton, and your text books, at best you get some bullshit watered down passive voice about trouble in Kansas .   Such crap.


Your "history" could have no possible knowledge of the Southern War Ultimatums, if he just relied on text books -- even college text books (as far as I know) don't even mention them, much less show them.

We only know what we are told.

But at the time, Southern leaders were very proud of this. They did not admit it, they boasted of it.  

Other than rent billboard space in front of your house, some Southern leaders could not make it more clear --they were already at war, and already killing to spread slavery. 

You have to be some kind of idiot, not to know that, because newspapers North and South covered it -- Southern papers approvingly, Northern papers showing what was going on.   Kansas newspapers had little else in them.

Maybe "historians" should read what people then were saying -- like Atchison bragging about killing to spread slavery, and Atchison bragging  he got Kansas Act passed.

And like Sumner exposing this in his speech -- the one he was beaten for.   Too much to ask?

Hell, Atchison and Stringfellow published newspapers about it. They wrote reports to Jeff Davis about it.   Jefferson Davis wrote a damn book -- and in that book, he said the resistance to slavery in Kansas was INTOLERABLE GRIEVANCE.

What do you want him to do, drive to your house and explain it more? Seriously, other than driving to your house, and bragging about it in person, Atchison and others could not do more than they did to make it very clear.

The meant to spread slavery by any means -- including killing -- against state's rights, against free speech which they would stop, and did stop.

Don't blame me that you didn't know this shit already: blame whoever wrote your "history" text books, and left out what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about, and did, until they lost.


So next time someone tells you Southern leaders were for state's rights -- not really. They killed and terrorized and did all they could to stop state's rights in Kansas -- and it almost worked.

New York papers ran the War Ultimatums two days later- - and suggested Lincoln obey -- let them force slavery into Kansas (Kansas was already a free state).  OF course, Lincoln was not about to obey, nor did SOuthern leaders think he would. They were just showing off their macho duck bullshit.  This report of Southern War ultimatums was in another NY paper. 




You heard of of Charles Sumner, right?

 He was the Senator beaten on the Senate floor. This is what Charles Sumner as talking about, in that speech. It's one of the most famous speeches of that century -- and he was specifically talking about David Rice Atchison, how Atchison got Kansas Act passed, and then went to Kansas and killed, terrorized to spread slavery and stop free speech.

Let that sink in -- because no one, that I know of, for the last 115 years has bothered to point this out, though everyone knew it then.

Charles Sumner stated that  history will long remember Atchison as the guy who got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas and killed and oppressed speech in Kansas against slavery. NO one was confused about it, at the time, Atchison was in Kansas bragging about it.

Sumner was wrong about that.  He didn't figure in, Texas companies would have virtual monopoly on US text books, and didn't include stuff that made Southern leaders look like violent lunatics, which they were, would be whitewashed, and bullshit put in it's place.

Nor were they about to include Atchison's speech, or other things, like Southern War ultimatums, and bragging of killing to spread slavery.

The guy who got Kansas Act passed, rushes out to Kansas -- and brags that he had KS act passed, and brags he is there working for Jeff Davis, and brags he has the authority of the President, and brags he is killing to spread slavery and brags he will spread slavery all the way to the Pacific.

Kind of a big deal. 

Why this is not taught in US schools in a candid way, I don't know. But this is what happened. 






 When you hear that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was banned in the South -- what you don't know:  even preachers could be and were arrested, just for owning the wrong book.   Preachers could be and were arrested, and subjected to toture (whipping) if they owned the WRONG BOOK.

That is why slavery was so entrenched in the South -- and your history teacher never knew that either.   Slavery ended in the North because it could be shamed.

But what do "historians" tell you about the spread of slavery? 

Turns out, some bullshit about a "cotton gin".

Forget that bullshit about the damn cotton gin.  Slavery spread because no one could say anything against it. Try to grasp that.  No one could preach against it. No one could write a newspaper against it, after about 1845.

Atchison was in Kansas trying to force slavery into Kansas and beyond. Not a god damn cotton gin in Kansas, not one cotton plant.

Not a damn cotton gin in Northern Virginia, where slave owners didn't grow cotton at all -- the cash crop was slaves. Flesh -- the bought, sold and rented out human beings.

Not cotton.

Atchison boasted he would spread slavery into California and all the west. No cotton gins in sight.

SO how do "historians" get away with stupid shit?   It sounds good, and they just repeat bullshit.

Too much trouble, I guess, to read Southern newspapers, SOuthern speeches, Southern books, bragging about why they spread slavery -- for God and white survival.

Not a word about cotton gin.

Yes, I know your dumb ass history teacher sounds smug when he talks about the cotton gin.

That includes "historians" like McPherson, Catton and Foner.  . Not one of them ever made it clear - or even mentioned -- Southern War Ultimatums or Atchison's killing sprees and bragging about stopping folkd from speaking against slavery.

Historians my ass.   Bullshitters is more like it. 

See -- it's important to get the facts right.


Even those who hated slavery, because they hated blacks (like Cassius Clay and Hiton Helper) were escorted out of the South, just owning their books was illegal!   They did hate slavery, becasue they hated blacks.   Even they could not stay in the SOuth, even their books were illegal to own.

That was not always the case - but as slavery spread, so did the defense of it.   If you allowed anti-slavery newspapers, anti slavery preaching, anti slavery books, the slave owners could look horrible (and rightfully so).   



 While they claimed they passed laws against speaking against slavery so "slaves would not be dissatisfied" and therefore rebel, (hilarious Orwellian BS, that) actually slavery can not take open criticism.  Where the rapes, tortures, escapes are made common knowledge, slavery is discredited. 

So when Atchison got to Kansas, it was quite natural, no one was surprised, when he created a "legislature" and the first thing they did was to make speaking and writing against slavery a crime.

The invasions of Kansas -- specifcially killing sprees into Lawrence -- were to uphold that law against publication of anti slavery newspapers. He tells his men that, in his speech.

Did your  history teacher tell you that? Hell no.  

Did James McPherson, Bruce Catton, Eric Foner,  anyone, ever tell you that?  No. McPherson has an entire sentence about Atchison, mentions "threats" -- never tells what the threats are, never tells you Atchison bragged he got Kansas Act passed, never mentions Sumner was talking about these very things in the speech he was beaten almost to death for.

The violent and systematic, official suppression of free speech -- even preachers could not preach against slavery was the key to spreading slavery.  Southern leaders knew that implicitly, and no one even pretended folks should be able to speak publically against slavery there.

Why is this not taught?

Well it is taught, but if mentioned, they mention crap like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was prohibited. Hell, there was no list of books anywhere, ANYTHING could  get you arrested, just owning the wrong book, speaking  strongly in public against slavery could get you arrested or whipped.just watered down in Orwellian double speak.

  Atchison reported to Jefferson Davis.  Atchison was officially an employee of the United States, though Atchison said he hated the US and rode only under the Southern flag -- red in color, for the blood they would spill to spread slavery.

Atchison brags -- very clearly -- that he is at War for the "entire South" against the United States. And he makes clear what the goal is -- the spread of slavery, and to silence all opposition to slavery.


I can't help it if you never heard this -- everyone alive in 1856 in US knew about Atchison and his killings in Kansas.   

Atchison gets the Kansas Act passed -- then he goes, immediately, to Kansas, and begins to hire Missouri men, later Texas men, to kill and terrorize in Kansas. 

Easily -- without question -- Atchison passing Kansas Act then going to Kansas to kill and terrorize to force slavery down their throats, was the most important act leading to US Civil War.

It is why Sumner was beaten -- he spoke of it on Senate floor. It was why LIncoln got back into politics.  It was how Stephen A Douglas became a back door operative for slave power.  It was how Jefferson Davis sent 1000 Texas men to Kansas.    It was why Southern leaders issued their War ULtimatums in Southern newspaper. 

Mostly, it was what polarized everyone -- people who before did not see slavery as a problem, becasue it was in the South,   now realized if they could spread slavery into Kansas and the West, by the logic of Dred Scott and Kansas Act -- they could spread it anywhere.

Lincoln was not the only one to point that out.

Quite easily the most amazing event of the 1850's  -- the men who pass Kansas Act, then kill and terrorize in Kansas.  And no, this is not sophistry, this is what happened, plainly stated.


Lincoln got back into politics because of what David Rice Atchison did -- passing Kansas Act. 

Did you know that? Hell no.

Most people don't even know Lincoln went to Kansas -- including Atchison Kansas -- after Atchison's killing sprees.

Nor do they know about Lincoln's letter about the killers in Kansas.

Don't feel bad, your history teacher probably doesn't know either

Local artist drawing the day after Atchison's first killing spree into Kansas.

The last killing spree into Lawrence -- during the Civil War. Southern leaders apparently ordered it burned to the ground, because they had resisted David Atchison's orders to stop anti-slavery newspapers.


A basic fact  your "history" teacher does not even suspect. 



Many Southern leaders used euphamism and Orwellian double speak to justify killing to spread slavery ("our rights in the territores, for eg).  But Atchison was speaking to his own paid men -- paid by Jeff Davis.  He was loud, proud, clear, candid.  


Atchison worked for Jeff Davis -- officially.

Jeff Davis paid Atichson and his men -- officially.

Your "history" teacher has no clue. 

Like other Confederate leaders  who urged war from 1854 on,  Atchison turned out to be a personal coward. (Yes, every Confederate leader goading others to war, turned out to be a personal coward, I'm working on exposing that).

Atchison deserted his men and stayed safe during the Civil War, a war he more than anyone, caused.  He had folks killing each other -- then he runs away.  Much like Jeff Davis. 



Not one word about "tariffs" 

Funny how Southern leaders themselves, in passionate speeches bragging about the cause of the war they "carry" into Kansas,  "forgot"  about tariff issue.

Southern apologist yap about some  tariff.    Strange indeed Atchison never mentioned tariffs to his men about why they would kill.  He did mention the spread of slavery. He did mention stopping anyone from speaking against slavery.  He did mention killing every abolitionist in Kansas.

And later, he did promise to come back later, and just kill everyone against slavery, in the entire territory.

But not once can I find Atchison even mention tariffs.

Strange too, the Five Southern Ultimatums, that appeared on Richmond newspapers May of 1861, never mentioned tariffs.  

DO you think they "forgot"  what they were doing and why? They all -- every one of them --  accidentally  did not mention their big reason, according to Southern apologist?

Southern leaders were quite clear -- they were killing to spread slavery. And their own War Ultimatums reflected that goal.

Your teacher will have no clue about Southern War Ultimatums, about Southern leaders bragging they were killing to spread slavery, about Jeff Davis admitting the war was about the spread of slavery. 

Why?  Because they are not told.

Instead, for last 100 years, US text books used euphamism and Orwellian double speak, refering to "Trouble in Kansas".

Not once-- ever -- has any US text book showed Atchison speech, nor revealed that Atchison paid the killers and terrorist (that's what they were). And they sure as hell never mentioned, Atchison boasted they were paid by Jefferson Davis (the "present administration".)

Sumner was talking about  the man above -- David Rice Atchison.   Two days after Sumner was beaten, Atchison himself gives a speech bragging about killing to spread  slavery.

So later, when other Southern leaders bragged about spread of slavery, it was old hat. They had already been doing that, already been killing, already been promising more war to spread more slavery.

So why the FUCK is this not taught?  Because Southern cry baby school boards have never allowed it into our US text books, that's why.

Also "historians"  like Bruce Catton and James McPherson never had the balls or honesty to show any of this, in a candid way.

Maybe the most important man in US history during the 1850's  -- certainly the most important speech -- to that point.   And you never heard of him.  Arguably more important than John Brown, more important than Lincoln, more important than Jeff Davis.

Atchison literally got Lincoln and John Brown involved.  Atchison's men killed Brown's son, and promised to kill the rest of his family.

Atchison also got Kansa Act passed -- and bragged out the ass about that too. Amazing things Atchison bragged about, like killing, like passing Kansas Act, like working for Jeff Davis and hiring thousands of men to terrorize in Kansas.

Atchison's  words and actions got all the stars in the sky moving, re slavery and politics.   Those stars are still spinning today. Atchison got John Brown moving, Atchison pulled Lincoln back into politics.  Atchison got Jeff Davis excited about spread slavery. Yes, he did. In fact, Atchison was officially working for Jeff Davis, while he was killing to spread slavery, and bragging about it. 

He also brags the Confederate flag is red for blood he will spill to spread slavery. He wasn't  kidding.   He bragged he started the war -- he called it war -- to spread slavery in 1856.   He worked officially for Jefferson Davis.



Who killed who -- and why -- is real history. Everything else is bullshit   

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.  That's right, if we can not spread slavery, the white race will be exterminated.   The governor of Florida said the white race was doom to "burn slowly to death" just cause Lincoln was against the spread of slavery. 

 The governor of Georgia wrote an open letter to the public, saying that they could never free the slaves -- or they would all be reduced to the level of the Negro, and Negroes would "be with" white women.  We would have to kill our slaves with our own hands,  rather than let that happen.


Stupidly overlooked too, are Southern War Ultimatums of 1861.   No one was surprised by headlines in Southern (Richmond) papers, proudly annoucing the War Ultimatums -- the first two?   The first two War Ultimatums, according to them, was the spread of slavery into Kansas.

Bruce Catton -- James McPherson - Eric Foner - all US text books have never every mentioned the War ULtimatums that appeared in Richmond newspaper headlines.    They bragged, yes bragged, the true issue was the spread of slavery.

Why is that not important?

Two days later, New York papers ran the article from Richmond paper -- and suggested Lincoln obey.  So yeah, it was a big deal.

And by the way - Kansas was already a free state, admitted to the Union. People there had already voted 95% against slavery. 

But here the Southern leaders demanded -- as a war ultimatum -- that Kansas accept slavery. WTF?   Really, what the fuck?

Not only WTF about the actual demands, but WTF -- why havent our history books shown it?  Why have Foner, Catton, and McPherson even mentioned it?

Catton spoke more about Confederate belt buckles, than he ever spoke about Southern aims to spread slavery by any means necesseary -- including killing, torturing and terror.


Atchison was clear -- in this and other speeches,  he would kill to spread slavery in Kansas, regardless that the overwhelming % of white males in Kansas did not want slavery.  

Most "history teachers" assume there were many people in Kansas who wanted slavery. Nonsense -- almost all the men who worked for Atchison (yes, he paid them) were from Missouri. If there were any local men in Kansas that wanted to spread slavery by force, apart from Atchison's men, I don't know who  they are. Some folks probably wanted slavery, but no one on the record was for killing to spread slavery there, and using terror to get that done, other than Atchison and his paid men.

When Kansas voters got to vote in honest elections -- when  Atchison's men were not in charge -- they voted 90 and 95% against slavery. It was not even close. Yet people assume that Kansas had a lot of "organic" -- local -- support for slavery. No, that's not true. 

Atchison reported to Jeff Davis -- Atchison was officially Jeff Davis's "General of Law and Order of Kansas Territories". Atchison  got that position with the tactic approval of Stephen A Douglas, the Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas.


Atchison, Douglas, and Jeff Davis were the three men most responsible for Kansas killing sprees, the "bogus legislature" as they now call it.  The "bogus legislature"  was a group of thugs Atchison picked to make laws and declare Kansas pro slavery -- though in the end, 95% of white males in Kansas voted against slavery.     

Atchison went to Kansas for one reason -- to create that bogus legislature and push slavery down the throats of people he knew very well, were against slavery.

Remember -- Atchison got Kansas Act passed. No, your history teacher is probably too stupid and has no clue.  But Atchison bragged he got it passed, and Charles Sumner, who was there, confirmed it.   


Atchison in fact, bragged he worked for Jeff Davis, and bragged the men would be paid by "the present authorities," .   Jeff Davis did officially name Atchison General of Law and Order.   Davis also claimed everything Atchison did was "Constitutionally required".  

By the way, as you will see in the speech, Atchison told the men they would be well paid -- PLUS they could have all they could steal.  Really an amazing speech.

See this-- from Atchison's letter to Jeff Davis. Atchison destroyed all his papers during the Civil War, but this letter survived....


Not long after Atchison arrived, he wrote Davis "it will soon be over".   

Atchison boasted in writing, about the cowardice of Kansas farmers, he was sure a quick sudden show of force would be all that was necessary.  He was wrong.

When Atchison wrote to Davis that "it" would soon be over, he meant driving the abolitionist out of Kansas, or scaring them into silence.   

You now know more than most "history teachers"  who inexplicably explain  Kansas Act as a way to resolved slavery issue,  and call it  the "Trouble in Kansas,"  then blame both sides, as being "extremist".

Actually, Kansas citizens DID eventually start fighting back, and you probably heard of the guy who first did fight back, giving Atchison and his men some of their own medicine, after they killed one of his sons, and promised to kill the rest of the family. Yes, they did.   The man's name?  John Brown.

Scaring the shit -- and killing if need be -- was how Athison worked. It's very clear from his report to Davis, and his quick exit from DC to Kansas, that was the plan the entire time.

When Lincoln accused the South -- in his House Divided speech -- of deliberate "machinery" to spread slavery, this is what he was talking about.

One of the reasons Lincoln tried to defeat Douglas in the Senate race, was to get Douglas out of that Chairman's seat -- and stop Douglas's back door support of Atchison and his violence in Kansas.


Stephen A Douglas, was Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas. Nothing -- literally nothing -- got to Congress about Kansas, unless Douglas, as Chairman, allowed it.  

As Sumner, Lincoln, and the entire Republican leadership knew, Douglas personally kept documents from Kansas from reaching the the President and Congress, until Atchison could get his "legislature" set up, and send in his documents to make Kansas a slave state.


The outcry against Douglas  for his support of Atchison was stunning -- and Douglas had to flip flop.

At first  Douglas was for "Lecompton" Constitution,  and spoke of the wisdom of going ahead with it now, they can change it later, if they want to.  Most "scholars" about this period are unware of that fact,

The popular outcry was nothing like anyone had seen, at least that's what some folks wrote about it newspapers at the time. Were they hyping it?  We don't know. 

It was said Douglas, riding in a train from Boston to Chicago could read a newspaper by the lights of people hanging him in effigy, during the night, and the noise from people screaming at his train about his support of Atchison's tricks, would keep him awake during the day.

By the time Douglas reached Chicago, he had decided his public help for Atchison had to stop - though behind the scenes, Douglas did nothing to expose or stop Atchison, his partner in politics, and business.  They both got Kansas Nebraska passed.

Douglas would save his political career, by denoucing the Lecompton Constitution -- never mind that his machinations and support of Atchison, had brought it about in the first place.  Douglas had to keep his seat in Senate, period.



While publicly pretending to be for popular sovereignty, actually there was language in Kansas Act that prevented folks from voting either way -- the very language proslavery folks in Kansas used, to deny people's right to reject slavery there.  

Lincoln pointed this out repeatedly, as did about 1000 other folks, in newspapers, speeches, letters and books.   For some reason, seems "history teachers"   often just claim Douglas and Atchison and Davis were for popular sovereignty. 

No, dumb asses, they weren't.   That was a phrased they used -- Aitchison and Davis later didn't even pretend that.  Douglas kept insisting he only cared for popular sovereignty --   but in private conversations he tried to make up some nonsense that he was actually trying to trick Jeff Davis into "overplaying his hand".  

That's another story for lter.

The point is, Southern leaders openly said the public did not matter, because of Dred Scott.  Kansas Act gave the illusion of it, but Dred Scott put popular sovereignty a casket, and nailed it shut.

People at the time, including Douglas long time friend John Palmer, knew exactly how vile Douglas action's were, in helping Atchison and Jeff Davis.

Douglas helped Atchison and Davis, because he wanted, and needed, Southern support to become President.  Douglas did not mean for people in Kansas to be killed, for the Civil War to follow. He flipped from being resolute for the Missouri Compromise, to bat-shit-crazy for Kansas Nebraska Act,  essentially overnight.

One day Douglas was lambasting anyone who dared question the "sacred pact" of Missouri Compromise, and the next day, Douglas was shouting in even more fervor, for the Kansas Nebraska Act he and Atchison got through Congress.

Those who knew Douglas well, knew exactly what he was  up to. Charles Sumner knew, and so did Lincoln.   Atchison boasted about getting Douglas help on passing Kansas Act.

Who would know better what Douglas was up to? 


When Kansas rejected slavery -- Atchison went to Kansas.  Remember that. 

No one thought the people of Kansas wanted slavery, and indeed, they did not.  The citizens there eventually voted against slavery by a stunning 90 and 95%, and were admitted to the Union under President Buchanan. 

But it was hell to make that happen. David Rice Atchison, US Senator, then General of Law and Order (a position Jeff Davis made up) did everything in his power to make Kansas a slave state. 

Unlike Davis, and others, Atchison could be  candid -- he boasted of things others would say only carefully. He was not called "Bourbon Dave"  for nothing.




Orwellian double speak existed before Orwell.

While Kansas Act said the people of Kansas would be "perfectly free"  to decide "domestic institutions"  on their own, the fine print in that Act  made that like "slavery is freedom"  and " up is down" kinda BS.

As Lincoln pointed out in the Lincoln Douglas debates, Douglas's "popular sovereignty"  was actually quite the opposite, in practice.

1200 miles-- the hard way

Atchison, after he got Kansas Act Passed,  travelled over 1200 miles, hired men from Missouri and literally invaded Kansas to create his own "legislature" in Kansas.   From the next four years, Kansas whites were not allowed to vote against slavery.

Atchison's "legislature" is now routinely called the "bogus legislature" --  which is far too nice a term.

His  "legislature"  quickly passed assorted laws, the big one, was to was to make it a crime to publically declare Kansas was a free territory. Also, no voting on slavery allowed.  Atchison said that vote was over, and he won.

Also, publishing newspapers against slavery was also outlawed.

This may sound bizare to you - outlawing newspapers?  

It was not bizarre at all. The South had such laws since the 1840's, called "anti-incendiary laws"  which made it illegal to write, or even possess, written material that could "dissatisy a slave".


If Kansas would allow folks to vote or publish newspapers against slavery, Atchison would not be doing his job -- official job.  Atchison was officially General of Law and Order in Kansas, a job created by Jefferson Davis, and apparently approved of, by Stephen A Douglas, Atchison's partner.

The slaves had no way to read  any such paper --the law was meant to stop whites from speaking opening, and writing openly, against slavery. But the excuse was, this would "dissatisfy" a slave.

Hilarious Orwellian BS.  As if they did not want a slave "dissatisfied".



When Atchison speaks to his Texas men - in the speech below -- the is talking about invading Lawrence Kansas because they broke the law -- they allowed a newspaper to continue to write against slavery, after Atchison made it illegal to do so.

No, this is not sophistry or exaggerated. This is exactly what happened.  That Atchison is boasting about it but one of many contemporary documents showing this to be the case.

If your "history" teacher tells you anything about this, they usually say some bullshit, blaming both sides.  What dumb asses.


Sumner revealed in his speech, about Atchison stopping free speech, and the other crimes, including killing and torture.  Yes, that was the speech Atchison was beaten for.

The irony of Sumner being beaten on Senate floor, for speaking about Atchison, who was stopping Free Speech in Kansas, was not lost on anyone. The South was proud of both Atchison, and the man who beat Sumner..

Of course, much of the country already knew what Atchison had done, by the time SUmner spoke of it. It was common knowledge both North and South. Southern papers bragged of  "their rights in the territories" -- even though an overwhelming percentage of citizens in Kansas, were against slavery, and fought a five year war, to eventually become officially a free state, just before Lincoln took office.


Idiotically -- really, it's dumb as hell -- history teachers  often tell their students Kansas Act was an attempt to peacfully settle the "issue of slavery in the territorties".

Actually, that "issue" was already settled in Missouri Compromise.   There could be no slavery above a certain geographic line -- Kansas was above that line.  

Really. It's CRUEL TO SLAVES to keep them out of Kansas. You can't make this shit up.  Excuses these bastards came up with, should be taught in US schools. They are not taught.

From Jefferson Davis:

Bet you never heard that -- and this is from Jefferson Davis own book.  Slaves have "natural affection" for the master,  he claimed, and it was a cruelty to keep slaves apart from their master.  The master takes care of his slaves, and it's a cruelty to keep slavery out of Kansas.  

Bet you also never heard that Davis claimed the resistance to slavery in Kansas was the "intolerable grievance".

Remember, Atchison was officially working for Jefferson Davis this entire time. Davis claimed everything Atchison did, was "constitutionally required. 


Once in Kansas, Kansas newspaper reported Atchison's violent actions - first mostly intimidation, using his Missouri men,  to create a "bogus legislature"  and scare the shit out of most Kansas citizens. 

Events would prove Kansas whites rejected slavery 90 and 95%, both before Atchison got there, and after Atchison was unsuccesful in his efforts to force slavery there.

  The first vote against slavery was over Sadly, people today, even "history teachers"  seem to miss the basic point about those who claimed Kansas "trouble" would be solved by "letting the people decide".

Lincoln forced Douglas to switch.

Actually, the entire LIncoln Douglas debates were, in a way, Lincoln exposing Douglas fraud, and forcing 

The speech (in its entirety below) is just one of many speeches, documents, books, ultimatums, from Southern leaders themselves at the time.    

Shame on our "history" books for never candidly showing what Southern ledeaders BOASTED ABOUT TILL THEY LOST.

Interesting sad fact.  Most history teachers, even college professors,  have no clue who Charles Sumner was talking about -- by name - when he was beaten.  We took an unofficial poll of "Lincoln experts"   who could tell us who Sumner was talking about, by name.  So far, none of them had a clue. Not. A. Clue.  Yet they claimed to know the "Crimes Against Kansas Speech"  very well.   Bullshit.

 He was talking about David Rice Atchison, US Senator.



Most "history teachers" we spoke to , will tell you Stephen A Douglas got Kansas Act passed -- and did so to settle the "unfortunate issue of slavery in the territories".

Actually, Douglas and Atchison both claimed credit for passing Kansas Act. According to newspapers in Kansas at the time, revealing another Atchison speech,  Atchison boasted he got Kansas Act passed.   Atchison by that time was already killing and terrorizing to spread slavery.

As Lincoln, Sumner, and most of the country realized by 1855, those who predicted Douglas was passing Kansas Act to help his Southern friends (Atchison and Davis)  to force slavery down the throats of Kansas.  Kansas act was "a vile ruse, by vile men, with the help of Stephen A Douglas"  is typical of the comments by people who knew Douglas and Atchison both.

Charles Sumner, for example, was one such man. 

According to Sumner's own speech -- Atchison left the US Senate immediately after Atchison and Douglas got Kansas Act passed.  

Why is this not common knowlege? It's not in dispute.  Atchison did in fact, show up in Kansas not long after he left the Senate, and there, in Kansas, started his "reign of terror"  if you believe local newspapers at the time.

Atchison and Douglas both claimed they just wanted the people of Kansas to decide "local issues" themselves.  But clearly, Atchison's actions were quite the contrary, once he got to Kansas.



Most people assume there were many folks in Kansas who wanted slavery, and that "both sides" were extremist with trouble makers.

 Hell no.  In fact, Atchison could find no  local "volunteers" for his terror -- Atchison paid his men, and they were from Missouri.  Every man Atchison worked with to spread slavery, was apparently paid - at first by him, but later by Jeff Davis, according to Atchison himself.

Turns out, Atchison could not hire enough in Missouri, so he hired men from Texas and South Carolina -- then things grew much worse for Kansas folks, and they were already bad enough.

Why are "history teachers" so ignorant of those "details".  Those are not details, they are as basic information as possible, about who killed who, and why, leading up to Civil War.

Numerous Kansas newspaper reported Atchison's arrival and activities, once he got to Kansas.  Including the report Atchison was boasting there, of passing the Kansas Act.

Can't read it?

The article quotes Atchison this way, first showing how drunk he was, and his demeanor....

"Gentleman, you make a damned fuss about Douglas -- Douglas -- but Douglas don't deserve the credit of this Nebraska bill. I told Douglas to intoduce it. I orignated it - I got Pierce committed to it, and all the glory belongs to me. All the South went for it -- all to a man but Bell and Houston.  Who are they? Mere nobodies-- no influence-- nobody cares for the."   

The speech was confirmed by those there at the time, later, and this is the kind of thing Atchison did blurt out other times, usually in a drunken boast. He was not called "Bourbon Dave"  for nothing.

Elsewhere, Atchison made it clear, his goal was not just Kansas Territory.


When his  first attempts at violence were not successful enough -- meaning, people still spoke against slavery and published newspapers against slavery,  Atchison boasted he would get 5000 men next time.


This may be news to you -- it was common knowledge at the time.  This is what got Lincoln back into politics. This is what brought about Dred Scott decision.



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



James McPherson -- the supposed wizzard of the Civil War, never told you any of this. And do you know why?

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Lincoln's speech about Kansas Act -- excerpt

Equal justice to the south, it is said, requires us to consent to the extending of slavery to new countries. That is to say,inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to Nebraska,therefore I must not object to you taking your slave. Now, I admit this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and Negroes. But while you thus require me to deny the humanity of the Negro, I wish to ask whether you of the south yourselves, have ever been willing to do as much? It is kindly provided that of all those who come into the world, only a small percentage are natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the slave States than in the free. The great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies, of which they can no more divest themselves than they can of their sensibility to physical pain. These sympathies in the bosoms of the southern people,manifest in many ways, their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness that, after all, there is humanity in the Negro. If they deny this, let me address them a few plain questions. In 1820 you joined the north, almost unanimously, in declaring the African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death. Why did you do this? If you did not feel that it was wrong, why did you join in providing that men should be hung for it? The practice was no more than bringing wild Negroes from Africa, to sell to such as would buy them. But you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes or wild bears.


"Historian" James McPherson has watered down Atchison and his work for Davis, in Kansas to such a degree, that no one reading McPherson could possibly have a clue what was going on in Kansas.

They could not know Davis hired, paid, and got reports from Atchison on the progress of the killings to spread slavery.

They could not know -- from McPherson -- that Davis paid Atchison's men. 

McPherson's readers could not possibly know (he never mentions it, much less makes it clear) that the guy who got Kansas Act passed, then rushes out to Kansas, and starts killing and terrorizing -- and BRAGS about it.

How the hell do you miss that?

Remember, Charles Sumner, Senator Charles Sumner, was talking about this, in the speech he was beaten almost to death for. SO it's not like a damn secret, and not like a minor point.

And Atchison doesn't admit it, he boasts of it.

And he works for Jefferson Davis.

Go read all the McPherson books you want, all the Foner, all the Catton -- read them all.  Not one word.

McPherson blabs vaguely about Atchison "threats".   WTF?

Seriously WTF?

Nor does McPherson ever say one word about Southern War Ultimatums, which appeared as headlines in Richmond papers.

WTF McPHerson?   

And they gave this guy some prize?  How stupid are those folks who give out these prizes?

In his recent book about Davis, McPherson didn't even see it necessary, to point out, Davis paid Atchison.  And paid his men.   And justified what he did in Kansas as "Constitutionally required".

That's a scholar?      Apparently McPherson just does not want to say anything that makes Jeff Davis look like the vile, violent man he was, or make him look like a coward, which he was. If you can think of another reason, let me know.

Shelby Foote was even worse -- he blamed those folks in Kansas for "not compromising"?   Not one word of who was killing who, who had the hired men, who paid those men, and who bragged about killing. Not. One. Word.





 Small part of Sumner's Speech -- it took two days, and went on hour after hour.

This is 1/20th of the full speech.  But you can see from it, Sumner was talking about things from above -- and it was common knowledge anyway. He spoke about it, but everyone already knew of it. He was just putting it on the record in the Senate.

I need not add the name of David R. Atchison. You have not forgotten that, at the session of Congress immediately succeeding the Nebraska bill, he came tardily to his duty here, and then, after a short time, disappeared. The secret has been long since disclosed. Like Cataline, he stalked into this Chamber, reeking with conspiracy -- immo in seniatum venit -- and then like Catiline skulked away -- abiit, excessit, evasit, culprit to join and provoke the conspirators, who at a distance awaited their congenial chief. Under the influence of his malign presence the crime ripened to its fatal fruits, while the similitude with Catiline was again renewed in the sympathy, not even concealed.. of a senator has not hesitated to appear

And now, as I proceed to show the way in which this Territory was overrun and finally subjugated to slavery, ................ It is found in the concurring reports of the public press; in the letters of correspondents; in the testimony of travellers; and in the unaffected story to which I have listened from leading citizens, who, during this winter, have "come flocking" here from that distant Territory. It breaks forth in the irrepressible outcry, reaching us from Kansas, in truthful tones, which leave no ground of mistake. It addresses us in formal complaints, instinct with the indignation of a people determined to be free, and unimpeachable as the declarations of a murdered man on his dying bed against his murderer. And let me add, that all this testimony finds an echo in the very book of the conspirators, and also in the language dropped from -- the President of the United States.

I begin with an admission from the President himself, in whose sight the people of Kansas have little favor. And yet, after arraigning the innocent emigrants from the North, he was constrained to declare that their conduct was "far from justifying the illegal and reprehensible counter-movement which ensued." Then, by the reluctant admission of the Chief Magistrate, there was a counter-movement, at once illegal and reprehensible. I thank thee, President, for teaching me these words; and I now put them in the front of this exposition, as in themselves a confession. Sir, this "illegal and reprehensible counter-movement" is none other than the dreadful crime -- under an apologetic alias -- by which, through successive invasions, slavery has been forcibly planted in this Territory.

Next to this Presidential admission must be placed the details of the invasions, .....

The violence, for some time threatened, broke forth on the 29th November, 1854, at the first election of a delegate to Congress, when companies from Missouri, amounting to upwards of one thousand, crossed into eye-witness, General Pomeroy, of superior intelligence and perfect integrity, thus describes the scene: --

"The first ballot-box that was opened upon our virgin soil was closed to us by overpowering numbers and impending force. So bold and reckless were our invaders, that they cared not to conceal their attack. They came upon us not in the guise of voters, to steal away our franchise, but boldly and openly, to snatch it with a strong hand. They came directly from their own homes, and in compact and organized bands, with arms in hand and provisions for the expedition, marched to our polls, and, when their work was done, returned whence they came."

Here was an outrage at which the coolest blood of patriotism boils Though, for various reasons unnecessary to develop, the busy settlers allowed the election to pass uncontested, still the means employed were none the less "illegal and reprehensible."

This infliction was a significant prelude to the grand invasion of the 30th March, 1855, at the election of the first Territorial legislature under the organic law, when an armed multitude from Missouri entered the Territory, in larger numbers than General Taylor commanded at Buena Vista, or than General Jackson had within his lines at New Orleans -- larger far than our fathers rallied on Bunker Hill. On they came as an "army with banners," organized in companies, with officers, munitions, tents, and provisions, as though marching upon a foreign foe, and breathing loud-mouthed threats that they would carry their purpose, if need be, by the bowie-knife and revolver.

Among them, according to his own confession, was David R. Atchison, belted with the vulgar arms of his vulgar comrades.

Arrived at their several destinations on the night before the election, the invaders pitched their tents, placed their sentries, and waiting for the coming day. The same trustworthy eye-witness, whom I have already quoted, says, of one locality: --

"Baggage-wagons were there, with arms and ammunition enough for a protracted fight, and among them two brass field-pieces, ready charged. They came with drums beating and flags flying, and their leaders were of the most prominent and conspicuous men of their State."

Of another locality he says: --

"The invaders came together in one armed and organized body, with trains of fifty wagons, besides horsemen, and, the night before election, pitched their camp in the vicinity of the polls; and having appointed their own judges in place of those who, from intimidation or otherwise, failed to attend, they voted without any proof of residence."

With this force they were able, on the succeeding day, in some places, to intimidate the judges of elections; in others, to substitute judges of their own appointment; in others to wrest the ballot-boxes from their rightful possessors, and everywhere to exercise a complete control of the election, and thus, by a preternatural audacity of usurpation, impose a legislature upon the free people of Kansas. Thus was conquered the Sebastopol of that Territory!

But that was not enough to secure the legislature. The election of a member of Congress recurred on the 2d October, 1855, and the same foreigners, who had learned their strength, again manifested it. Another invasion, in controlling numbers, came from Missouri, and once more forcibly exercised the electoral franchise in Kansas.