Killing to spread slavery for GOD -- Southern leaders brag about shit you never heard of. One example, the 5 Southern War Ultimatums.

under construction...  

Think the Civil War started in 1861?  


Did you know Southern newspaper headlines boasted of Five War Ultimatums?   Five.  FIVE. Did I mention five?  Five WAR ULTIMATUMS.  Not negotian ideas. Not suggestions.  Not even demands.

WAR ULTIMATUMS/.  Try to wrap your head around that.

FIVE War ultimatums, all five about the SPREAD, let me repeat that, the SPREAD of slavery. 

Headlines.   Not far down the paper, not some nutty editor, but HEADLINES.  

And do you know what the actual headline was?  Hell no, you don't have a damn clue. No one told you.

The headline was "THE TRUE ISSUE".  All five war ultimatums were about the same basic thing -- slavery MUST be spread.   As a war ultimatum.

Not only did you not know, your stupid "history teacher" (stupid through no fault of his or her own) did not know, either. 

The specific war ultimatums were silly as hell.  Lincoln would have had to HELP -- HELP push slavery into Kansas, which by then was already a free state, already fought a four year war against the bastards who were paid to invade Kansas and force slavery there.

Did they really believe LIncoln would HELP those bastards force slavery into Kansas?  Fuck no.  But they had years of bravado and bluster behind them, 60 years of violence, and they were used to getting what they wanted, this very way.


What happened to start the US Civil War, was actually a continuation of what already happened or 60 years, and the techniques were the same -- violence, violence, terror, and boasting. Then war ultimatums. This was not a new approach, it was a tried and true approach.

Only now, someone fought back.   (Spoiler alert -- John Brown and Abraham Lincoln). 

You don't know that either.   But you are about to find out. 


1856  1856 1856




 Bragging it was war -- already.  And a war to spread slavery, specifically.   By the guy leading the killers into Kansas.

Southern War Ultimatums -- from David Rice Atchison, from Southern documents, and the proud headlines in Southern papers.

And you never heard of the.   War Ultimatums.  Not suggestions, not starting points for negotiation, but WAR ULTIMATUMS.


No one surprised.

No one, literally no one, was surprised in 1861, when Southern newspapers in Richmond proudly and loudly issued headlines about  "THE TRUE ISSUE"  and then listed Five Ultimatums.

They were not surprised, North or South, because Southern leaders were already -- already -- killing in Kansas, and already issued war ultimatums since 1856.  You just are not told about any of this.

New York papers suggested Lincoln obey the War Ultimatums --  but that was absurd.  The War Ultimatums demanded Kansas, already a free state, by a vote of 90%, was in the Union.  Lincoln was not about to force Kansas to be a slave state, yet that is how goofy these fuckers were.  

There war ultimatums were literally - and see Jeff Davis explain why -- that Kansas must be a slave state, even after Kansas citizens voted to become a free state by 90%.

Sounds absurd -- and it was.  But that is how macho man Southern leaders liked to be.   One of the more amazing Southern leaders -- the man who got Kansas Act passed, and worked for Jeff Davis, David Rice Atchison.





Meet the US Senator who boasted he was killing to spread slavery, who got Kansas Act Passed (boasted of that, too) and then immediately went to Kansas with hired men, invaded Kansas, and violently set up his own government, which made it a crime to publish any newspaper against slavery.


Don't believe me?  Good.  Here is a screen capture -- FROM HIS OWN DAMN BOOK. 

Davis did not just approve of Atchison invading Kansas -- he hired Atchison in 1854.  He officially made Atchison "General of Law and Order in Kansas.

Davis paid Atchison. He publicly approved of everything Atchison did.   He sent reports to Davis.

More Atchison quote -- see his full speech, below. You sure as hell won't see his speech in any US text book, because it shows just how fucking violent and extreme the South was, to kill to spread slavery, and how they were proud of it. 

Davis insisted  that Kansas accept and respect slavery -- and further, that Kansas PROTECT slavery "with appropriate legislation".   

David Rice Atchison had already set up his own  violent phoney legislature (now called "bogus legislature" and made it a crime, punishable by torture, to publish any newspaper against slavery.

Nor could you speak against slavery, publically, according to Atchison's laws. Surprised? Don't be, those were the laws slave owners and politicians passed in the South, with torture set as the punishment, even for preachers, who dared preach against slavery.

Oh, no none told you that?  This is my surprised look.

Meet the Confederate President, who, in his own book, wrote that the resistance to slavery into Kansas (even though Kansas was a free state) was the "


Lincoln's House Divided Speech -- which your teacher will claim he knows backwards and forwards -- is about the Kansas Act (remember, Atchison got Kansas Act passed, then rushed to Kansas to being his terror and violence there).  

Lincoln was NOT just lamenting a "falling house" -- he explained the machinery - the conspiracy-- as we would call it now.

A plan, a deliberate plan, that started, Lincoln said (correctly, because Atchison boasted of it) to spread slavery into Kansas and beyond.

It's not like Lincoln was the only one that noticed the contrivance, the deliberate killings, tortures, and "machinations"  like the Kansas Act, the South had to use, to spread slavery.

See any of the thousands of newspapers articles, detailing the ruse of Southern leaders, with Stephen A Douglas help, to claim to want voters in Kansas to decide -- but then Jeff Davis immediately sends killers to Kansas, led by Atchison, to stop anyone from speaking or writing newspapers against slavery.

Lincoln's House Divided Speech was just his way, his words, but others had said the same thing, with different words.  The South was killing and torturing and using "means foul and more foul" to spread slaver against the will of the public.

The often repeated lie -- stated after the war by Southern apologist -- is that they just wanted "states rights".  Fucking lying bastards, they hated states rights, sent killers to stop it, issued war ultimatums to stop it, and started a civil war to stop it.

But almost certainly your history teacher, who knows none of that, can only repeat the bullshit slogan, always false, that the South wanted states rights/

Why did the South HAVE to use deception, ruses, and violence?   Because 90% of the people in Kansas and beyond did not want slavery, at all.

If you don't know that Lincoln accused the South of trying to force slavery into Kansas and beyond, blame your teacher.  Because this was a BFD -- big fucking deal-- at the time.  And Lincoln said it over, and over, and over, in 100 ways.

While the actions of Southern leaders-- sending killers to Kansas, and the violence they always used to spread and maintain slavery -- made it clear Kansas Act was a ruse, as Lincoln said, Atchison boasted of the killings and terrorizing he would do, to spread slavery.

And we know -- for a fact -- Atchison left Washington immediately after passing Kansas Act, and within weeks (as soon as he could get to Kansas) he started terrorizing and killing, in Kansas. 

See his full speech below.  It should be in every US text bool


Atchison's killing sprees, and boasting of killing,  proved, his "Kansas Act"  was a ruse to force slavery into Kansas, just as Lincoln and others had said, repeatedly. 

His flag was red -- for the color of blood-- the blood they will spill to spread slavery

The South had used violence to get the area in WHITE to be slave states.  Now, Atchison and Jeff Davis conspired to get the area in RED as slave states.

And they both bragged about it. 

1856  1856 1856

Atchison made it very clear what the South's goal was -- slavery to the Pacific.  It was all or nothing. 

And he was not talking out the ass.  He was actually in Kansas, speaking to his own hired men, making it very, very clear who was paying them, and what for.


US Senator David Rice Atchison, officially at the time, Jeff Davis official "General of Law and Order"   boasted to his men, this was a war, and they would be paid to fight it. 

The war was to spread slavery.  He should know, he is the US Senator the passed the Kansas Act, as you will see.  Another basic truth that was well known then (Atchison boasted of it) but is never discussed now. 

SHould you not have heard of a speech by a US Senator, boasting of killing to spread slavery?

There is no dispute that Atchison gave the speech, no dispute that he meant it.   He had taken out ads in various papers, soliciting men for war.   And he said it was for war, at the time.   He was proud of it.  

Speech by US Senator boasting of the war ultimatums -- promising endless killing until slavery is spread into areas and states that already rejected slavery

From 1854 onward, Southern leaders -- including men who would later be President of the Confederacy, Vice President,  and Cabinet members, all spoke clearly and powerfully about the war ultimatums to spread slavery.

Southern crybabies, however, have keep that and much else about their leaders, out of US history books.

Go read his speech, it's below, and the original copy is in the Kansas Historical Society.   

It was not just that speech, it was Southern newspapers, southern speeches, Southern documents about "their right" to have slavery where they wanted -- in Kansas territory and beyond -- even if the citizens there rejected slavery, which they did. 


 Southern leaders were not just demanding the spread of slavery into areas that were already free states -- they were killing to accomplish it.   Atchison was in Kansas, and had been since he had passed Kansas Act, terrorizing the citizens of Kansas, in at attempt to force slavery there, against the will of the people.

He also made it clear he worked for the "present administration"  meaning Jeff Davis as Secretary of War, and with the approval of Stephen A Douglas, Congressional leader, and his own business partner.

As you can see below -- see the full speech -- Atchison boasted they would kill anyone who dared speak against slavery. In fact, Atchison and his men made it a law -- in their "bogus legislature" to speak publicly, to publish anything, against slavery.

No one alive, in 1856, would be surprised to hear Atchison boasting of killing to spread slavery, or killing to stop people from speaking against slavery -- do you know why?

The history of slavery in the country, as Lincoln himself pointed out, was the history of violence and terror. Read his letter to Speed about this -- Lincoln knew, but so did everyone else who paid attention.

And daily reports from Kansas, because of the internet of the day -- telegraph.   Unlike previous years, where Southern leaders could and did terrorize to spread slavery, and no one knew what was going on till weeks or months later, now people in Chicago, Boston, New York, Maine, knew in a day or two, exactly who was killing who in Kansas, and why.

The South, of course, cheered the spread of slavery into Kansas, and claimed they had every right.  Kansas folks, who voted to keep slavery out by 90 and 95% -- disagreed.

You are never told t his, but slavery was always spread by terror and violence -- against whites who dared to speak or preach or write against it.

No one told you even that much, did they? But the violence to spread slavery - including our Mexican War -- was about SLAVERY, the spread of slavery, as Lincoln and others pointed out.

Was Lincoln lying or stupid about slavery, and about US history? FUCK now.  Do we teach Lincoln's amazing comments and letters and speechs about how slavery always spread by means foul and more foul?

FUCK NO. Those are all left out, as are dozens of Lincoln's speeches in context. 

Lincoln got back in politics --BECAUSE OF SENATOR DAVID RICE ATCHISON.  You are not even told that, because it's not in US text books, in fact, very little about Atchison is in any US text book, including college text books, in a meaningful way.

Most history teachers would not be able to tell you what Atchison even did, in the US Senate.  What he did, was to pass the Kansas Act, then rush to Kansas, and start his terrorizing and killing there.

Very basic. 

Atchison sent reports to Jeff Davis, detailing the progress of killings. And pledges to hand anyone against slavery, "without judge or jury".

His men then killed John Brown's son.  Bet you didn't know that. Big mistake --Brown started to fight back, as you will see.

Documents below.  

Atchison's  speech -- given to his paid killers, in 1856, is not in doubt.  Atchison was the US Senator who got Kansas Act passed, then left immediately for Kansas to start his violent assault and invasion of Kansas -- and boasted of that fact. 

 Maybe it's time someone told the public what Southern leaders boasted out the ass about, at the time. In fact, it's 150 years behind the time.

After the Civil War, Southern crybabies and liars (really, they were both) wrote hundreds of books, showing themselves to be the victims of the war, or that they only cared about states rights.

Actually, before the war, they spoke a massively different tune.  They boasted they were killing to spread slavery, boasted states did NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to reject slavery (as you will see) and not only promised killing and terror, but delivered killings and terror.



No one has ever stood up in a US class room, and read from any text book, the speeches by Southern leaders boasting they were killing and torturing for GOD, and that they created their country (CSA)  per the will of God, to not just spread slavery, but to punish the black race for biblical since.

No one reads to the class, Robert E Lee's dirty letters, or slave ledgers, or letters to bounty hunter with lists of payments for kidnapped girls, either.

All such things -- horrible things -  have been kept out of US text books, since national text books began.   

History is this -- who killed who and why.

 Get that right, then add all the bullshit you want.  But get it wrong, and all the bullshit you add, is meaningless drivel. 

So things that were common knowledge in 1850's, like Southern killing sprees to spread slavery, like Southern War Ultimatums that slavery MUST be spread into Kansas and beyond.  

It was not that hard, it was not hidden. Southern speeches, Southern political platforms, Southern official documents, made it clear.  The issue was the SPREAD of slavery.

Southern crybabies have, since the war onward, done all they could to whitewash their Southern War Ultimatums, and their killing sprees, their boasting of killings, their promises of endless killing, and their hatred of state's rights.  Yes, Southern leaders hated state's rights, once Kansas rejected slavery and became a free state.

Southern leader Jeff Davis sent Atchison to Kansas -- officially -- where Atchison boasted he was there to spread slavery, and promised to keep killing until slavery was spread all the way to Pacific Ocean.

This seem bizarre to anyone now. Tell your "history teacher"  that Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery against states rights, and boasting of it, tell your history teachers about Southern War Ultimatums,  tell your  history teacher about documented evidence that Southern leaders were loud proud, and very clear about this, they will look at you like you lost your mind.

Did you ever hear -- yes or no - that in all of the South, and because of Atchison's killing sprees, also in Kansas -- it was a crime to speak, preach, or publish any newspaper against slavery?

No, you never heard that.  Very basic fact of US history, this violent 40 year  history of killing and torturing those who spoke against slavery, and you never heard of it.  Ever.

Such things are far too stunning for Southern crybabies and liars, to allow into US text books, but very well known at the time. 

No one told you that, did they?  Common knowledge then, whitewashed by Southern crybabies and liars now, and not allowed candidly in US text books.





Go on, ask your teacher what Southern War Ultimatums were.

Southern leaders bragged out the ass about them, at the time. Headlines in Southern papers, widely discussed in various terms, in newspapers North and South.



It's a shame this basic fact -- the incessant, proud, loud boasting by Southern leaders they were killing, and would kill much more -- if slavery was not spread.

That the guy who passed Kansas Act boasted the loudest, and sent reports of his killings to Jeff Davis, is almost entirely overlooked, hardly mention, in any US text book.

Yet Senator Atchison was key -- he is the Senator who passed Kansas Act, and made Douglas go along.   As books at the time showed,  Atchison gave Douglas an ultimatum.  Pass Kansas Act with me, or I stay here and take the Committee of Kansas away from you.   No other committee, then or before, was as important to the civil war, as Douglas led, Committee on Kansas.

Nothing got done unless Douglas let it be done.  In many ways, this was more powerful than the Presidency at that time, because Kansas and slavery there, and beyond it, was everything.

Douglas, who just months before this called anyone who would mess with the Compromise of 1850 a traitor, suddenly one day started to press for Kansas Act, which did away with Compromise (so called) of 1850.

South doubled their land for slavery in 1850 "Compromise"  but gave up slavery above a certain geographic line -- and Kansas territory was above that line.

The "Compromise" was done with a gun at the head of anti slavery folks, but rather than have war, they agreed.  

Almost immediately the wealth of California made Southern leaders regret allowing California to be free state, and the spread of free soilers in Kansas, made them pissed too.  Bet no one told you that Compromise of 1820 and 1850 were about as like armed robbery at a 7 11.

As Lincoln said -- what compromise?   He meant, and said so in private letters, it was a violent way to spread slavery by means foul, and foul. Same thing with Kansas Act and the associated killing sprees.  Same thing with Atchison rushing to Kansas to start his paid violence there.

Stupidly,  "historians" and history teachers today assume slavery spread by agreement and support of the "common folks". Not fucking true.

As Lincoln himself wrote, slave power ALWAYS spread by killings, torture and means  "foul and more foul".

No one alive thought slavery spread by honorable means, but stupidly today, US history teachers, even college teachers, teach the Southern slogans about the spread of slavery, as if their distortions were facts. No, Souther leaders narrative of spread of slavery was ALWAYS double speak lies and bullshit.

In fact, the violence by Southern leaders personally, their boasting of violence, war ultimatums promising more killings, and tortures, did not surprise anyone in 1860's.  It might surprise you history teacher that Southern leaders boasted out the ass about it, in various ways, including Southern War Ultimatums.   But it should not surprise anyone.

The basic history of 1800-1866 was one long period when violent bastards were killing, torturing, and using religion as the excuse, to spread slavery.



Southern leaders got their way --- until they demanded, absurdly, that they would spread slavery AGAINST the will of the people in Kansas, and all of the West. 

You never heard that Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery AGAINST the will of the white citizens?   That's the big failure of US text books, always controlled by Southern crybabies and liars.

At the time, Southern leaders -- as you will see -- were very clear, very loud, very proud.  THEY WERE SPREADING SLAVERY AGAINST -- AGAINST -- THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE STATES.

The fact most text books even mention -- at all, ever -- that Southern leaders were for "state's rights"  is nonsense.   Yes, after they lost the war, they claimed that, just like any bully and coward changes his excuse after he gets his ass kicked.

One example, Southern War Ultimatums in Richmond papers,  April 1861. Of the five war ultimatums, all five were about the spread of slavery -- into areas that had rejected slavery.

Jeff Davis was quite specific --although Kansas was already a free state, he personally insisted Kansas must accept and respect slavery.  Kansas citizens voted 90% against slavery, became a free state, and STILL, Davis personally insisted Kansas accept slavery, because according to him, the people in Kansas could not reject slavery.

DAVIS OFFICIALLY sent US Senator David Rice Atchison to Kansas --and made him "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.   Atchison immediately hired Texas and South Carolina men,  "to be well paid"  and made them promise to kill.

Importantly -- remember this -- David Rice Atchison was the US Senator who got Kansas Act passed, supposedly to allow people in Kansas to choose for "themselves"  if Kansas would be slave or free. Sounds great.  But then Atchison personally left DC, went to Kansas, officially, and started his terror, later killing, to spread slavery and STOP people from speaking -- yes speaking -- or voting against slavery.

You didn't even know who US Senator Atchison was, did you?

You sure as hell didn't know he got Kansas Act passed, and boasted of that. Your history teacher did not show you his reports to Davis, his speech to his paid killers, and his boasting of invading Kansas to stop folks from even speaking against slavery.

You never heard, either, that it was the law -- in the South and in Kansas,  that you could not preach, write, or speak publically against slavery,   and the punishment for violation of those laws was torture.

Not kind of torture, not sort of torture.  The punishment was TORTURE -- public whipping for those who dared speak, preach, or write publicly against slavery.

No one. Fucking. Told you.   Yet nothing else comes close to show how vile Southern leaders were, how violent the oppression of religion, press, and speech against slavery,  and how David Rice Atchison boasted- - remember that -- boasted of this fact.


You probably heard of John Brown.   But you did not know -- no one told you this either, I bet -- that until John Brown started to fight back, David Atchison and his paid killers had Kansas citizens running for their lives.  And Atchison made fun of them for running away.  Atchison - remember, he was a US Senator, he was the Senator who got Kansas Act passed with Stephen A Douglas, went to Kansas and started his terrorizing and killing. 

His attempt to kill and terrorize, to once again spread slavery, almost worked.



You knew nothing about that -- did you?  That is not how it's presented.  Instead, you are told some bullshit about "TROUBLE IN KANSAS".  You are not taught who killed who, and why.

You are not taught that Southern leaders boasted of the killing, and promised endless killing.  You are not taught that Jeff Davis sent Atchison to Kansas, paid Atchison, and officially supported Atchison. YOu are not taught any of this.  Just some yap yap yahp bullshit about "Trouble in Kansas"  with no  hint of what actually happened -- who killed who and why.

Why the fuck not explain who killed who -- and why?  Especially since Southern leaders themselves boasted of it, and justified it.

Here is from Jeff Davis OWN book, justifying the Civil War by writing, IN HIS OWN FUCKING BOOK that the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas was "intolerable".

No one told you that, did they?   

No, Davis did not tell you Kansas voters had already rejected slavery 90%, by vote of white male citizens. No kidding, he would not tell you facts that obliterated his own bullshit.  But why the fuck have historians not shown this, and shown what the fuck Davis did, who he paid, how he justified the killing sprees?

In other words, Jeff Davis was pushing his own bullshit hustle and distortion. That's fine, in a way, in that it's understandable he did not give you facts making a mockery of his BS.   But to an astonishing extent, historians have been too pussy, too stupid, too sheep like, to show what Southern leaders were up to, and boasting of, at the time.

Davis would be coy and use Orwellian double speak - yes, but other Southern leaders were more blunt - we will kill every abolitionist in Kansas and not stop killing until slavery is spread to the Pacific.  WHY THE FUCK HAVE WE NOT TAUGHT WHAT THESE FUCKERS BOASTED OF, THEMSELVES, AT THE TIME?

But at the time -- remember this -- at the time, as we show, unlike the crybaby liars later, Southern leaders were not only killing and torturing to spread slavery by force against states rights, they were bragging out the ass about it. 

Atchison bragged out the ass this was war -- and he would keep killing until slavery was spread to the Pacific Ocean.  Atchison called it war -- a war "for the entire South".

His speech is as important as Lincoln's House Divided Speech, but virtually no one knows about it.   

Atchison's speech (and others like it) are more important than Lincoln's House Divided Speech, or Gettysburg speech, because Atchison is bragging of killing and torturing with paid men, with the approval of Jefferson Davis, long before Lincoln even ran for President.

Remember, this is a speech FROM Senator Atchison, to his paid killers, just before they invaded Lawrence KS, 1856.

Unless you know Southern leaders were killing and torturing to spread slavery, and boasting of it, you don't know shit. 

  This was common knowledge at the time -- never spoken of candidly now.  

Common knowledge -- no one was surprised when Atchison boasted he was killing to spread slavery, in fact, US Senator Charles Sumner was talking about Atchison, by name, for HOURS on the Senate floor.  The speech your "history teacher" will tell you he knows very well (Sumner's speech), is all about Atchison and his men, their killing and torturing in Kansas.

Go on, ask your teacher who Sumner was talking about, killing and torturing in Kansas.  He or she wont have a damn clue, because you'd actually have to read the full speech, and they almost surely never have.  Like the bible and other things, people will swear they know Sumner's speech, but have no clue what he actually said.

Charles Sumner beaten almost to death on Senate floor-- talking about Atchison and what Atchison did in Kansas after he (Atchison) passed Kansas Act.   Very basic.  Your teacher won't have a damn clue.  

Atchison boasted he got Kansas Act passed- boasted he was in Kansas, paid as "General of Law and Order"  and boasted he would "kill every abolitionist"  until he spread slavery all the way to the Pacific. 

Your teacher will spend hours telling you bullshit, and not mention the basics -- who killed who, and why, leading up to the Civil War.

Your teacher is not stupid.  Southern crybabies have made sure nothing blunt and true gets into history text books -- Texas has been the state which publishes, and always has published, US text books.  School boards in Texas simply refuse to put in ANYTHING candid and truthful about Southern leaders personal killings, rapes, invasions,  and Atchison speech is just one of many basic documents that have never -- ever -- but in any US text book.

Not only Jeff Davis and David Atchison, the Vice President of Confederacy made it clear, we are spreading slavery as a great scientific and religious truth.

So why the fuck does your history teacher not know?   I doubt 1 in 10,000 US history teachers can tell you anything remotely basic, about Southern War Ultimatums.

Yet -- nothing is more basic.  And Southern leaders boasted of it.

Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.  Southern leaders killing and torturing to spread slavery? And your teacher doesn't know?

Your teacher doesn't teach Southern War Ultimatums?  As they themselves, boasted of, at the time?

What the holy fuck is wrong with your history teacher? Im serious, what the fuck is wrong with this picture.  They kill, they torture, they issue war ultimatums, they invade.   And they boast of it out the ass.

And you don't know -- don't mention it?



You can't understand Lincoln, either, unless you understand what the hell was going on.  If you don't know Lincoln got back in politics because of David Rice Atchison -- yes, he did.

Lincoln got back in politics for one reason -- Kansas Act, and David Rice Atchison immediate invasion -- yes invasion -- Of Kansas with 1000 mercenary troops paid for and approve by Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War.

Your history teacher is also too stupid to know -- David Rice Atchison boasted of this. He boasted of getting Kansas Act passed, then boasted of rushing to Kansas and starting his violence there, with paid mercenaries.


If you teacher knows anything, they may know there was "Trouble in Kansas"  but can't for their life tell you who did what.

Who did what -- who killed who, and why -- is real history. All else is commentary and bullshit.  Get who killed who, and why, correctly, and you won't be so stupid.   No, your history teacher, very likely, has no clue who killed who, and why, in Kansas.

Even PhDs, "historians" -- even stupid shits working at Lincoln Presidential library, won't tell you, because they don't know, who killed who, and why, in Kansas, leading up to the Civil War.

But they knew -- the killers knew - and US Senator David Rice Atchison, among others, bragged out the ass about it, at the time. 

I will save you the mystery -- they killed, and boasted they killed, to spread slavery.   Officially boasted, in reports boasted, in speeches boasted, in their own letters boasted, in their own newspapers boasted, of killing to spread slavery.

How the hell the killings to spread slavery -- and boasting of it, over a generation no less -- is now whitewashed to be stupidly discussed as "TROUBLE IN KANSAS" -- shows you (or should) what bullshit nonsense most "history" is in US text books about what led up to the Civil War.


What proof most history teachers are dumber than a box of rocks -- oh, they know a lot of silly trivia, but for who killed who, who paid who to kill, who bragged they were killing to spread slavery,  they do not know. GO on -- ask.

Ask who Charles SUmner was talking about - - for hours -- on Senate floor, in the speech he was beaten nearly to death for, with Stephen A Douglas smirking nearby.   Sumner was talking -- for hours,  in the most amazing detail and bombast, about DAVID RICE ATCHISON - US SENATOR -- going to Kansas after he passed Kansas Act, and killing, and torturing, not just to spread slavery -- but to kill and or terrorize anyone who even spoke against slavery.  

Pretty big deal -- US Senator goes to Kansas, there kills and terrorizes, and boast of it, to spread slavery,  another US Senator speaks about this in a speech your stupid history teacher will insist they know well, but they could not tell you what he said, or who he was talking about, to save their lives.



Lincoln and others did not have the luxury of dealing with some watered down "Trouble in Kansas" -- they had to deal will killers, men who tortured, men who issued War Ultimatums to spread slavery.  The watered down bullshit -- sans any direct, clear, information about which SOuthern leaders (it's important to know which Southern leaders) were either in Kansas doing the killing, or and know which other Southern leaders were paying them and still in Washington to make it all possible.

I will spare you the mystery again -- Jeff Davis, Robert Toombs, and Stephen A Douglas were in DC, making sure Atchison has the money, the guns, the men, to do the killing and terrorizing in Kansas. 

Yet, this was common knowledge at the time.  See speeches about Kansas, North and South, see newspaper articles.  Charles Sumner speech -- the one he was beaten almost to death for, is not a bad start.  But a better start are the speeches leading up to the killings, like the speech by Senator Atchison himself.

See Jeff Davis own book justifying whatever happened in Kansas. 



Who killed who, and why, is real history.  Even that fact, your history teacher does not know.  Not that other things didn't happen, but nothing comes close to being functional, as who killed who, and why.


 Southern leaders doing the killing, hiring the killers, were not timid about it, then.  Oh, in some settings, guys like Jeff Davis would use euphemisms, and Orwellian double talk.  "Our rights in Kansas"  -- which as you will see, meant to Davis and his paid killers, the right to invade, torture, kill, and try to spread slavery by terror and death.  Not sorta, that is what fucking happened.

Meanwhile -- guys like Jeff Davis would wrap the terror in this double speak, and your "history teacher" will stupidly teach the double speak -- often quoting Davis or others like him, and just omit the more honest, the more real, boastings by others, those sent by Davis, those paid by Davis, those authorized by Davis as Secretary of War at the time, to kill and terrorize.

It's rather like using Dick Cheney's words about the need to invade various countries -- and not tell the facts. Just teach those words, and leave the impression that's valid (instead of sociopathic) nonsense.   Leaving out what happened will do that --those who give the bullshit, get repeated, and accepted.

The US Civil War is a great place to learn history -- that is, why history is this: who killed who, and why.

As for Southern leaders, you can add this -- who killed who, and why, and what did they brag out the ass about, till they lost.



Not a few "radicals" were killing,  but the official Southern leadership, including Jeff Davis and US Senator David Rice Atchison, with the help of Stephen A Douglas,  were killing as you will see.

Davis and Douglas were much too cowardly to go do any killing themselves, but US Senator David Rice Atchison was eager-- at least he went to Kansas and gave speeches (see below) making the mean proud to kill, and made them promise to kill

.  A pep talk before the invasion of Kansas,  by men hired by Jeff Davis.


Your "history" teacher probably can tell you something about  who David Rice Atchison was, but they won't know he was the guy who got Kansas Act passed, (and bragged about it) then immediately left for Kansas and started killing to force slavery down the throats of citizens in Kansas -- and bragged about that too.

Nothing in the 19th Century, not even firing on Fort Sumter, not even the assassination of Abraham  Lincoln, is remotely as important as passage of the Kansas Act.

But there, too, the bullshit has been taught -- that Stephen A Douglas passed Kansas Act -- some even teach, that Douglas passed Kansas Act to "give the people the right to vote on their loacl institution (slavery) themselves.

As facts and speeches showed, Douglas and Atchison passed Kansas Act, as part of the ruse to force slavery, by killing and terror, into the rest of the country, Kansas too.



If you don't know the story of generations of Southern leaders spreading slavery, and the unrelenting violence behind each step of the wary -- you can't know shit about Kansas, Lincoln, Jeff Davis, or the Civil War.  

Atchison's speech to his paid army -- mercenaries -- should be in every US text book, and should be common knowledge.  It was common knowledge then.  And his speech taking credit for passing Kansas Act, and Sumner's speech about what Atchison and company did in Kansas, should be in every text book, too.

They are in none

Jefferson Davis sent Atchison to Kansas, immediately after Atchison and Stephen A Douglas got the Kansas Act passed.

Atchison was officially Jeff Davis "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.

A group of survivors of Atchison's raid into Kansas, in a group photo, taken in 1895.

Davis insisted the citizens of Kansas had no right to reject slavery, even though 90% them would vote against slavery.   

Atchison -- the US Senator that got Kansas Act passed (see below)  was boasting of it. Out the ass boasting.    Jeff Davis used Orwellian double speak, but said the same thing.  Jeff Davis officially sent Atchison to Kansas, and as you will see, Atchison reported to Davis on the progress of the killings.

How do you fucking miss this, "historians"?

In Jeff Davis own book, he made it clear as he could, despite his propensity for Orwellian bullshit, that the resistance to the spread of slavery was "intolerable".

What could he do, rent billboard space?  

No, in his book he "forgets" to mention he sent 1000 killers to Kansas when he was Secretary of Defense.  We get that information for Senator Atchison, and others.

Davis also "forgot" to mention Kansas had already become a free state, by the time Southern leaders made the spread of slavery a "War Ultimatum"  in Southern newspapers.   

Davis also forgot to mention, in that book, that he claimed everything Atchison did in Kansas (meaning, killing, torturing, invading, sending reports of the killings, and hiring 1000 men, making them promise to kill, boasting he was killing to spread slavery)  was "Constitutionally required.


Did Davis really give a shit about pushing slavery all the way to the Pacific Ocean?

Davis had a long history of insisting South had "every right" to have slavery where it wanted -- even if they had to use violence to get it.   As he said in 1862,  he looked forward to the day, when by "force of arms"  the country will be all slave states.   See his response to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, when he blurted out this doozie.

Davis got crowds to cheer at nonsense like this -- very typical for hate and fear demagogues. He was good at exciting the stupid.   And as the leader of Southern lunatics, Davis could not suddenly say "Ya know, Kansas folks clearly don't want slavery there -- lets not worry about that.

Davis had so often - so loudly, so proudly, bragged more than anyone that the South will have slavery "in the territories"   he didn't dare say otherwise, when Kansas rejected slavery.

Preston Blair, who knew Jeff Davis very well, explained this repeatedly leading up to the Civil War.  Blair said the men urging violence to spread slavery, and pumping  up the  hate and fear about "Southern rights in Kansas"   did not really give a shit about spread of slavery.

But the speeches worked well, Blair said, to excite the crowds.  Once off state, Blair said, Davis and others like him did not say such stupid inane shit. They could be very moderate, kind, and not talk such trash.   But in front of crowds, talk trash they did.  That's how they got power.

If you don't know the history of hate and fear demogogues, and how their rhetoric traps them into toxic positions for fear of losing status, you really don't know history or human nature.   Because this is a pattern repeated over, and over, and over in history, with horrific results.


Importantly, the hate and fear demagogues -- Davis and Atchison certainly qualified -- would never be in danger.  They sent others.  Even Atchison -- his speech below -- claims he will personally lead the men to kill and terrorize.

But as event proved, that was all talk.  Atchison somehow was not at the cite of the terror and violence,  but he got the men pumped up, as you will see.

Atchison and Davis did everything humanly possibly -- including enticing others to fear, and hate, and that lead to torture, killing, declarations of war, and invasions. That's the kind of shit that happens, when hate and fear mongers get the stupid and gullible to cheer bullshit. 

Idiotically, this has been whitewashed in US text books -- controlled by Southern crybabies and liars -- as "Trouble in Kansas".   Not a word in US text books about Atchison boasting he was killing to spread slavery, or that he was the US Senator that got Kansas Act passed, nor a word that Atchison officially reported to Jeff Davis.

Not one word.  You can't include such basic facts, and then pretend Southern leaders gave a rat's ass about states rights.  When Kansas rejected slavery, Southern leaders lost their damn minds.

Sound like state's rights to you?

The North started fighting back in 1861, that's true.  But the South had a five year military advantage, and no one told you about it.  


Did you know that Southern leaders called it war? 

In fact, this was common knowledge at the time.  The war did NOT start in 1861, because Southern leaders boasted they started it in 1856.   We show you what they boasted of then, and show you how US text books have stupidly watered this down, or do not even mention, now.



No one was surprised in 1861, when Southern newspapers headlines actually boasted about their own war ultimatums -- why?  Because the South was ALREADY killing, and boasting of killing, to spread slavery since 1854.

Not, not a few "nuts"  but the highest officials in the South -- including President Pro Temp of the US Senate, and Secretary of War, Jeff Davis.  Unless you know that -- and it was well known then -- y ou don't know shit about what led to the US Civil War.

Bluntly put -- the South was bragging -- correctly -- they were ALREADY at war, (they used the term war) to spread slavery. And they promised, and delivered that war, already.

In a very real since, the US as a nation started fighting BACK against these ISIS like bastards, in 1861.

Yes, ISIS like.   They arrested preachers who spoke against slavery or even owned a book against slavery, and had them whipped in public.  Did you know that?  FUCK NO.  

It was against the law in every slave state to even preach  anything against slavery --  you could be arrested and tortured for it.  No one told you that, did they?

In fact, as you will see, Secretary of War Jeff Davis sent 1000 killers to Kansas in 1856-- under US Senator Davis Rice Atchison, to invade Kansas and force them to accept slavery.   

This sounds preposterous now -- someone would have told you!  Someone SHOULD have told you.   In a very white washed way, your text books mentioned in, in Orwellian double speak, that Southern crybabies have always insisted be in US text books.  

We show you the war ultimatums of 1856, and 1861, which SHOULD be included and explained, in every US text book.

The point is, the South was already at war, as far as their leaders were concerned, and they boasted of it.   They didn't mumble, they BOASTED they were at war to spread slavery 1856 on.

But they were already killing -- already torturing, already taking prisoners, and already demanding specific things, 1856 on

If you don't know Southern War Ultimatums, and the story behind them, I don't give a shit if you have a degree in history, you don't know shit about the United States Civil war.



Your history teacher did not mention it, but Lincoln and many others sure did, at the time.   The South was proud of it.  They had "rights" in the "territories" -- and demanded those "rights" be enforced.

But as events proved, 95% of the citizens of the territories were against slavery,  and would vote against slavery, and fight against slavery.   Did that stop the South from claiming they had rights to slavery in the territories?

HELL NO.   In fact, the justification for slavery, in areas that already voted against slavery, is one of the big untold stories in US history.

We tell it below -- but Southern leaders told it right at the time, and were  very clear about it. You just didn't hear of it.

Did you know Southern leaders issued war ultimatums in 1856?

Did you know Southern newspapers boasted of war ultimatums -- each one about the spread of slavery -- in 1861?

Furthermore, the killing sprees, war ultimatums, hangings, tortures, and terrorizing by Southern leaders, was common knowledge then. In fact, Southern leaders boasted of it.


Did you ever hear of Southern War Ultimatums?

No -- probably not.  And  even in you have a degree in history, you have never seen Southern War Ultimatums in any US text book,  in any clear way.

You'd have to read Southern newspapers -- boasting of it, and Southern leaders -- boasting of it, and Southern speeches -- boasting of it, at the time.

From 1856 on, Southern leaders -- the ones actually doing the killing and terrorizing -- were very clear.    They were killing, they were at war, and they were at war for ONE reason.

To spread slavery.

Not kinda, not sorta, not in a way.  ONE reason -- to spread slavery



 Southern War Ultimatums were not hidden. They were headlines in Richmond paper, and very much in almost every Southern newspaper, in various levels of candor, for years.

The killings were going on, the entire time.  US Senators were beaten, both off the Senate floor, and Charles Sumner was beaten almost to death on the Senate floor -- for talking about Senator Davis Rice Atchison.
 In fact, Richmond newspapers boasted of their War Ultimatums,  which were repeated in Northern papers the next day, in 1861.

Bet no one ever told you -- or even mentioned - them.   

This is what Lincoln had to  deal with - --- not the watered down nonsense that makes Southern leaders seem like rational men.

War ultimatums -- demanding Lincoln help the spread of slavery into Kansas, which rejected slavery -- was irrational as hell. As nuts as anything you will ever learn in world history.



Area  Senator Atchison was boasting of, to spread slavery for GOD, per "Our Southern Rights" all the way to the Pacific.

Yes, Atchison was well aware Kansas was against slavery, and that California and Oregon were already free states.  

It may surprise you that Southern leaders boasting of killing to spread slavery into areas that were already free states -- but it was well known at the time.

The only reason you don't know -- Southern crybabies have made sure this, and other amazing things, have never been put in US text books, other than in a very watered down way, without any clear mention of who they killed, why they killed, or what they bragged about. 



Clearly, in context: We will have slavery or we will kill every abolitionist.  And we will have slavery because GOD ordained it, and we are doing the will of "the entire South." 

Atchison called it war. He did not call it a negotiation, a preference, a hope. He called it a war to spread slavery. And no one was surprised at his war ultimatums in 1856, nor the headlines in Southern newspapers, with the Five Ultimatums spelled out -- because they had ALWAYS been killing, ALWAYS violent, to spread slavery.

As Lincoln pointed out himself -- slavery ALWAYS spread by violence, not just against blacks, but Southern leaders ALWAYS were violent and oppressive to anyone who dared speak against slavery in public, as you will see.



It was not some drunk working on his own, that issued the war Ulttimatums.  It was Jefferson Davis, in his own book, that explained it about as well as any Southern politician -- he wrote that the "intolerable grievance"   was the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas.






Yes, Jefferson Davis -- in words and actions, demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas and beyond.   Even though Kansas was already a free state, he wrote in his own book that the "resistance"  to the spread of slavery into Kansas, was "the intolerable grievance".

You should not be surprised -- Davis  had sent killers to Kansas from 1856 on. Davis specifically send US Senator David Rice Atchison -- the guy who got Kansas Act passed.

Most text books stupidly have Stephen A Douglas as the man who passed Kansas Act.  Well, he was part of it -- and Atchison boasted he forced Douglas to do it.  Atchison BOASTED he himself was the one that moved Kansas Act through -- and we know Atchison left Washington immediately, went to Kansas, and started his violence there.

So Atchison's War Ultimatums -- repeated in 1861 in writing, in Southern newspapers -- was not new.  And Atchison did not just yap -- he went to Kansas.  He hired 1000 men, and he  invaded Kansas, and set up what's now called "bogus legislature"  which made it a crime to speak or write against slavery.

Very basic -- Atchison's violent oppression of free speech, his tortures, his brutality, his murders, were exposed by newspapers AND on US Senate floor, by Senator Charles Sumner.

Charles Sumner was beaten for it, immediately.  Did you know the beating of Charles Sumner?

Most people know he was beaten, but stupidly, they did not read his speech closely. The entire speech was about the killings, tortures, and oppressions in Kansas -- caused by David Rice Atchison.

That should be basic knowledge, in all US text books, but you will not find it.   Rather,  if they give any reason for Sumner's beating on Senate floor, they will give the excuse given later -- a false one, that SOuthern cry babies made up later.  But at the time, Southern leaders and newspapers were delighted with the beatings -- because Sumner had exposed Atchison.

Have you ever heard that in Jeff Davis own book, he wrote that the "intolerable grievance"  was the resistance to the spread of slavery specifically into Kansas?

No.  While some college courses do assign that book, as far as we know, no one deals with Jeff Davis own amazing admisstion that it was the RESISTANCE to the spread of slavery into Kansas, that made the war inevitable.

And yes, Jeff Davis knew Kansas was already a free state by then.   Jeff Davis sent US Senator Atchison out to Kansas, officially, paid him, and paid his men (though they were not in the US Army, they were paid killers, solicited by newspapers ads we show you.)

Southern leaders BOASTED of this -- and much more, till they lost.  Like all bullies, who lose, after they lose, they cry to momma and say how the other guy cheated, or caused it, or whatever.  Very similar here.

One thing for sure, Southern leaders, after they lost, never dared speak one iota of the things they bragged about before. 

Not sorta, not kind of, but from the rooftops.    And it's time this basic information gets in our text books, and more importantly, in our national awareness of what the fuck caused the Civil War. 

David Rice Atichson. 

Bragged about passing the Kansas Act.

Bragged about killing to spread slavery.

Reported directly to and officially to Jefferson Davis.



When Kansas rejected slavery,  in 1856  Southern leaders declared war.  Very basic.  

Oh this is in our text books -- but not bluntly. Not like Southern leaders bragged about themselves, at the time. Rather, some bullshit, whitewashed crap about "Trouble in Kansas"  which does not begin to tell you the basics--   who killed who, and why.


Remember, at the time, Southern leaders bragged out the ass, in a way that you would not recognize, and maybe not believe, if you saw it now.

The US Senator from Missouri -- David Rice Atchison -- got his business partner, Stephen A Douglas, to pass the Kansas Act, and he boasted of that.

Then, immediately upon passing the Kansas Act, Atchison personally went to Kansas, and led a group of paid thugs and killers, to invade Kansas and try to force slavery down the throats of Kansas citizens.

It almost worked.  


Jefferson Davis sent a US Senator to Kansas -- officially -- to invade and kill citizens in Kansas for speaking and writing against slavery.  That Senator sent reports back to Davis, boasting of his progress in the killings.

Why the fuck is that not common knowledge?

If you are stupid enough to believe Southern leaders cared about state's rights -- you are too stupid.   

The biggest myth in our US text books - largely controlled by Southern crybabies and liars -- is that Southern leaders cared about state's rights.

Actually Southern leaders BOASTED state's rights did not matter, when Kansas rejected slavery.

Southern leaders sent killers to Kansas,  under leadership of US Senator and officially Jeff Davis "General of Law and Order"  to kill and terrorize in Kansas, in a failed attempt to force slavery not just into Kansas, but into the rest of the USA.

At the time, they didn't admit it, they bragged out the ass about it.  


Atchison left the Senate immediately, after passing Kansas Act, went to Kansas, and there started his killing sprees, under the direct orders and approval of, Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War.




Idiotically,  Southern leaders killings, tortures, raids, war ultimatums,   do get in US history books, in an Orwellian bit of bullhshit, in this stupid term "TROUBLE IN KANSAS".  which never explains who killed who and why.

The trouble in Kansas - as if "trouble" fell from the sky, as if US Senator did not rush to Kansas and start the killings, tortures, and boast of if.

As if Southern leaders, in 1856, and 1861, did not issue war ultimatums,  at the same time they were killing and torturing, and boasting they were doing it to spread slavery.

What the fuck. Seriously, what the fuck.

What the fuck could Southern leaders do -- rent billboard space?  They boasted, they wrote the ultimatums down,  they sent killers, they took out ads in papers for the killers.

A  US Senator sent Jeff Davis reports boasting of the killings.

What else do they have to fucking do?

And it almost worked.   If not for Lincoln and John Brown, SOuthern scum leaders would have spread slavery into the West, as they had always spread slavery -- by violence, by oppression, by stopping free speech with torture and killings.

Someone should have told you.

At first, Southern leaders, with paid men (mostly from Texas) almost got slavery for Kansas -- and beyond.  That did not work as well as Atchison wanted, he expected the citizens to be cowards, and run away, as many did do.

Remember this-- 90% of Kansas citizens were against slavery.  There were only 2 slaves listed on 1860 census, in Kansas.    There was virtually no one -- without getting paid for it -- that was going to fight to spread slavery in Kansas.

Stupidly, those history teachers who have a clue what happened, often do not have a clue that almost everyone who was fighting to spread slavery -- WAS PAID.    And when they stopped getting paid, they stopped fighting.

Very important fact, almost totally overlooked today. 

So to recap, Southern leaders went bat shit when Kansas tried to become a free state-- sent killers there, issued war ultimatums,  and was led by a US Senator. 

90% of the citizens of Kansas rejected slavery -- and they became a free state in 1861.

Southern leaders did not give up without a fight, in fact, they went ape shit -- sent killers, issued war ultimatums (twice)  and boasted out the ass, they would force Kansas to be a slave state.

In their OWN papers, in their OWN speeches, in their OWN books, they boasted -- out the ass boasted, on the record, in context, clearly, repeatedly, they were killing and torturing to spread slavery. 

Jeff Davis himself admitted Kansas "resistance to the spread of slavery was the intolerable grievance.
Davis actually sent killers to Kansas, as you will see, in 1854, to force Kansas citizens not just to accept slavery -- the killers were there to stop newspapers and people from even speaking against slavery.

It almost worked.

Common knowledge then -- hardly mentioned now...Kansas rejected slavery, and Southern leaders went fucking out of their goddamn minds.

A US Senator went to Kansas, officially as Jeff Davis's "General of Law and Order"  and tried to kill enough, terrorize enough, to frighten Kansas citizens into submission.

By the way, slavery was ALWAYS spread this way, by violence, and never by an honest vote.  The South tried it again, and if not for a guy named John Brown, and later Abe Lincoln, it would have likely worked. 

 Southern leaders brag about shit you never heard ... what's left out of every US text book in the US

The biggest untold story in US history, is covered in school books, idiotically, as "trouble in Kansas".

Realy history is this -- who killed who, and why.  Who went to Kansas, who bragged about killing, who called it a war to spread slavery, who paid this man?


US Senator explains the men will be paid by Jefferson Davis.

The men are made to promise they will kill

The men are told they will be well paid, and keep keep what they loot from houses.

The Flag is red in color, Atchison explains, 
for the blood they would spill, to spread slavery

Yet, Southern War Ultimatums, and David Rice Atchison killing sprees in Kansas, is not taught, in any clear way, in any US text book,

Atchison and his speech is just one of may documents at the time, but it's important because he is so proud, and so clear, about killing to spread slavery for the "entire South".

And they will spread it -- against states rights.

Atchison also shows how violent, and later, cowardly, Southern leaders were. Yes, Southern leaders were cowards at the end.

Every history teacher in the US should know the answers to this, as well as he knows his / her own name. 
Almost none of them know.



Issued War Ultimatums in 1856, that would be repeated in 1861, demanding the spread of slavery, or promising more killing.

And shame on the idiot "historians"  who report this in whitewashed terms, such as "Trouble in Kansas"

Trouble in Kansas, my ass.   A better term would be  "ATCHISON GOES TO KANSAS"

And remember, this was common knowledge then.


Kansas rejected slavery -- and everyone knew it - and became a free state in 1861,  before Lincoln was US President.

Yet Jeff Davis made it VERY clear -- the resistance to the spread of slavery, into Kansas, was "intolerable"

When Lincoln refused to obey the War Ultimatums -- printed in Richmond newspapers in 1861 -- the South attacked.  Not just at Fort Sumter, but 12 other places, too.

And they had already been killing, torturing, and calling it a war to spread slavery, 1856 on.   Bet you did  not know that, either.

Southern War Ultimatums.

Important shit, your teacher has no clue about. None.

Do you know the map above? You should.

This should take no explanation, because at the time, Southern leaders -- specifically Jeff Davis and David Rice Atchison were loud, proud, and violent about it.

They had already spread -- always by violence -- slavery into the area in white.  Much of that land was stolen from Mexico, in order to have more slave states.  

Furthermore, after Southern leaders and slave power got the area in white, for slavery -- they demand, very clearly, very loudly, very proudly, they would have slavery in the area with the red outline.

Nothing is more basic than this -- and remember, Southern War Ultimatums, Southern speeches, Southern killing sprees, were all focused on it. Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.  

State's rights?   Holy, shit. No.  When Kansas rejected slavery, Southern leaders ran into a major problem.  They had claimed they cared about states rights, when they really just wanted more power, more slavery.

Did they respect Kansas rejection of slavery?  FUCK NO. They sent paid killers there.   This is that story, a very basic story no one told you, because Southern cry babies, and Southern liars, have made sure the basic truth of what they boasted about then, and what their heroes did then, is not in US text books. 

This is why Lincoln got back in politics: Southern killing sprees, Southern War Ultimatums, and the guy who passed the Kansas Act.

But the first official -- a US Senator no less -- to issue War Ultimatums, was in a speech in 1856,  bragging he was killing, and could continue to kill, to spread slavery the rest of the US, including into states that had already rejected slavery.

The speech is below.  That speech should be in every US Text Book, on the cover of every US history text book.   It should be better known than Lincoln's House Divided Speech.

This was exceedingly well known at the time, by far the biggest issue in US  history at the time, and nothing, nothing, did I mention, nothing comes close to this violent and sustained attempt, by Southern leaders,  to spread slavery by killing, and torture, becasue they could not possibly spread it any other way.

It should be memorized, and handed out at the start over not just every history class, but if necessary, every social studies class, every psychology class, every spelling class, until people grasp who was killing who -- and what they bragged about -- at the time. 

War Ultimatums should be a big deal, right? 

In your text book?

Go look. Check your indexes, in any US text book. Southern War Ultimatums, from 1856 and 1861, are not there. 

It was not merely talk of Southern Ultimatums.  These were not men who talked idly -- the would be called cowards, if they did.

They were killing and torturing to back it up. Southern leaders sent 1000 men from Texas and South Carolina, to Kansas, in 1854 on, to kill, not just kill to spread slavery, but to kill to stop people from speaking against slavery.

It was a crime -- Southern leaders made it a crime -- to speak or write against slavery in Kansas.  No one told you that, either, did they?

But that is exactly what happened.

Then, when people in Kansas kept publishing anti slavery papers, Atchison and his men attacked -- claiming they were the lawful authority, and Kansas citizens had no right, in fact, were criminals, to speak or write against slavery.

This can only sound odd to you, if you do not know, that is how it was in almost all slave states, to speak or write against slavery.   The fact most history teachers have no clue about this, shows how stupid and misleading our history text books are -- they leave out the most basic issue--- the violent attack, killing, and torture, on people who spoke against slavery.

As you will see, Atchison boasted of his laws against newspapers against slavery, and made it clear, that is why he and his men attacked.  

That's right, these boasting about killing and torturing, that we see in Senator Atchison's speech,  were not some drunken hype.  He and his men were doing it.

Should that not be common knowledge?  It sure was then. 

Here is Atchison's  report, the only one to survive  his destruction of his own papers during the Civil War, to Jeff Davis, on the progress of his killing sprees in Kansas. 

The pretext for the killings -- Atchison needed a pretext, as did Davis -- was the abolitionist disobeyed the laws Atchison and his thugs passed, against free speech.

YOu can read that made clear, in Atchison's speech below. Atchison is not shy, or coy.  He is there to kill, he is there to torture, and the purpose is to stop people from speaking and writing against slavery.

Not sort of, not kind of.  That is EXACTLY why he was there.   People in Kansas disobeyed his law -- and it was his law via the "bogus legislature"  he set up -- against writing anything against slavery.

No one was surprised at this -- ALL SOUTHERN STATES HAD THE SAME TYPE OF LAWS. 

 The War Ultimatums were in speeches by Southern leaders themselves, boasting of it, books by Southern leaders, justifying it, are not in your text book, either.

Yes, sometimes they were careful how they spoke of the War Ultimatums -- but sometimes they called them war ultimatums, and boasted of the killings involved.

Orwellian double speak did not start with Orwell. Southern leaders were quite adept at it -- but sometimes, in private, in their own documents or newspapers, they let down the Orwellian double speak and got proud of it.

Just like sometimes on  floor of Congress, Southern leaders would promise to hang Northern Congressmen if they ever crossed into Virginia -- and they were dead serious.

   No one told you that, did they

You and read reports about Atchison's progress in his own killing sprees, that he wrote  to Jefferson Davis -- also not in your  history book. 

his was years BEFORE the Civil War, and this is why LIncoln got back into politics.

About time someone told you.

And almost certainly, your "history" teacher doesn't know shit about it, in blunt terms.  We show you what your "history" teacher is told. And we show you what Southern leaders themselves bragged out the ass about, and did.   No, it's not in your history books in any clear way.

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



Did you know that Southern leaders were ALREADY killing, 1854 on, and calling their killings a war to spread slavery?

That's right, Southern leaders sent men -- paid men -- to Kansas from 1854 on, to kill, and terrorize, to spread slavery there.   Did you know that?

Did you know a US Senator went there -- paid by Jefferson Davis, put in an official position by Davis, of "General of Law and Order of Kansas Territories"?

Did you know that Senator had his own newspaper in Kansas, and  he made it a crime -- a crime -- to publish any newspaper that was against slavery?

No one told you that, did they?

    Southern War Ultimatums in Richmond papers, 1861.  The "true issue" boasted the headlines, were the demands to spread slavery into Kansas -- never mind Kansas was already a free state.



Actually, Southern newspapers and speeches -- thousands of them -- refer to "Southern Rights"  in Kansas and the west.     None of them, of course, mention that Kansas was anti slavery, was already a free state by the time they made these ultimatums into headlines.

Atchison's candid speech to his men, however, did make it clear,  he was there for "the entire south"  and he was killing to spread slavery, and it was a war to spread slavery.

ATCHISON'S  men killed John Brown's son, which pissed Brown off, and he fought back, using (finally) the brutal methods Atchison's men did -- he started giving Atchison's men, what they had been giving to others.  You probably are not even told that.

No -- you didn't know. And neither did your teacher, at least in those terms, your teacher had no clue.

Here are the clues.


Most people (even history teachers) know Lincoln was a US Congressman from 1846-1848.   They do not seem to know, LIncoln personally called out then President Polk, for his war to spread slavery, by invading Mexico, at the behest of Southern slave owners and politicians.

From that point on, Lincoln was hated in the South, and by many in the North, for daring to speak the truth, Southern slave power was using the US government, and army, to spread slavery , and doing anything possible to spread slavery, including torture, killing, and terror.

Your "history" books have glossed over the central aspect of US spread into the American Continent. Every step of the way, slave power was killing, torturing, and silencing all opposition to slavery.



The only thing today that you can compare to the killers sent to Kansas, is ISIS.   Atchison and his men were exceedingly violent -- in the end, however, they could not hire enough men, when Kansas me started fighting back.

Atchison -- and Jeff Davis -- both predicted a quick victory, Atchison made fun of the Kansas farmers, insisting they were cowards who ran away.  And, some did.  Until John Brown fought back.

Jeff Davis told folks he could wipe up "all the blood"  spilled in the war to spread slavery, with his handkershief.  ANd yes, Atchicon was at war to spread slavery, and said so, very clearly. See below.

Turns out, Davis was wrong, Atchison was wrong, and for the first time, people fought back against slave power -- which ALWAYS used violence and terror to spread slavery.

That's the big untold story of US history, which is show here.  The unrelenting cruelty, tortures, and violence always used to spread slavery. If you think people were ever allowed to vote on slavery, and allowed to reject it, in the South or in Kansas, you are wrong.    Southern leaders promised war to spread slavery even in Kansas, California and Oregaon -- after, after, remember that, AFTER those states rejected slavery.

We show you those war ultimatums, too,.

Did you know Southern leaders outlawed anti slavery speeches, anti slavery preaching, anti slavery books, anti slavery anything, so that in the South, it was illegal, a crime punishable by public torture -- yes torture --to even own the wrong book.

No one told you that. Very much ISIS like

The brutality and bluster of Southern leaders  was very much why slavery was so hard to get rid of -- it was a crime in most of the US -- area wise -- to speak, preach, or write newspapers against slaver, or even own an antislavery book.

Southern leaders in Congress created a "gag rule" that no one IN CONGRESS could speak about slavery, and it took a near war to get rid of that gag rule. Did you learn about that in school?

Probably not.  At least  not in a clear way, and how also, it was against the law in most of the South to even own a book, or preach against slavery.

All the really vile shit -- the basics of what was going on -- is simple omitted or white washed in US text books, mostly because Southern crybabies and liars dominate the school boards in the South -- Texas especially -- and Texas companies have controlled the US text book industry from 1900 on.

Did you know preachers could be, and were, arrested and tortured for speaking in public against slavery?

Did you know every Southern state, and Kansas, made it a crime, punishable by torture, to publish anything against slavery?

No, you don't know that. And that's just the start.   

The final straw -- for Lincoln - was the killings and tortures in Kansas, led by a US Senator, the Senator that got Kansas Act passed (yes, he did, and he boasted of it)  David Rice Atchison.


Lincoln got back into politics, because David Rice Atchison's killing sprees, which started immediately after Atchison passed the Kansas Act .  You need to understand this, or you don't know shit.  The man who got Kansas Act passed in the Senate, David Rice Atchison, left immediately after he passed it, rushed to Kansas and there started terrorizing, later killing and torturing, to spread slavery.

And, Atchison  bragged about it all.

Atchison bragged about passing Kansas Act (most history teachers stupidly believe Stephen A Douglas passed it -- Douglas did so, by order of Atchison), he bragged about killing, he bragged about spreading slavery into all of the West, including into states that were already free states. 

This is what Lincoln dealt with, not the bullshit your  history book says, which is only the parts Southern crybabies will allow.   Our history books have never shown -- because Southern crybabies and liars prevent it -- the horrible violence done by, and bragged about by, their leaders, including Jeff Davis, and his friend, David Rice Atchison. 

Atchison, as Senator, got Kansas Act passed, then immediately went to Kansas and started his killing, torturing, and terrorizing, which led directly to the US Civil War.

In fact, Atchison himself boasted he was already at war, against the US.   He and other Southerners started killing, and boasted of it, to spread slavery into the rest of the Continental United States, and beyond.

Bet you history teacher never told you that.  Don't blame them -- no one told them, either.


Atchison specifically said the flag he rode under was red in color, to spread slavery for the entire South. Remember, this was five years BEFORE Lincoln ran for President.

Did you know Southern leaders -- and Southern newspapers at the time, boasted out the ass about their own "War Ultimatums"?

Yes, and we show you.  They called them ULtimatums.  They were clear as Donald Trumps exessive boasting -- only, Atchison had with him 1000 Texas men, hired by then Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis.

Jefferson Davis got reports from Atchison on the progress of his killing sprees. Davis backed everything Atchison did, calling his actions "required by the Constitution" .

Bet you did not know that.

Bragging about killing to spread slavery -- by a US Senator.   You didn't know that?

Well guess what, this was well known at the time. 


The speech we show you by Senator David Rice Atchison is just one example of Southern leaders boasting they would kill, and keep killing, to spread slavery.

And they called it war.

Atchison is the Senator that got Kansas Act passed.  Did you know that?   He made -- and bragged that he made -- Stephen A Douglas help him pass it in the Senate.  

Then, the day after Douglas and Atchison got Kansas Act passed, guess who rushes out to Kansas and starts killing and terrorizing there, to make sure no one could even speak, publish newspapers, or vote against slavery.


How you are taught...

They call it -- stupidly -- Bloody Kansas.  You never get any clear message that Southern leaders boasted they were killing and torturing there, not only to spread slavery, but to kill and torture those who spoke against slavery.

Most "history" teachers, even in college, are stupid about this.  They will say things like "Well, there was plenty of blame to go around".  You fucking idiots, Southern leaders sent 1000 paid killers out there, brag about it, brag they will keep killing (see below)  and everyone is to fucking blame?

God what fucking idiots. Really. Idiots.   Read the documents, the speeches, by Southern leaders themselves. Not by folks trying to make them look bad, look at their OWN documents, their OWN reports, their OWN newspapers.

You are never told, in any US text book, nor in any book by "historians" like Foner, Catton, McPherson, anything about who killed who and why.    But that is what history actually IS, everything else is bullshit.





 Southern leaders were proud that they were killing and torturing. And proud too, they were killing to spread slavery. 

They BOASTED of it.   Its a shame you aren't shown their boasting about killing and torture -- and their war ultimatums.

When Atchison went to Kansas, after passing the Kansas Act, he did not make any speeches (no one ever did) about how great slavery was, and why they should vote for slavery. He made speeches how  he will use violence to push slavery there.

Try to grasp that.

No one -- NO ONE -- thought the citizens of Kansas wanted slavery. In fact, Atchison was quite sure they did not, and that the citizens of Kansas would reject slavery if given the vote.

So Atchison made sure they could not vote. Very basic, but your history teacher very likely does not realize this. Our text books show this as "Trouble in Kansas"   with very little clarity over who killed who, and why.

Immediately, before he even entered Kansas, Atchison gathered men and arms -- with help of Jeff Davis as Secretary of War -- to invade Kansas, and terrorize anyone who dared voted, or even spoke, to keep slavery out.

How the fuck do these "historians" miss that?   It was common knowledge then, and Atchison (with others) boasted about it.

Atchison did not even try to convince the public about slavery -- contrary to any crap you may have assumed, slavery always spread by violence, not just violence to the slave, but violence to anyone who opposed slavery.

There is not a single text book in the US, that we know of, that even mentions the incessant violence to PUSH slavery, every step of the way, much less makes the point powerfully, and clearly.

A perfect example of this -- is the Southern leaders insanely violent, ISIS like  terrorizing in Kansas. 

This is what got Lincoln back in politics.



99% of US Citizens do not know 

  • In all slave states, and Kansas, it was a crime punishable by public torture, to speak, write, or preach against slavery.
  • Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums, in 1856, and 1861, and made it very clear, they would kill to spread slavery, and called these demands War Ultimatums-- against states rights
  • Southern leaders sent over 1000 men -- all paid -- to invade Kansas in 1856, where they killed and terrorized, to stop Kansas citizens from publishing an anti-slavery newspaper.
  • Southern leaders hated state's rights, and killed to stop it, when Kansas rejected slavery.



Bloody it was -- --  US Senator Atchison boasted it would be bloody, and it was. Not for him personally, he quickly got out of the way, and did not lead anyone into any killing sprees, but made excuses, and disappeared.

Atchison,  as you will see, was paid by Jefferson Davis then Secretary of War -- goes to Kansas and there kills to spread slavery and stop free speech, specifically speech against slavery.  Atchison was proud of this fact.

Atchison was the US Senator who got Kansas Act passed, and then boasted it was a ruse to push slavery into Kansas.,

Do you know who spoke of this for two days, in the Senate?

Atchison's passage of Kansas Act, then his rush to Kansas, were he killed and tortured, and boasted of it, was the subject of the two day speech by Senator Charles Sumner. 

Go on, ask any history teacher to give you the name of the person Charles Sumner was speaking about, in the speech he was beaten nearly to death for?

The answer, of course you know by now cause I just told you, was David Rice Atchison.



This is what Wiki says about Kansas Act.  At least they mentioned Atchison's name as someone who got involved later. 

They don't seem to know, according to Atchison himself,  he got Kansas Act passed, and he went to Kansas immediately, started killing and terrorizing there, and boasted of it.

That's what you get for just repeating bullshit. 

Kansas–Nebraska Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 1856 map shows slave states (gray), free states (pink), U.S. territories (green), and Kansas in center (white).
The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 (10 Stat. 277) created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska by Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. The initial purpose of the Kansas–Nebraska Act was to open up many thousands of new farms and make feasible a Midwestern Transcontinental Railroad. The popular sovereignty clause of the law led pro- and anti-slavery elements to flood into Kansas with the goal of voting slavery up or down, resulting in Bleeding Kansas.[1]

No mention in Wiki, or any US  history book that I know of, that Atchison was boasting about killing to spread slavery, boasting about how he passed Kansas Act, and boasting he would continue to kill until slavery was spread to the Pacific Ocean.

Atchison was NOT acting on his own. He was officially working for Jeff Davis.

And Atchison boasted of his goal -- to spread slavery by killing and terrorizing.

Your history teach has no clue?  Why, are they stupid?   No,  they are just not told.

 So  your history teacher can have no clue tchison was working -- officially for -- Jefferson Davis, and reported to Jefferson Davis on the progress of his killings, at the time.

Most history teachers don't know shit about Atchison,   and his most basic role -- to pass Kansas Act. Yet they insist, generally, they know about Kansas Act very well. Idiotically, they have no clue Sumners two day speech was ABOUT Atchison, the Kansas Act, and the killing, torturing and bragging Atchison was doing in Kansas.  Yet they will claim (they all do, oddly) that they read the Kansas Act.  

Atchison was not just a US Senator, bragging about killing to silence newspapers against slavery -- he was the US Senator that passed the Kansas Act, reported on his progress of the killings (see report below)  and officially worked for Jefferson Davis at the time of these killings.

No, your fucking history teacher  has no idea.   They should be taught this - the guy who passed Kansas Act then personally rushes to Kansas and starts violence, including invading Kansas with 1000 men he speaks to, recently hired from Texas.

He brags -- OUT THE ASS BRAGS -  he and his men are killing to spread slavery for the entire South.

He brags-- OUT THE ASS BRAGS -- he is killing to stop folks from publishing anti slavery newspapers,

He brags -- OUT THE ASS BRAGS -- he will continue to kill and torture till slavery is all the way to the Pacific.

Nor was this that unusual at the time -- promising war to spread slavery. But Atchison was  one of the more blunt, more honest, more bragging about it kinda guy. Like Donald Trump bragging he will carpet bomb civilians.


If that were not enough, Atchison's business and political partner was Stephen A Douglas.

 Douglas in public spoke lovingly about Kansas folks "right to choose, perfectly free, to have slavery or not" .   

But in the background, Douglas helped Atchison's killing sprees as long as he could.  This was well known then -- how Atchison got Douglas to be the front man to pass Kansas Act, something Douglas spoke against in the most bombastic way possible, until Atchison promised to take his committee chairmanship away.
Douglas was Chairman of the House and Senate Committee on the Territories. Nothing, literally nothing, go to the House or Senate, unless Douglas personally allowed it to.

Atchison wanted that position. Douglas was willing -- and eagerly helped Atchison -- pass Kansas Act, as his payment to keep that position.

Your  history teacher -- and many books about this period -- idiotically claim Stephen A Douglas was for "popular sovereignty"..  Lincoln well knew, and exposed, Douglas's duplicity (lying) on this issue, which was the basic struggle for both men in the Lincoln Douglas Debates.

Lincoln was showing how Douglas was in on the ruse -- the ruse of pretending to be for popular sovereignty, but actually preventing it by means foul, and more foul.

Douglas, fighting back, accused Lincoln of being "A Nigger Lover"  who "wants your daughters to sleep with and marry with Niggers"

Bet you never  heard any of that, in your "history" class.

Atchison was Douglas's  political boss, until the Northern public became so irate at Atchison (and others) killing and torturing in Kansas, that Douglas was hung in effigy, and could not even get off the train from Boston to Chicago.   By the time Douglas reached Chicago, he knew he was a dead man politically if he continued outward support of killer Atchison in public.

  Yes, Douglas in public said things like "popular sovereignty,"  let the Kansas voters decide.  And that's the part you are told about, because it's the only thing your "history" teacher knows.

But behind the scenes, Douglas was the guy who inserted the language in Kansas Act that in effect, turned it upside down and PREVENTED -- with Aitchison and Davis help -- people from even speaking against slavery, let alone voting against it.

And of course, Lincoln knew this. Lincoln, in strong but parsed words, exposed how the Kansas Act was a ruse, designed deliberately (by Douglas and Atchison) to prevent anyone from voting against slavery in Kansas.   Historians not only don't tell you that (just read the Lincoln Douglas debates) they dare not deal with WHY Lincoln would say such a thing.

Douglas was the "front" guy pushing Kansas Act through.  And Lincoln of course knew it, and called him on it. How the fuck your history teachers don't know that -- is a mystery. Lincoln exposed Douglas (as did many others) in the Lincoln Douglas debates.  And Atchison boasted he got Douglas to pass it.

Atchison boasted of a lot of shit your history teacher should know, but does not.  Or at least, most do not. 

1854 ON


US Senator Atchison speech is one of many documented pieces of evidence, where Southern leaders, at the time, bragged out the ass, they were killing to spread slavery, and would continue to kill, until slavery was spread throughout the USA, states rights or no.

Instead of teaching this, US textbooks, published to not offend Southern crybabies, have all but made US public stupid about this.

And "historians" like Foner, McPherson, Bruce Catton and others,  have done nothing to enlighten them. In fact, McPherson and Catton basically echo Jeff Davis bizarre and factually deceptive narrative of the Civil War.


Most folks never heard of Senator Atchison, but everyone alive and active in politics/ slavery in 1856 knew exactly who he was.

Atchison boasted not only that he would kill to spread slavery -- he proved that he would, but actually leading at attack men paid by Jeff Davis, into Lawrence Kansas.

Atchison also boasted he worked for Jeff Davis, and he was right. Jeff Davis officially appointed him "General of Law and Order In Kansas Territories"  which is why papers at the time, often referred to him as "General Atchison".

If that were not enough, Atchison and he men,  were the men Charles Sumner talked about -- for hours on end -- in the US Senator for two days, the famous "Crimes Against Kansas Act".  

Sumner was beaten almost to death just after he sat down, after this speech.

As you will see, Stephen A Douglas was laughing as Sumner was beaten.  Stephen A Douglas was the Senator, with Atchison, who got the Kansas Act passed.

None of this was a secret, at all. Atchison BOASTED of these things. He boasted  he got Kansas Act passed. He BOASTED he was in Kansas killing to spread slavery and to stop anyone from writing against slavery.


It's not your fault that you had no clue, Southern leaders ALREADY called it war to spread slavery, were ALREADY sending killers to Kansas, and had ALREADY issued war ultimatums -- all about one thing: To spread slavery against states rights.

Kansas was against slavery, as you will see.  Southern leaders said that did not matter.

Southern War Ultimatums, in Richmond papers, boasting of it, 1861.   Atchison had issued War Ultimatums already, 1856.

So no one - literally no one -- was surprised when Southern newspapers made it very clear, the "TRUE ISSUE" as the spread of slavery in Kansas. They had been saying that, one way or another, for five years already, and been killing and torturing in Kansas, and elsewhere, to back up what they said.


Jefferson Davis came up, because he had to, with an entirely new excuse to spread slavery, when Kansas rejected slavery.

State's rights did not matter,  suddenly, because Davis said the Supreme Court ordered-- ordered-- the US government to protect slavery everywhere, even in states that had rejected slavery.

And -- Davis was right!  The US Supreme Court ruled that blacks are not human beings (not persons) and therefore the government MUST not just accept slavery, but must protect slavery.

Before, Davis had sometimes said a few words about "popular soverithty":  or that people "should be perfectly free"  to decide their "institutions"  themselves -- meaning chose to enslave others. 

But that double speak bullshit did not work, and Davis knew it did not work, when Kansas rejected slavery.

So Davis had to find a way around that.  And he found it -- in fact, he created it.   The Kansas Act, and the Dred Scott decision.  

If your teachers did not tell it to you this way -- go slap them.  

This is the way Davis explained it at the time. Davis himself, wrote and said, Dred Scott decision negated any right by Kansas to chose for themselves.  He made that as clear as he could, in his own way.

Lincoln too, said Dred Scott would make it impossible to reject slavery in any state.  The Court, as Lincoln pointed out, had ruled that way already.  The Kansas Nebraska Act -- passed by David Rice Atchison (yes, it was) was part of the machinery, Lincoln said, to give an excuse to force slavery into Kansas.

It is a most vile bit of stupidity on part of "historians" who idiotically and stupidly refer to Kansas act as an attempt to peacefully settle the "expansion of slavery issue".   Was Lincoln wrong?  Was Jeff Davis wrong?   Was David Rice Atchison wrong?   The people actually in the thick of things -- including Stephen A Douglas, spoke quite differently, at the time.   You need to get all their words, not part of the bullshit often repeated. 
Be you didn't know that. 


But Davis was bragging his ass off about it, at the time.  The Dred Scott decision, in his mind, meant that even after Kansas became a free state, even after KS rejected slavery by 90 and 95% vote, it did not not matter. 

The resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas - remember, even after Kansas rejected slavery and was a free state -- was
the "intolerable grievance"  according to Jeff Davis himself.

There is not a single text book in the US that even mentions this, though it was common knowledge at the time, and Jeff Davis explain it pretty well. Davis of course  did not mention KS rejected slavery or that he has sent killers into KS, to kill and terrorize folks, to stop them from even speaking against slavery in 1856.

But Davis was quite candid, in his own way, of making it clear the "intolerable grievance"  that made the Civil War necessary, was the "resistance"  to slavery in KANSAS.

Don't believe me?

This is from Davis's own  book. He wrote this book. Go read it. Here is the relevant part....

Just like these are the Southern War Ultimatums -- listed in Richmond papers as "THE TRUE ISSUE".

What was the true issue?   The spread of slavery into Kansas and beyond.

For those too stupid to know -- Kansas already rejected slavery by vote and by coming into the Union as a free state.

Try to grasp that, and ask your "history teacher"  why this was not the most basic point of history class, leading to US Civil War.

Southern War Ultimatums -- not suggestions, not starting points for negotiations, but war ultimatums -- was the Kansas accept and respect slavery, even after they had voted against slavery, and after they had become a free state.

How the FUCK is that missed?  It's missed because history teachers are parrots, and apparently too stupid to read primary sources.  Davis and other Southern leaders had rejected states rights as their excuse, when Kansas rejected slavery.

Yes, they did.

No one -- not even Davis, not even Atchison, pretended the folks in Kansas were pro slavery.

Davis and all Southern leaders, by 1861, were livid to the point of murder and war, that Kansas dared to reject slavery.

Yet, 90% of the voters did reject slavery.

So stupid are some "historians" that guys like Eric Foner idiotically said Dred Scott decision was "a rather narrow ruling". Uh, time to wake the fuck up Foner. Davis used it, and the entire South used that decision, to justify killing, torturing, and invading Kansas, and starting the Civil War long before Lincoln even got elected.

But Davis did explain his "logic" that no longer could states or territories choose slavery, so states right's, popular sovereignty  all those things he pretended to believe in before, did not matter. 


Which leads to another basic fact your "history teachers"  never mentioned.  It had been a crime for about 20 years, in all Southern states, and because of Atchison, in Kansas, to speak against slavery, or write newspapers against slavery.

The reason slavery ended in the North - it could be shamed. People could talk about it -- and did. People could write books, newspapers, and speak against slavery -- and did.

But not in the South. In the South, and for a while in Kansas, you would be tortured for even owning the wrong book. And as Atchison himself made clear, in his bombastic macho man speech at the time, you would be killed if you dared to break his law, that no one could write anything public against slavery.

Very basic -- and there is not a single text book in the US that mentions these things in a candid way.  

You  probably heard some bullshit about Southern leaders cared about states rights.

Not regarding slavery, in one of the most amazing bits or Orwellian double speak in US history, Davis came up with the excuse for state's having no right to keep slavery out.

And he even explained that was "intolerable".   It was "intolerable" that Kansas would resist slavery, even if 90% of the citizens did reject slavery.

And it all had to do with David Rice Atchison -- Jefferson Davis paid General by 1856 - and his killing sprees in Kansas. 

  Jeff Davis  and Atchison tried their best to force Kansas to accept slavery -- by making it impossible to speak or write newspapers against slavery.

That didn't work well, because  though Davis sent Atchison to Kansas, and later hired 1000 Texas men, to invade Kansas and shut down anti-slavery newspapers, Kansas fought back, and won.

What legal basis did Davis and Atchison have to shut down newspapers? To invade Kansas with 1000 Texas men?  

They made it up. They just made up laws that it was hereafter a crime to publish anti slavery newspapers.  They made it a crime to try to vote against slavery.


JEFF DAVIS explains why states can not reject slavery, even by 95% vote.
Did you know Jeff Davis explained why Kansas could  not reject slavery, even as a state?

Did you know Jeff Davis wrote about it, in his own book?   The resistance to the spread of slavery -- into Kansas, which already became a free state by the time Davis was part of the War Ultimatums to spread slavery, was "intolerable".  Not just intolerable, but "THE INTOLERABLE GRIEVANCE"



You may have heard stupid people claim the South was for state's rights.   No, they did not.  

Davis spoke a few times about states rights, but changed his tune when KS rejected slavery. Very basic change - his change of excuses.

WHen KS rejected slavery, Davis instantly claimed state's rights did not matter. He has used state's rights before, as the excuse, but that went out the window when Kansas rejected slavery overwhelmingly, and became a free state.

No one told you that, did they?

Foner never mentioned it. 

McPherson never mentioned it.

Bruce Catton never mentioned it.

Do you know who DID mention it, in his own book?

Jefferson Davis mentioned it.

His "logic" for that switch was the Dred Scott decision, which he very likely wrote, by the way.


Atchison worked officially for Davis, and reported to him of his progress in killing. Did you know that?

Hell know.  Your history teacher does not even know Atchison was, in most cases, and sure as hell does not know he passed Kansas Act then went to KS and started killing, and bragged of it.

And so of course, your history teacher can not know Atchison did this officially and was paid for it, and his men were paid.  

So dont believe these fucking "history teachers'  who repeat bullshit, and don't read the original documents by the South at the time, their own speeches, their own war ultimatums, their own reports about progress of killing sprees.


Atchison had boasted to Davis that he would quickly kill and frighten away anyone in Kansas who was against slavery.

Not so much.

Atchison had driven out the Mormons from Missouri, and he assumed the Kansas citizens would run away too, from his paid killers. Yes, Atchison had paid killers. He boasted of that.

He should know.

Atchison's big problem,  as you will see, 95% of the citizens in Kansas were against slavery.  Atchison and Davis had to pay men from Missouri, then from Texas, to invade Kansas.   Bet no one told you.

Yes, Atchison and Davis sent men. Several times.   It did  not work.

Here is Atchison's speech to the men he hired from Kansas.  See more below -- but he brags, out the ass, repeatedly and clearly, they are there to kill, and to force slavery down the throats of people in Kansas.

Atchison personally made it a law that forbid speech and newspapers against Kansas.  That is what he was boasting about -- about invading Kansas to enforce the Nazi like crazy ass laws against even speaking against slavery.

 Go see it yourself.

And remember, Atchison is US Senator.

Atchison is working officially for Jeff Davis.

Atchison  is the guy who got Kansas Act passed.

Atchison would run like a coward during the Civil War, essentially deserting. He was not about to actually fight, he was big on urging others, as you will see, to kill and be killed.


Both the original hand from is here, AND a transcribed version. 

There were many other speeches and documents about Southern leaders bragging about how they would -- and did -- try to spread slavery by killing and torturing.
This was just the one by a US Senator, who also worked for Jeff Davis, and was bragging to his men all about it.



One tiny problem with forcing slavery down the throats of people in Kansas. Most people there -- living in Kansas - were against slavery.

In fact, so few people in Kansas were pro slavery, that Atchison had to hire his thugs from Missouri -  and even that was not enough when folks in Kansas started to fight back.   Atchisons men -- hired -- were violent thugs -- ISIS like.    At first, Kansas citizens did not fight back, ands Atchison made fun of that.

But then, Kansas citizens DID fight back. You might have heard of the man who changed all that -- his name was John Brown.

Atchison's men killed John Brown's son, Frederick.   Big mistake, turns out, because Brown started to use the same tactics that Atchison used -- except torture.  Brown started to kill folks who promised to kill him, and promised to kill others, and almost certainly had already killed.

Only then did others in Kansas fight back, but it was enough.

When Kansas citizens started to fight back, Aitchison and Davis had to hire from Texas.  .  Some "history teachers" stupidly assume many citizens of Kansas were for slavery. No, they were not.

Some idiot teachers will say stupid shit stuff like  "Oh Kansas? Yeah I know all about it. Plenty of blame to go around out there".

You stupid fuckers.  And Atchison's speech is important, because he was boasting out the ass about it. 


Atchison and Davis tried their best to make it impossible for anyone in Kansas to speak or vote against slavery.

When that did not work -- when Kansas people rejected slavery anyway -- Davis came up with EXCUSE #2

Davis changed his excuse -- states did not have right to reject slavery, he said, -- it did not matter how many people voted against slavery.   Blacks were not human beings. 

Did you know -- bet you did not -- that literally  Dred Scott decision (almost certainly written by Davis himself)   declared blacks are not human beings. They are not persons.  


Because blacks were not human beings (per Dred Scott) Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery. Not just accept it, but PROTECT slavery, as any state must protect any property.

You had no fucking clue, did you? Nor did your dumb ass history teacher. But here is the court order about that.  Davis was talking about this order of the court. SO here it is.

Dont blame me if your dumb ass teachers didn't tell you, Jeff Davis sure as hell told folks, this was the whole fucking idea behind Dred Scott, and the actual order in the decision.

According to this order -- yes, its an order -- the Sumpreme Court ordered the United States to recognize slaves as  property -- not human beings -- and pledges the government to PROTECT slavery.

Now you may see what a dumb fuck Eric Foner is, who said Dred Scott was a "rather narrow ruling" about what Congress can do. 

Even if Foner is too stupid to read the order of the court -- that blacks are not humans beings and that states MUST protect slavery (even when 95% of the people are against slavery, as the case of KS) -- he could at least read how Jeff Davis boasted out the ass how Dred Scott changed everything, and mandated slavery even when the poeple were against it

This was not some fucking "fine point.  This is a basic as it could get -- and Jeff Davis made that as clear as he could.

Davis wrote about -- in his own book, how Dred Scott decision changed everything.   It changed everything because suddenly, it did not matter what the hell people in Kansas wanted, what they voted on, or if they all voted against slavery.   

  Lincoln too, made it clear, over and over, in a dozen speeches, that Dred Scott decision changed everything and made it possible to go to sleep in a free state, wake up in a slave state ONLY because of what Dred Scott decision ordered.
Maybe Foner should go read the House Divided SPeech. What the hell does he think that was about? Cupcakes?

What the fuck did he think the Lincoln Douglas debates were about -- they were about DRED SCOTT DECISION.  How the fuck do you miss that, if you are an 8th grader.   Foner missed it, and he claims to teach Lincoln and the Civil War.

What the fuck?

How the FUCK does Foner miss all that? Because he sure as hell did. 

ATchison was already in Kansas, killing and bragging about -- but that did not work.  That's why Davis needed something more -- and got it, by writing the Dred Scott decision.   No one admits Davis wrote it, but he sure as hell did, because those were the EXACT words Davis needed to justify Atchison's killing sprees.

Davis was very clear-- Atchison was PROTECTING slavery by stopping speech and newspapers against slavery.  In all of the South, that was already the case -- no one could speak or write against slavery. Atchison made that the law in Kansas as soon as he got there. 

But it did not work.  Kansas became a free state anyway.

SO -- AFTER KANSAS became a free state, Davis was still eager t

Bet you didn't know that.

This was already the law in all Southern states -- no preaching, nor publications, no newspapers could publish anti slavery information, or even defame slave owners.

No one told you that, did they?

SO Atchison simply set up what was already going on in all Southern states.


This was COMMON knowledge at the time -- Lincoln spoke of it in House Divided Speech. He also mentioned it in the Lincoln Douglas debates, and in his person letters.

But most of all, Atchison HIMSELF boasted of it, boasted out the ass, loud and proud about it.

How your idiot "history" teacher misses this (most have no clue) is a story in itself.    

Another Senator -- Charles Sumner -- was beaten almost to death on the floor of the US Senate, immediately after he spoke for two days about Atchison, and his killings and tortures in Kansas. 







Did anyone tell you that Southern leaders -- the top Southern leaders -- bragged they were already at war to spread slavery, from 1854 on?

No.  No one.


This is in your history books, in a very watered down way.  In terms at best euphemisms, and at worse, the result of crybaby Southern shit heads making sure nothing real got in US text books about what Southern leaders actually did, and boasted of, at the time.

That may sound weird, but Southern crybabies have had a profound effect on US text book, and this is one of the biggest things they have kept out -- Southern tortures, Southern killing sprees, Southern leaders bragging they were killing to spread slavery.

And of course, Southern War Ultimatums. 

Essentially, everything Southern leaders bragged out the ass about -- they bragged about their paid killing sprees, bragged about their war ultimatums, bragged they would keep killing -- and specifically, keep torturing, until slavery was spread for God to all of the US.

And when US Senator Charles Sumner spoke about Atchison for two days on the Senate floor, he was beaten nearly to death -- on the Senate floor.

Others were burned to death -- like Lincoln's friend Lovejoy.



Since your "history" teacher does not even know Southern War Ultimatums, they are incapable of telling you that Lincoln refused to obey them.

 Lincoln of course, refused to obey the war ultimatums.

Lincoln did NOT say, as he probably should have "Fuck you idiots, Im not going to help you spread slavery against the will of the people in Kansas -- they voted against slavery you idiots, and they beat the fuckers Davis paid to go to Kansas.  Eat shit and die, motherfucker"

That is what Lincoln SHOULD have said, but Lincoln spoke in polite terms always trying to avoid war.    But in his personal letters, like to Joshua Speed, Lincoln made it very clear he was specifically aware of the killings and torture and war ultimatums. 

This would all sound bizarre in any US history book, especially the way it's taught in the South.  But Southern leaders were as proud as they could be, at the time.


In fact, Lincoln got BACK into politics, only after Southern leaders boasted they were at war.  Your idiot fucking history teacher, if he gives a motivation, says Lincoln's wife wanted him to rise in politics.

Fucking idiots.  

Southern leaders -- and Lincoln knew it -- said they were at war. They said they would keep killing. They said they would keep torturing.

 Not kind of at war, not sort of, but killing, torturing, and making specifical war ultimatums, kind of war.   They were not only at war, they were boasting of more war, until slavery was all the way to the Pacific, including in states that were already free states.

Bet you didn't even hear about Southern leaders boasting that they would spread slavery even into states that were already in the Union, and already free states.  Yes, they did.

And we show you their words -- including Jefferson Davis himself, admitting the the Civil War came about "because of the resistance to the spread of slavery".

Slavery -- according to Davis -- could not be stopped or restricted, because it was "of GOD"  and because the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not even human beings.

He was very clear about this -- though Davis was artful in his words.  We show you Davis words about why states could  not restrict or reject slavery, even states that were already in UNION

Bet you had no clue the Southern leaders issued WAR ULTIMATUMS that slavery must spread -- even into areas that were already in Union.

Idiotically, you won't find one "history" teacher i
n 1000 who even knows the South issued War Ultimatums.  

Davis wrote that the  "intolerable grievance" that made the war necessary, was the resistance to slavery in Kansas.  

To understand  how bizzare and idiotic this is, you gotta know, that Kansas was already a free state, and already voted against slavery by 90 and 95% votes, when Davis said this bit of insanity.

But Davis had a way of not mentioning certain facts -- like Kansas was a free state, like Kansas rejected slavery, like Davis himself sent 1000 killers to Kansas to force slavery down their throats.

This is crazy ass nonsense,  and you should recognize it as such, if you knew that Kansas was overwhelmingly against slavery. In fact, Kansas had become a free state, in the Union, admitted in the Union by President Buchanan and the Congress.  After -- remember that -- after Kansas rejected slavery by an overwhelming vote, after Kansas was a free state, Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums, specifically saying Kansas must accept and respect slavery.

The US Senator -- Atchison  -- who issued the war ultimatums first,  was the same US Senator that got the KANSAS ACT passed. So to those idiots "history teachers"  who claim such nonsense as that Kansas Act was a way to "resolve the slave issue"  are fucking stupid. 

Lincoln had it right -- and most people knew it. That Kansas Act was a "bit of machinery" -- a plot -- to push slavery into Kansas by force, when they could not push it into Kansas (or anywhere really) by honest means.


Your history teachers tell you some watered down euphamism-- that Kansas Act was passed to "resolve the question of slavery". 

Comments by some historians -- who never can answer the simple question, what was Atchison doing in Kansas, and who got Kansas act passed--

  "Oh, there is lot of blame to go around in Kansas". 



Most "history" teachers don't even know that those who did the killing in Kansas were not from Kansas, they were hired. Paid.  Atchison makes that very clear, as did  some newspapers of the time. 

Atchison should know -- he was bragging about it.


It's not teacher's  fault they don't know -- this is the version of events, sanitized by Southern crybabies and liars. Southern school boards have had stranglehold on US text books, including college text books. 

The effect is, little gets in US text books that is not acceptable to Southern crybabies and liars. That's the truth.   Lee's torture of slave girls, his purchase of kidnapped women, is another example.

Southern War Ultimatums, Davis paying killers to invade Kansas -- all well known in 1850s, and bragged about at the time by the South.

What the Southern leaders BOASTED of -- themselves, over and over, in context, clearly, loudly and proudly, is not even mentioned. 

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

Does not get much more basic -- the US Senator, while a US Senator, declares war on the US and boasts, repeatedly, in public, that he and his men will kill anyone who is against slavery -- and anyone who dares publish antislavery newspapers -- in Kansas.  

But your teacher probably knows all kinds of details about Davis and other Southern leaders (like the name of Lee's pet chicken) but has no fucking clue Davis had killers in Kansas, they reported to him, and the US Senator he chose to lead them, passed the Kansas Act immediately before he went to Kansas for his killing sprees.

Seriously -- how fucking stupid is our education system, when history TEACHERS will know the name of Lee's pet chicken, but not what Southern Ultimatums were, or what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about, and did, until they lost.


Southern "equality" in the territories meant to Davis,  Kansas must accept and protect slavery.  
It  did not matter that 95% of the citizen there voted against slavery.  And Davis  "logic" that states rights did not matter, was the Dred Scott decision.

Atchison sent reports of his killings to Jeff Davis, his official  boss. Jeff Davis is then Secretary of War in the USA. And he boasted of it in public. 






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

He is the US Senator that worked officially for Jefferson Davis.

He is also the US Senator that passed the Kansas Act.



It was NOT just this one amazing speech by the US Senator.  Atchison was also not "just " another US Senator. He was the Senator that got Kansas Act passed -- then by his own admission, immediately left Washington to go to Kansas, and there started what would be called his "reign of terror"

Atchison worked officially for Jeff Davis
He sent hundreds of reports to Davis, most he burned when it was clear the South was going to lose.
But some reports survived.  See below. 

Unlike some other Southern leaders, Atchison was boastful and sometimes amazingly blunt. 

He boasted the South would keep killing till slavery was all the way to the Pacific -- including in California, which was already a free state.

Likewise, Jeff Davis himself made it VERY clear,  the resistance to the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas (Kansas was already a free state by the time he said this publicly) was the "intolerable grievance"   that made war necessary.

And Atchison was officially Jeff Davis own "General of Law and Order"  in Kansas from 1854 on. 

  Furthermore, Davis claimed -- in writing -- that what Atchison did was "constitutionally required", including killing and terrorizing to stop people from publishing anti slavery newspapers.   Again, all Southern states made it a crime already, to publish anti slavery anything, or to preach anti slavery sermons.   So this was nothing unusual at all, at the time.

Atchison was "constitutionally required"  to do what he did. And what he did -- was to invade Kansas and try to kill anyone that rejected slavery in print.   Had Atchison been successful, and he almost was, US history, and world history, would have been drastically different,


Don't blame me you didn't know about that -- it's your history teacher's fault, not mine, because Southern leaders bragged about it, out the ass bragged about it. It was no secret to anyone alive at the time, but US  history books have whitewashed this very basic part of US  history, 1850-1861.

"Southern rights"  in Kansas (a meaningless term,  that some used as Orwellian double speak)  is a term some used, and stupid people repeat to this day. .  Atchison was more blunt -- he was killing to SPREAD slavery and he was killing to silence all opposition to it.

That's what he meant by "Southern rights".   Unlike the others, he was bragging about, while others used Orwellian double speak. 


Atchison PERSONALLY made it a law in Kansas that no one could publish or speak publicly against Kansas.  

It was his own law -- forbidding any newspaper for publishing anti slavery information -- that Atchison used to invade Lawrence Kansas twice.   During the Civil War, Southern hatred of Lawrence was so great -- because that city had defied Senator Atchison in 1856 -- that they invaded Lawrence a third time, and burned it all to the ground.

You probably heard none of this -- but Atchison was quite proud of it. So were other Southern leaders, and Southern newspapers. 

While every Southern state had such laws -- preachers could be, and were, arrested for even owning the wrong book, Atchison took a special delight in hiring over 1000 men, using money from Jeff Davis (as you will see) to enforce this vile laws, and Atchison would burn, torture, and BRAG about it, in order to stop folks from speaking against slavery.

The laws against preahcers -- yes, preachers committed a crime if they preached against slavery -- is the biggest reason slavery was so entrenched in the South. It was literally a crime to be publially against slavery, from the 1840's on.   You did not have to preach and speak for slavery, but it was literally a crime to publically critizie slavery. 

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



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 -- with his famous "bogus legislature --  is to make 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.


"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.


Stephen A Douglas.

"Your daughter will sleep with Niggers" is the way Stephen A Douglas put it -- to LIncoln's face, in the Lincoln Douglas debates.

 Things were violent - - slavery was a violent enterprise, and spreading it was always violent.   Lincoln's own private words, in letters to Joshua Speed, showed he was exceedingly aware of the unreleting ISIS like violence that was in Kansas at the time Lincoln wrote.

Lincoln also knew, the Southern leaders did not bluff.   They always made good on their promises of violence, and that was shown daily.  

Does not get much more basic -- the US Senator, while a US Senator, declares war on the US and boasts, repeatedly, in public, that he and his men will kill anyone who is against slavery -- and anyone who dares publish antislavery newspapers -- in Kansas.  


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.  And we know for sure that's what they mean, because Atchison not only bragged of it, but was killing and torturing and calling for endless war, until he got slavery into all of the West, including specifically states that had rejected slavery by overwhelming vote.

It  did not matter that 95% of the citizen there voted against slavery.  And Davis  "logic" that states rights did not matter, was the Dred Scott decision.

Atchison sent reports of his killings to Jeff Davis, his official  boss. Jeff Davis is then Secretary of War in the USA. And he boasted of it in public. 

So those idiots  who don't grasp that treason, killings, and tortures, were going on long before Lincoln ran for President -- in fact long before he rarn for Senate -- need to learn what the fuck was going on.

Hell yes it was treason. Sending 1000 men to Texas to kill and terrorize, to stop people from speaking against slavery, is fucking treason. If you don't think so -- go do that today. Hire 1000 men, have them go to Kansas, have them invade and burn down newspaper buidlings, have them torture and kill, and then brag about it.

GO on -- DO IT.  You got all these macho Confederate apologist -- well, go do what your heroes at that time  did. Invade. Torture. Kill. Brag about it. Issue War ultimatums. See what the fuck happens.

"Real history is this -- who killed who, and why. All else is bullshit."  Mark Curran

Remember that -- against state's rights. Southern leaders did complete flip flop on "states rights"  when KS rejected slavery by 90% vote.


And no one ever told you.

This must all sound bizarre -- because you never heard it before.

But it was common knowledge then. Yes, it was.  In fact, the most famous speech in US history, on Senate floor, was about this exact thing.   US Senator Charles Sumner spoke about Atchison -- by name -- for two days.  Sumner spoke for two days, hour after hour, detail after detail, of what Atchison was already doing. Who Atchison was already killing. Who his men were already torturing. 





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. And that is what Atchison was talking about in his speech.  Atchison was bragging of things, to his men, that Sumner had accused him of.

No one told you about that speech in this way. This was the speech Sumner was beaten nearly to death for. And your dumb ass "history" teacher, who probably mentions the speech and smugly tells you bullshit about it -- has never read it. If you read the speech, you will see, its about Atchison and his men, in Kansas, killing and torturing.  And about how they killed to stop free speech.

But after Sumner's speech, Atchison's killings got even worse, his violence got even worse.   Still, Sumner's speech was amazing -- very specific, hour after hour, detail after detail, about Atchison. Try to grasp that, because most history teachers are clueless, other than the bullshit narrative distortions made up later by Southern cry babies. 

Read Sumner's speech yourself. You won't stay stupid. 

Atchison gave his OWN speech a few days later, amazingly, bragging about exactly what Sumner accused him of. 




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.

Officially, Southern leader explained it was to SPREAD slavery, not maintain it.  See this.,

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. 



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




Historians should be saying who did what -- who killed who. Who invaded who. What did they brag about.  That is real history.

Then, after you explain who killed who, and why, add all the bullshit you want, to sound smart.  But that's now how history works, Usually, its bullshit bullshit, bullshit, and who killed who and why, isn't shown, especially when the bullshit is the opposite of what happened. 

SLavery was never spread by vote -- contrary to what your history teacher probably thinks.  As Lincoln and others made clear, slavery was ALWAYS spread by terror and violence. ALWAYS maintained by terror and violence.

Not sorta, not kinda.

Slavery never spread anywhere, BUT by killing and terror.  

Including Missouri.  Including Kansas.

So, Aitchison and Davis were just doing what all Southern politicians did already -- violently spreading slavery, while claiming otherwise in public.

 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.





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. 




Virtually no US high school or college "history" teacher have a clue about Atchison speech --  and how it was focused on stopping free speech.  

Nor do college teachers seem to have a damn clue -- Southern states had all made it a crime to write or preach against slavery, and that the punishment could include public torture -- very ISIS like. 

So when Atchison made it a crime --  punishable by torture, as we see --  no one was surprised.  This is was normal, it was very normal, for anyplace that had slavery.  

Preachers could not preach against slavery either. Southern government controlled opposition to slavery, even in churches, books, in mails.

You would  not receive anti -slavery newspapers in the mail, you could not buy and own anti slavery books.  You could not own or borrow anti slavery books, even if you didn't read them, you still, could not own them.



 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?

Sumner was beaten almost to death, on the Senate floor, for speaking about Atchison.

Try to grasp that.  Sumner was speaking, for two days, in maddening detail, about Atchison and his killings, tortures, and oppression of free speech,

Go read his speech.

Then go read how Sumner's speech is handled, by your text book.

No one fucking word about what Sumner was talking about specifically, about Atchison passing Kansas Act, with Douglas help.

About Atchison rushing to Kansas and there starting his reign of terror.

How the fuck do you miss that?  Some teachers who TEACH about Kansas and the Kansas Act, have no fucking clue Atchison got the Kansas Act passed, then rushed to Kansas and started killing there.

And if you don't believe the newspapers and Sumner's speech, go read what Atchison said himself -- he BRAGGED about it.  Try to grasp this, he boasted of it.

And your teacher very likely has no clue.





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" 


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.