The name Lincoln is taught on the same pages as we teach the US Civil War.

Big mistake.  

First, teach what slave state leaders did, and what they bragged about.

Then teach Lincoln.  

Everything Lincoln did -- every word, every speech, every action, was in response to the killings and tortures and boasting by Southern leaders from 1845 on.


There is no text book in the United States that we know of that even shows Southern War Ultimatums.

No text book that even shows -- much less explains -- Jeff Davis boasting of killing to spread slavery North.   Yet Davis wrote his own official proclamation bragging of it.   He went into detail about WHY he would kill (through force of our arms)  invade the North and enslave blacks there -- in perpetuity.

You heard right -- Davis will enslave blacks in the North in perpetuity.

Never ending.  Slavery.  In the North.


But this was did NOT surprise any living person in 1863.  It was the same message Southern leaders had been bragging about from 1856 on.

It was exactly what was going on re slavery from 1820's on.  Slavery always -- always - spread by killing torture and terror.   Slavery never spread by any other means.

Ironically it was the telegraph -- the internet of the day -- that by 1850's got word out much faster about the killing sprees, the murders, the tortures used by slave power to spread slavery.  No longer could slave power do their killings and terror, and slavery already be spread, by the time people knew what the hell went on.

Southern leaders boasting about killing and actually killing on a Monday, could be news in Chicago or New York by Friday.  Or sooner. 

It has taken over 160 years, however, to sink in to minds of most Americans today -- because of the BS in our text books. 


Slavery always spread by killing and terror.

Slavery could not remain where free speech and freedom of religion remained.

In every case,  100% of the time, slavery spread by terror and violence, and could not stay in that land if they allowed free speech and freedom of religion.   

Those who dared speak against slavery were at risk -- and some were killed -- even in the North.Southern states made it a crime to speak or write or even own books against slavery.

Why?  Because if slavery could be preached against, if slave owners could be exposed in the press as torturing and raping the slave girls (as they did) slave owners lost status.  Either free press and free speech about slave ended, or slavery ended.

It could not be otherwise.  It is no accident that when slave power initially took control of Kansas (by violence) they immediately passed laws against speaking or publishing against slavery.

The famous invasions of Lawrence Kansas - -the entire reason was that Lawrence allowed an anti-slavery newspaper to continue, after Southern leaders (David Atchison) made it a crime.    See his own speech about it.


Davis and others had been killing -- and bragging of killing -- to spread slavery 1856 on.

Why don't our text books show such simple and basic facts -- especially since, at the time, Southern leaders were so proud of it.

They were PROUD of the killing and torture from 1856.  They did not deny it, they BRAGGED about it,

Until they lost.

If you know any of this, you did not get it from a US text book, and you did not likely get it from a teacher.

It's not your teachers fault -- except a good history teacher will instill DOUBT -- and curiosity.  A good history teacher will show you why original documents matter, and why it's important to know who was killing who, and why.

So it is your teacher's fault not to help and encourage you to get more than just some sound bites, some quotes, and some trivia. 

Later, they can add bullshit trivia like "cotton gin" crap if they like.  Or belt buckle trivia.  Or the dates of some battle.  

Sadly most history teachers -- and text books- - not only avoid the candid "who killed who and why"  approach to  history,  they load up their lectures and test with nonsense FIRST.

And they never do get around to the basics -- who killed who, and why.


We all know instinctively that who killed who, and why, is basic to understanding history.

The history of US, and the US Civil War, is no exception.

Yet ask 100 high history teachers in the US for an explanation of who was killing who, and what the killers were bragging about, and you will find  that most basic aspect of US history is not only not taught, it is not even mentioned in a candid way.

You are more likely, by a factor of 100-1, to hear mention of "agricultural" vs "industrial"  or even more absurd, but more common, some nonsense about the "cotton gin".

We actually teach absurdities like that.

But we do not teach who killed who -- why -- and what they bragged about. 


At the risk of being candid (but candid is necessary) Southern crybabies and apologist have never allowed -- in national text books -- any (yes any) candid education about who was killing who, and what they bragged about.

As a result, this most basic aspect of what the hell happened is simply lost on most people today, including (especially?)  history teachers.

See why that matters.   


The Joy of killing to spread slavery:

Southern leaders 1856.

Let me repeat that -- the joy of killing to spread slavery -- 1856. Not "joy" as an abstraction.  Not "killing" as a metaphor.  

Southern leaders -- top leaders as you will see - were indeed killing to spread slavery, boasting of it, and calling it a "Joy"  in 1856.  


Did I mention 1856?


Remember -- as you will see -- these were not isolated incidents or low level Southern leaders.  These were the top most Southern leaders.   This was not isolated, but a three years "reign of terror" as Kansas newspapers called it.

Over 3,400 Kansas men were killed -- yet our text books, if they mention any number at all, claim just 100.   But we know from Southern leaders boasting about it -- they were there to kill.   And they were killing to spread slavery.

Not sorta.

Not kinda.

Not in a way.

Not "well if you want to look at it that way".

This is the way that Southern leaders looked at it- and what they did, and what they bragged about, until they lost.

After the war, Southern leaders (everyone of them) came up with various bullshit slogans and claims they were just for state's rights.

But at the time Southern leaders hated-- detested -- states rights when Kansas rejected slavery.  Jefferson Davis himself made that clear in his own justification for the killing in Kansas, after Kansas became a free state.

Even after Kansas became a free state, by overwhelming vote of the citizens there, Jeff Davis sent killers there.

Jeff Davis sent killers there before and after Kansas became a free state.  Don't forget that. Don't let some stupid ass "history" teacher get this wrong.  Very basic.  Jeff Davis own "logic" his own "justification"  for sending killers to Kansas should be the easiest question on any high school test about the US Civil War.

Yet I have yet to find a single history teacher who can answer that question..... how did Jeff Davis justify sending killers to Kansas after Kansas rejected slavery?

The answer is below. 

Southern leaders were -- literally proudly and loudly, in context, officially -- bragging about killing to spread slavery.

Until they lost.

Not kind of.

Not sort of.

Not in a way.

They not only bragged of killing to spread slavery, they were indeed killing to spread slavery.

Why the fuck do we not teach this?  They were proud of it.

They bragged about it.   and they did it.

That is what Lincoln actually faced.  That is what the US actually faced because of the violent and hate mongering words and deeds of slave power leaders.

You need to know this candidly.

Not in watered down bullshit terms.  

That is what we are trying to do here -- because in the last 100 years, no text book, no "major historian"   has laid this out candidly.  

Few "major historians"  go into this as a basic aspect of the Civil War, even when they cover it, we think, too far back in the book, too deep in the bullshit.   Even when this information is there, they do not show what we show in a way that Southern leaders were proud of at the time.


 Before anyone can understand Lincoln, or the Civil War, they need to understand what Southern leaders boasted of --including Jefferson Davis officially boasting spreading slavery into the North. 

As you will see, Southern leaders were not coy, at this time we show.  They were loud, proud, and even expressed joy -- yes joy --at killing to spread slavery.

That boasting, that joy about killilng, those promises to keep killing until slavery was spread North (yes, North) and to the Pacific simply vanished when they lost.

But at the time -- at the time they were killing, at the time they sent paid killers to Kansas, they were loud and proud and specific.

Specific about their rights to kill to spread slavery.

Specific about their goal by killing to spread slavery.

Specific about what gave them the legal right and even duty to kill to spread slavery.


WHEN you read what Southern leaders boasted of, remember two things.

1) No US text book (that we know) ever mentioned this, much less taught it as basic.

2) No one was surprised at the time, because this is how it happened, and everyone knew it.  It was not a surprise, for example, when Davis officially declared to the "free states"  that he would kill to spread slavery in the North -- and then did so.

No one was surprised because this was already going on for years.   The fact Southern leaders were killing and torturing and bragging about it was well known -- justified in the South, and condemned in the North.

But it was well known then, even if your history teacher is stupid about it, they knew.

At the time and for 30 years Southern leaders had insisted things like God not only ordained slavery,  God wanted blacks punished for biblical sins. Robert E Lee was not the only one to refer to Gods will for pain to be inflicted on slaves. 

It would have been a surprise if any one said otherwise- - slavery was ordained of GOD, was an exceedingly basic meme at the time.

Spreading slavery was God's will,  just as much as slavery was.

Yet we don't teach that, either.  It would (correctly) make religion look goofy toxic and hateful -- which it most certainly was, re slavery. 



After we teach Southern leaders killing sprees, after we teach Southern leader paid killers, after we teach the decades of killing to spread slavery -- THEN teach about Lincoln.

Otherwise our students, and teachers, will remain stupid about both the Civil War and Lincoln. 


There is not a single text book in the USA that even mentions Southern War Ultimatums.



As far as we know, there is not a single text book in the USA that shows Southern War Ultimatums that Southern newspapers themselves announced with joy and pride at the time.



Not mentioned either -- and certainly not shown -- are the speeches at the time by Southern leaders boasting of killing to spread slavery.

Speeches Southern leaders were proud of -- they wanted, and said they wanted, the future generations to know these things, as you will see. 

Not only do future generations NOT know, future generations are stupid about who Southern leaders killed, and why, and what those Southern leaders bragged about  -- until they lost.

WTHF again. 

Southern leaders boasted of killing to spread slavery -- and spread it against (yes, against) states rights.

In 1855 Kansas citizens voted against slavery.  The public, including federal leaders, knew (and said) that 95% of the citizens in Kansas were against slavery.

 In the vernacular of the day, as Stephen A Douglas said "19 out of 20"  of the citizens were anti-slavery. 

That's 95%.

Lincoln said that, Southern leaders boasted of killing to spread slavery -- idiotically we do not teach it the way Southern leaders bragged about, until they lost. 

We will be all one thing  or all the other.  

Stupidly, almost unbelievably, we do not teach in any US text book that Lincoln was not only exactly right that unless stopped slavery will in all of the US because of what Southern leaders did, Southern leaders bragged about it, and killed to make that happen.

The second step, as you will see, was the Dred Scott decision.

"Don't worry"  Stephen Douglas essentially told the public -- slavery will never go into Kansas because the people and climate are against it".


As Douglas spoke the words -- the very moment he spoke those words -- Southern leaders had paid men on the way to Kansas to terrorize -- later to torture and kill, to spread slavery there.

A calculated -- and successful - plan by Southern leaders needed not just the legislation, but it needed paid killers.  Southern leaders fixed that -- they simply hired the killers to rush into Kansas, control the first official election there, and Kansas becomes a slave state forever.    It almost worked.


Yet as you will see, Southern leaders sent paid killers to Kansas to force slavery into that Territory.

Even after (remember this- - it's important)  Kansas officially became a free state, in 1860,  by that same ratio of 95% against slavery,  Southern leaders sent more, not less,   killers to Kansas, this time those killers even killed women and children for revenge in a city previous hired men had invaded, Lawrence Kansas. 

All -- remember this -- all the killings, all the invasions, were done, paid for, and bragged about at the time, when Southern leaders were well aware that most citizens of Kansas were against slavery.  

Loudly, clearly, with great specificity, Southern leaders did not just admit they were killing to spread slavery, they bragged about it.

In context. Repeatedly.  Clearly.  

Most important of all -- they bragged about this -- and killed to spread slavery as they bragged about it, long before Lincoln even thought about running for president.

Even in the 1840's Southern leaders promised to kill to spread slavery.   Even after the South doubled, then doubled again, and doubled slavery territory yet again (always by violence)  Southern leaders now demanded -- and killed to attain -- more land for slavery.

The Civil War-- as you will see -- started actually in 1856, and Southern leaders were very clear they were at war from 1856 on.  They did not admit they were at war -- they boasted they were at war. and made it very clear what they wanted.   To now triple the size of slavery, and triple it by taking all of the West,  even to spread slavery North (as you will see).






Senator David Atchison was more famous -- and more powerful -- that Stephen A Douglas or Lincoln, for a time.   Atchison was the US Senator that forced Douglas to push Kansas Act through Congress.

Immediately after Atchison got the Kansas Act passed, Atchison personally (remember this) rushed  to Kansas, met with hired men waiting for him, and invaded Kansas at first to terrorize, but later to torture and kill, to spread slavery.

Here is Atchison's 1856 speech, boasting about it.

Here is US Senator Atchison.

Here is Atchison 1856 speech. In it he claimed killing to spread slavery (as you will see) was a "joy".

Here is a link to Atchison's speech.  There were others much like it, by him and his hired men. For terrorizing Atchison could use men from Missouri.  But later,when he needed many more, and needed killers, he hired them from ads he placed in Southern Newspapers.

Read his speech to his men, recently arrived.  He explains who they will kill, and who will pay them.  

There is a text version of this speech, much easier to read HERE

Here is a picture of survivors from Atchison's invasion of Lawrence Kansas later in life, in 1880's

 Here is a quote from one of Atchison's reports on the progress of his killing to Jefferson Davis, who paid Atchison and his men, and named Atchison "General of Law and Order In Kansas Territories."

 In other speeches, to these same men, Atchison instructed them to kill women who were dressed like men in attacks.

In the third invasion of Lawrence, women and children were massacred by these same men, though by then Atchison had run off to Texas. Just like Atchison said it was a joy to kill to spread slavery, the leader of the final invasion of Lawrence also boasted it was a joy.   He claimed he could "die happy" now that he had revenge on "the damn place"  that defied Atchison years prior.  

What did the people of Lawrence do that caused all three invasions, and the final invasion with massacred of women and children?

You should know this. 
They allowed an anti-slavery newspaper to operate in Lawrence after Atchison declared it was against the law to publish anything against slavery.


A colossal failure of our education system is to not show what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about, at the time.

Or text books do not show who Southern leaders killed, or why. They show plenty of meaningless bullshit -- like pictures of cotton gin.  But no clear information that Southern leaders were so proud of at the time.


Let's be clear  -- Southern leaders bragged hey were at war to spread slavery.   And they were killing and torturing to prove it.  They did not issue idle threats.

These were not threats, anyway.  They were already killing and already torturing by the time they boasted of it.  

It is important you know this -- they bragged about this long before Lincoln even thought about running for President.  

Not a few nuts, a few low level loud mouths. I mean the top of the top Southern leaders admitted -- some joyously bragged - that they were at war to specifically spread slavery.

And spread it to places where slavery was illegal and rejected by overwhelming percentage of the citizens of those areas. 

What the hell is wrong with our "historians"  and history books?  Did they not even bother to check Southern leaders speeches and documents about this?


Southern leaders were at war -- they called it war -- to spread slavery 1855 on. In fact, they were at war to spread slavery further back, because the Mexican War,  when you know what Southern leaders said about it at the time -- was very much a war to spread slavery.


Even during the Civil War, Jeff Davis bragged (yes, he did, we show you) about killing to spread slavery into the NORTH. 

This might seem preposterous -- but only because most people, even most history teachers, are clueless that Southern leaders had already been bragging of killing to spread slavery for almost a decade by that time.

So when Davis, in 1863 boasted of killing to spread slavery North, in perpetuity,  no one was surprised.   Davis boasting of  it in 1863 were the same boasting he and others made from 1854, 1855, 1856,  and 1861, in speeches and documents he and others were proud of then, too.   

That is, proud of it, until they lost.


It doesn't matter if you have a PhD and work at the Lincoln library.   If you don't know who was killing who --and what they were bragging about at the time, you don't know shit about the US Civil War.

Lincoln sure as hell knew --as you will see. 

Southern leaders sure as hell knew -- they were the ones boasting of it, in context, repeatedly,  clearly and proudly.

That is - until they lost.

When the citizens of Kansas overwhelmingly rejected slavery -- Davis issued War Ultimatums and sent killers to Kansas.  Don't ever forget that.


Let me be clear what they were proud of --and you need to read their own words, too.  They were proud of killing to spread slavery.

Proud. Of. Killing. To. Spread. Slavery. 1854, 1855, 1856 --even during the Civil War itself-- boasting of killing to spread slavery.

This nonsense about South  and state's rights is an absurdity repeated by fools. Yes, there were times Southern leaders said the words "states rights" -- especially after they lost.

But Jeff Davis was very clear at the time. Specific, clear and proud.  States and territories did NOT have the right to reject slavery, because of Dred Scott decision, as you will see.  The people themselves,  voting as a group, did not have the right to reject slavery by majority rule.

Kansas must -- must -- accept slavery, even though in repeated elections Kansas citizens rejected slavery by overwhelming votes, including 95% against slavery.

Even after Kansas became a free state -- by overwhelming  vote of the people to reject slavery -- Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums (remember this -- War Ultimatums)  that Kansas citizens must accept slavery.

These were not suggestions -- they were War Ultimatums indeed and word.  Southern leaders had already sent paid killers to Kansas for years.  And they continued that killing after Kansas became a free state.

  Not for state's rights. 
Against states rights.

Jeff Davis "logic"  that territories and states could not reject slavery only sounds odd today because stupidly we repeat the nonsense made up later by Southern apologist.

Idiotically we teach students -- and make them repeat the nonsense on test back to us pass the test- - that South cared about state's rights.

Well, they did. They cared enough to send killers from South Carolina and Texas to Kansas to kill to STOP citizens in Kansas from even voting or speaking against slavery.

They hated -- killed to stop-- state's rights when Kansas people rejected slavery repeatedly.


One of the few books that can be counted as "original document"  because it was written by a man who was there, literally, from the moment the first settlers went to Kansas after 1854, until after the Civil War.

During his life there, Southern paid killers invaded the territory, Kansas fought off the paid killers,  became a free state, then had to fight off more Southern paid killers during the Civil War.

The author of this book  was charged with Treason by Jeff Davis, nearly hung for treason (as others were) got out of prison and became the first governor of Kansas.

One of the most amazing men of that amazing era -- Charles Robinson.  His book is "The Kansas Conflict". 

Other amazing men who shaped Kansas -- Eli Thayer, John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, Jim Lane, and over 3000 men who were killed by Atchison and those who killed after Atchison fled to Texas to sit out the war in safety.

Men most responsible for killers sent to Kansas to force slavery against the will of the people -- Jeff Davis, David Rice Atchison, the Stringfellow brothers, and Stephen A Douglas.

Stephen A Douglas helped the killers in Kansas from the start, but had to "flip" later in public saying they should be hung.   Of all these men, Douglas was the worst and most toxic. (And it's hard to be worse than Jeff Davis)  Without his duplicity, without Douglas support of Jeff Davis and David Rice Atchison, there is no Kansas Act  and there is no Dred Scott decision.

Davis logic that territories and states can not reject slavery did not surprise anyone at the time.  Furthermore, Davis was right that Dred Scott destroyed States and Territories right to reject slavery.

That is exactly why Lincoln and hundreds of thousands of others were aghast -- horrified -- by Dred Scott decision. 

Over and over -- and over -- in writings and speeches at the time it's very clear -- Dred Scott decision destroyed state's  rights to reject slavery.

Lincoln's entire focus in life after Dred Scott decision was to overturn that vile decision -- put in deliberately by slave power to force slavery into all of the nation.



As Lincoln explained (and Jeff Davis boasted about) Dred Scott was the "machinery"  along with Kansas Act  made it inevitable that slavery will die, or the Union will die.

When you know Dred Scott decision, and how Southern leaders were killing and invading because of it, you will see how absolutely correct Lincoln was.   

The comments by Jeff Davis are not "taken out of context"  -- these are the words and the context  Davis and other Southern leaders themselves chose.  They explained it very well at the time. 

Dred Scott, Davis wrote bluntly, changed everything.   Dred Scott made it a duty -- a duty -- let me repeat this-- a duty to spread slavery.   Let me repeat that again.

A duty to spread slavery.

Dred Scott decision literally ordered -- ordered- - two things

1) That blacks must be seen not as human beings but property.

2) That the federal government is pledged (pledged!) to protect slavery -- and protect slavery even where slavery was rejected (as in Kansas) by overwhelming vote of the people.

A great place to see Jeff Davis make this argument is in Jeff Davis own book about it.   Yeah, who could imagine that?  Read his book!

To make sure no one gets confused -- this is a picture of the part of Davis book where he explains how Dred Scott decision changed everything.  Blacks were no longer human beings -- but property.

By order of the court. 

By order-- order- - of the court.

Did I mention -- order?  By order of the court, blacks were "so inferior" they could not be and would not be seen as persons.

Let me repeat that one more time for the slow learners.  By. Order. Of.  The Court. 

And that changed everything.  Just like Lincoln said.

Only Jeff Davis was gleeful and happy - and sent killers to Kansas justified by this.

Lincoln and all rational people were horrified --and did something about it. 

When Jeff Davis and Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums -- remember this, War Ultimatums -- Lincoln refused to obey.

Did  you ever in your life  hear of Southern War Ultimatums?   No, likely you had no clue.

Southern War Ultimatums were that the US government must force slavery into Kansas.  Kansas, by the way, was by that date a free state.  It was of course an absurdity to think Lincoln was going to force slavery into Kansas.

But that was the War Ultimatum. Southern leaders called it "THE TRUE ISSUE"

Kansas must accept slavery.

Killers were already there -- and had been there -for years. Paid killers.  During the war, Southern leaders sent more killers there, for the exact same purpose they had always sent killers there -- and they boasted of it, until they lost.

To spread slavery.


No, it was not as insane as it sounds.  Based on Dred Scott decision,  the order in Dred Scott that the federal government must protect slavery,  it was "logical". 

Which is exactly why Southern leaders made sure Dred Scott decision included those two orders.

And that is exactly why Lincoln said Dred Scott would make the US "all one thing or all the other".

We will -- because of Dred Scott decision -- necessarily become all slave states, or all free.  There is no longer anyway this "house" can stand divided.

Read the House Divided Speech -- or any of hundreds  of Lincoln's speeches. He explains this at least 500 times, one way or another.  


After they lost, they gave a drastically different story.   After they lost, they claimed they "worked for 20 years to avoid war".  

Davis famously and pathologically claimed "all we asked was to be left alone"  not long after he had boasted of sending killers to Kansas and later into the North to spread slavery, and spread it against (yes against) state's rights.



Davis never did any of the killing himself. For that he had others. The man in charge of hiring (as you will see, Davis used paid killers in Kansas and the US military when he could) the killers in Kansas was US Senator David Rice Atchison.




Killing sprees,  hiring killers to invade Kansas 1854 on,   boasting of killing to spread slavery, boasting of torturing to spread slavery -- who could have guess that might be important?

For example at least two Southern leaders were on record as boasting about the JOY -- yes JOY -- of killing to spread slavery.  One in 1856, the other in 1864.

Both men led invasions into Lawrence Kansas, the second one killed women and children in his invasion, and bragged, according to witnesses, that now he can die happy because he took revenge on Lawrence.

What did the people of Lawrence do, exctly, to merit not just one invasion, but three, the last of which was a massacre of women and children?

They allowed an anti-slavery newspaper to operate, after Jefferson Davis's man in Kansas, David Rice Atchison, made it against the law to publish anything anti-slavery.

You will see that referenced in Atchison's 1856 speech, if you read it closely -- and you should read it.



Oh you are taught it -- yes, but in watered down words and terms.  Essentially meaningless to students now for generations.

We learn there were "Ruffians"  who "disagreed".  

The specifics are important -- SOuthern leaders had to hire 2000 paid killers to do these things, there was not enough "pro-slavery settlers"  to kill and torture to spread slavery.  For that duty, Atchison took out ads in Southern papers and offered money for "True Sons" of the South to make Kansas a slave state.

By the same token, when these paid killers stopped getting paid, they left.  The "muscle" was gone.   The killings in Kansas, which was a very real war to spread slavery,  stopped when the money stopped, to the horror of those who thought the "Sons of  the South" boys were there to spread slavery for lofty reasons.

We are not taught that Southern leaders -- the top most leaders -- actually bragged about killing to spread slavery.   And they made it very clear indeed what their justification for these killings and tortures were.

They also made it clear -- read their own words- -what their goal was.  The spread of slavery North and West -- all the way West to the Pacific Ocean.

Yes, all the way to pacific Ocean, including states that were already free states by the time of Southern War Ultimatums,  Kansas, California, and Oregon.

Sound crazy they would demand -- as a war ultimatum no less - the spread of slavery into free states?

Did not sound crazy then.  They were proud of it.  And if they had won the Civil War, that is exactly what they would have done, as they had already spread slavery this exact way from the start -- by violence.


It was damn important, not only for the killings and tortures, but for the mind set, the justifications, for these killings and tortures.

Southern leaders -- in their own War Ultimatums -- demanded exactly what they have been killing to make happen already for five years:  the spread of slavery.

It was sure important to Southern leaders in 1854, 1855, 1857, 1858 -- even in 1861, it was damn important to Southern leaders, they issued actual War Ultimatums to that effect.

And this should have been chapter one, page one, in every US history text book, which even mentioned the US Civil War.

Under construction..


Those bragging the most were Southern leaders -- top leaders, including Jefferson Davis himself.

They bragged about things like

1) the joy of killing to spread slavery

2) that slavery must spread North and West -- by force

3) that they will not stop killing and torturing until slavery is spread.



 Not some low level drunks at a bar.  Jefferson Davis himself -- as you will see-- made it very clear he would kill to spread slavery NORTH -- to enslave blacks in the NORTH.

Let me repeat that, because 99% of the public has zero idea Jeff Davis not only killed to spread slavery North, but boasted of it.


This would be a complete surprise to most high school teachers today -- and most college professors.  It's simply not taught-- largely because the "narrative" -- the distortion -- is that Southern leaders cared about state's rights.

That was never true -- if you torture women and sell children and make it a crime to speak openly or preach openly against slavery, you don't really give a shit about rights.

And in the last half of the 1850's, as you will see, many Southern leaders (like Davis) quit pretending they were for state's rights when states rejected slavery.  In other words, states (like Kansas)  had no right to reject slavery, as you will see, because of Dred Scott decision.



THE ONES THAT WERE DOING THE KILLING OR PAYING THE KILLERS bragged about it.  Jeff Davis, and the US Senator who passed Kansas Act, particularly boastful about killing to spread slavery.

It was impossible to get  higher in rank, and status, than the men bragging about killing to spread slavery.   The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the former US Senator who passed Kansas Act, all boasted, each in their own way, about spreading slavery.

It was no secret at the time.   No one was evern surprised. This is what they were screaming --literally screaming in some cases-- to cheering crowds.

In fact, as you will see, Jeff Davis specifically insisted that he not only would kill to spread slavery, he then made good on the effort, he then sent his army -- just as he said he would -- North to enslave NORTH.   Lee obeyed him,  and Lee in fact rounded up hundreds of blacks in the North, and had them sold in the South into slavery.

Lee failed, however, to keep the ground as Davis hoped.   But Lee did grab hundreds of blacks, in the attempt.  These were NOT - as is often said stupidly -- escaped slaves Lee grabbed.  They were any blacks he could find, hundreds of them.   And just as Davis himself said, they would be enslaved in perpetuity.


We show you his official declaration, in his own official papers, and which were issued proudly in Richmond newspapers at the time. 

Your teacher, your text book, should have taught this -- clearly, candidly.  It takes a special kind of stupid to miss this, not only because Davis was proud of it, but because he and Lee were doing exactly this.

More amazing, as to not teaching it -- Southern leaders, led by Davis -- were ALREADY killing, already invading, already making it clear they were spreading slavery.  This was not new whatsoever. And they bragged about it, then, too. 

They did not stop bragging about killing to spread slavery until they lost the Civil War.   Then, the same men, the same cowards hiring other to kill, were too cowardly to even admit what they bragged about officially before.

After they lost -- the same individuals -- did a 180 degree turn and claimed "All we ask was to be left alone".

If you want to be left alone, you don't hire over 2000 killers to invade states and territories North and West and brag about the ass about it.

is simple fact seems to illude most "history" teachers



Absurdly, you are 100x more likely to be taught that the cotton gin had something to do with the US Civil War, than you are to be taught  one word about Southern War Ultimatums, or taught one word of Southern leaders bragging about killing to spread slavery.

And those students better be able to cough up "cotton gin" nonsense on a test.   If they try to tell the teacher about Southern War Ultimatums or speeches boasting of killing to spread slavery for God, and against state's rights, the teacher would give them an F and probably call the parents for a psych evaluation.



 Text book publishers are big on "cotton gin" nonsense,  but can't find one part of one page to show Southern War Ultimatums?


This might come as a surprise to most history teachers.  No cotton gin every tortured a slave. Never sold or bought a slave. Never sent bounty hunters to capture slaves.

No cotton gin ever killed to spread slavery for GOD.

No cotton gin ever bragged about killing to spread slavery.

Yet cotton gin type nonsense is taught in virtually ever US text books.  The same text books that don't have a damn word about Southern War Ultimatums.

The same text books that don't give a clue who was killing who -- and what they bragged about.


Click here for Davis official declaration.


Gee-- who could have guessed this might be important?

No need to teach this either, right?

The US Senator who passed Kansas Act rushes out to Kansas, and terrorizes, later kills and tortures, to spread slavery not just into Kansas, but all the way to Pacific Ocean.

He works for Jeff Davis.

No need to teach that, right?

Better teach the cotton gin. Better teach some Lincoln quote -- out of context, and not the full speech.

Almost anything - we actually teach almost anything OTHER than who killed who, and why.

Which is stupid, because Southern leaders were proud of it, and wanted their words known, wanted it known then and in the future!

Sounds crazy right?    Someone would have told you?

Actually someone DID tell you, if you ever read Lincoln's full speeches.  He told you. At length. The South had built "machinery"  that now make it inevitable, slavery in all the US or slavery no where.

He was not joking.

He was not wrong.

Furthermore, Southern leaders agreed, using their own words.   They will spread slavery North -- Davis boasted of it. 

They will spread slavery West -- Davis own "General of Law and Order" boasted of it.

But more -- much more -- that boast -- they sent killers to make it happen.

DO NOT think this was "just words".  Their words matlched their killers -- Davis sent killers North to ensalve in the NORTH -- and boasted about that.

Atchison sent killers to Kansas -- to spread slavery to the Pacific -- and  he boasted about that.

This was not "big talk".  They were killing and torturing -- the talk was almost unimportant  compared to what they did.  The speeches and document are important so that you  -- and everyone -- can know their mind set.

Yet we do not teach either -- we do not teach the killings or the boasting about it.


 They will spread sla


If you got out of high school, and could not answer these two questions --you are probably forever stupid about the Civil War, even if later you became a Phd in history.

That's why we need to teach who killed who, and why, before Lincoln even got involved. 

Question 1.   What were Southern War Ultimatums?

Question 2.   Who was killing who, and what did they brag about, leading up the Civil War?

Southern leaders could answer both questions-- because they issued the War Ultimatums  not only by words, but by paid killing sprees.

They bragged the answers to these questions.


We should teach -- and we should have always taught -- Southern War Ultimatums, both written, and by their actions (killing).



Remember -- Southern War Ultimatums were repeated --- and killers sent to KS  after Kansas became a free state. 

Southern  were killing to spread slavery -- and spread it specifically against (yes, against) states rights.

Southern newspapers boasted -- remember this, a common theme -- boasted  of their War ULtimatums. No one was at all surprised, it was the exact issue they had been at war about for almost six years -- and what they had been killing for, for decades.   The spread of slavery

The "true issue"  -- the Ultimatum -- was that slavery must be spread into Kansas.

Never mind that Kansas was a free state by then.

If your teacher claims they know about Southern War ULtimatums, asked them this

1) why didn't you teach it.

2) when was it issued

3) what were the ultimatums

Your teacher -- or 99.9% of them - will  stammer and say crap like "well I'm not totally sure"  or take a wild guess.

They didn't know, because they were not taught.


Never mind that Kansas citizens voted 95% against slavery.

The most important fact you should know -- Southern War Ultiimatums of 1861 came AFTER  Kansas was a free state.

The Ultimatum was that Kansas accept and respect slavery.

Kansas.  Was.  Already.  A.  Free. State.

Try to grasp that.

Davis also sent his army North to enslave in the North - and those states were free states.

Why the hell didn't anyone make this clear.

Exactly -- precisely -- as Lincoln said, correctly,  South leaders had created this machinery that would make ALL states free states, or ALL states slave states.

You could go to sleep in a free state, LIncoln said, and wake up in a slave state, by virtue of Southern machinery -- violence being the basis of their machinery.


Remember, 95% of the citizens of Kansas were against slavery -- and Southern leaders knew it (that is why they sent the killers there).

Settlers from North and South went to Kansas, but far more came from the North. At first, Atchison tried to get Southern families to come to Kansas, but when that failed,  he simply hired men from the South (mostly Texas, South Caroline and Alabama) to force slavery into Kansas.

Jeff Davis made it very very clear what he demanded..... the spread of slavery by paying these killers -- by sending Atchison, and by naming Atchison "General of Law and Order"  in Kansas.





Even though 95% of the people of Kansas rejected slavery, and even AFTER Kansas was a free state by that vote,  Davis in writing insisted Kansas citizens had no right to reject slavery -- see why below.

Not only did Kansas citizens not have a right to reject slavery -- Southern leaders, by the same logic, had the duty and the right to kill to hire men to invade Kansas, and force slavery into Kansas and beyond   

Davis claimed everything Atchison did was "Constitutionally required".


Stupidly, we essentially teach Southern leaders after -the-war excuses and bullshit as truth.  We do not teach their war ultimatums.

We do not teach their killing sprees.

We do not teach about the hired killers.

And we do not teach what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about during this time.

A big mistake. 


It does not matter if you work in the Museum of Confederate History, or the Lincoln library,  or a high school in Macon Georgia..

If you don't know what Southern War Ultimatums were, and what Southern leaders did and bragged about (re killing and torturing to spread slavery) then you are stupid.

You may know the name of Lee's  pet chicken.

You may know the dates of every Lincoln -- Douglas debates -- but you would still be stupid about the US Civil War.

You may dazzle high school kids on a tour of Gettysburg -- but you would still be stupid.

You may know all kinds of trivia, but if you don't know who was killing who, and why -- you don't know shit. 

Nothing is more basic that Southern War Ultimatums and their killing sprees, invasions, and boasting about killing to spread slavery -- until they lost.

It would be like claiming you are a heart surgeon and not know where the heart is, or what it does, but know all about the toes and earlobes.  


As you will see, what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about (they bragged about killing to spread slavery )  and what they did (they killed to spread slavery) is simply not taught in a candid way. 
We show you how it is taught, and why that is so stupid as to be worse than teaching nothing at all.

No one would disagree that who killed who, and why, is the basis of human history.  It is how countries are created -- and taken over.  

Who killed who -- and why -- is the story of World Wars and Civil Wars.  The US Civil War is no exception to that rule.

It should not surprise anyone that Southern leaders boasted they were killing to spread slavery,  because Southern leaders were loud, proud, clear, articulate and emphatic about this.

They were killing to spread slavery. For white survival. For God.  So that "Niggers" could not be free to walk down the street with our daughters.

That's what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about -- till they lost.



Men went to Kansas based on the hateful propaganda they heard 100 times by Southern leaders.   Spread slavery, do it for GOD and do it for white survival.

Not kinda.

Not sorta.

Not in a way.

And Southern leaders themselves -- in writing, officially -- actually declared they wrote these things "So there will be no misunderstanding in the future".

Let me repeat that -- and show you.  Southern leader Jeff Davis officially explained he was spreading slavery NORTH -- yes NORTH -- to enslave blacks in perpetuity.

More about that amazing document below -- but here is a link if you want to peek.  Notice the last paragraph -- "so there will be no misunderstanding in the future".

He is using "force of our arms" to capture blacks (not escaped slaves -- anyone black) and make them slaves.  He not only boasted about this, he did this.  On Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee did exactly this, he had his soldiers capture free blacks, took them South, and made them slaves.

So no, Davis was not just "venting"  or blowing off steam.  Spreading slavery is what he had been doing most of his adult life, as you will see.

And he was proud of it. 







2)  Leaves immediately to go to Kansas  1854

3) In Kansas he terrorizes, later tortures and kills to spread slavery 1854-1855-1856

4) Atchison  bragged about it 1854-1856

5) Atchison sent reports to Jeff Davis about the progress of the killings 1856

6) Jeff Davis said everything Atchison and his men did was "Constitutionally required."

7)Atchison promises to keep killing until slavery is spread all the way to the Pacific Ocean 1856

8) After the South lost, Atchison claimed he was trying to bring peace to Kansas. 1866

9) After the South lost, Jeff Davis also claimed he was trying to keep the peace. 



At the time, Southern leaders boasted, repeatedly, at length, officially, proudly,  that they not only were killing to spread slavery, they were justified -- even duty bound -- to violently spread slavery  

Southern War Ultimatums everyone.

Headlines in Southern newspaper as "THE TRUE ISSUE"

The first demand -- the spread of slavery into Kansas -- and this was after, after (remember this) after Kansas was a free state.  The first War Ultimatum was Kansas (already a free state) must accept slavery.


Stupidly, we teach the US Civil War as starting in 1861.

Southern leaders, if they won, would have taught that the Civil War started in 1855, when they first sent hired killers to Kansas to spread slavery for GOD and white survival.  

God and white survival was their theme -- their propaganda that got crowds to cheer. 

To not teach that Southern leaders were -- by their own boasting -- already at war in 1855, is a profound mistake.

1861 is when Lincoln refused to obey Southern War Ultimatums. But the South was already at war.  And they bragged about -- they killed, they tortured, they made their specific demands known.

They were at war -- even if their speeches bragging about being at war were not written down.   But their speeches were written down, and Southern leaders were glad of it -- then.

   Ask 1000 high school "history" teachers what Southern War Ultimatums were, and 995 of them could not tell you to save their life. Yet if our schools taught who killed who, and why, 1000 of those teachers, out of 1000, would know, and all their students would know. 

But Lincoln knew.  And Southern leaders knew -- they were ALREADY at war, by their own words, and their own killing sprees. SO they were not joking.

When Southern leaders issued their War Ultimatums, no one was surprised whatsoever. It would have been bizarre indeed if Southern leaders did otherwise.  The War Ultimatums were to Lincoln and his new administration, but the killing had already been doing on, with hired killers, since 1855.




There is not a single text book in the US that even bothers to mention the most basic fact about the Kansas Act.

1) The man who got it passed -  was David Rice Atchison.

2) Atchison immediately -- immediately -- went to Kansas after he passed the Kansas Act, and started terrorizing, later killing with hired killers, to force slavery into Kansas.

US Senator then -- soon to be officially "General of Law and Order"  working under direct command of Jefferson Davis -- David Rice Atchison pushed Kansas Act through the Senate.

Atchison and Jeff Davis personally took the legislation to President Pierce, had him sign it.

Then Atchison left quickly for Kansas, where he first terrorized, later killed and tortured (via hired men) and bragged about it.

Atchison worked for Jeff Davis -- officially.

Atchison bragged about all this.


It's clear that Atchison, at first, though a quick show of violence would be enough.  He was a year late- - if he had terrorized a year early, when Kansas was so sparsely settled, 800 hired men would have been enough.

A first they terrorized, and with hoards of men, with weapons (including cannon) they  simply took over Kansas election and declared themselves the winner.   

None-- zero -- of the hired men were even from Kansas -- as you can tell by Atchison's own speech to the killers in 1856

If you don't know about this -- you are dumber than a rock about the US CIvil War.

If you know ever battle after that. If you know ever word LIncoln spoke.   If your great grandpa was a general in the army, it matters nothing.

Unless you know who was killing who, and why, you are stupid about the US Civil War.


hey insisted their killings were justified -- because they justified them officially, in writing, in speeches and in documents at the time.

They hired killers and did so openly.  Proudly.

They sent the killers sometimes 1000 miles away, and made it clear to the killers they were to kill.  

Jeff Davis and other Southern leaders got crowds to cheer their speeches justifying the killers and their killing sprees. 

And they made it clear who the hired killers should kill, and why.

Until they lost.

Southern War Ultimatums

Southern leaders boasting of killing to spread slavery.

SOuthern leaders bragging of sending killers- - over 2000 of them apparently -- to kill and torture, and they BRAGGED they did so to spread slavery.


Out the ass bragged.







Yet we don't teach -- or even see -- history that way.

Big mistake,

Southern leaders THEMSELVES saw history in this way,and operated in that way.

Southern leaders did the things they bragged about: this was not about "convincing" others of the "benefits" of slavery.   This was loud, proud, clear,  violent, and deadly.

Slavery was never spread any way other than violence -- not only violence to the slaves, but killing and torture to those whites who dared try to keep slavery out.

That's the story of the US Civil War.   It was not a war to end slavery -- as it was a war by Southern leaders to SPREAD slavery.

They themselves- - SOuthern leaders themselves -- bragged -- remember this - bragged they were at war to spread slavery.

That is why they hired the killers.

That is why they paid the killers.

That is what they boasted about -- they boasted about things we do not even teach.

They boasted about killing to spread slavery.  They issued War Ultimatums and public official pronouncements to that effect.
That's a big mistake not to teach that -- and teach that they themselves bragged about it.

Until they lost. 


For example, there is no US textbook that even mentions, in candid terms,  who was killing who,  and what the killers (or those leading the killers)  bragged about at the time.

Let me repeat that -- because it's bizarre.   There is no US text book that even mentions, in candid terms, who was killing who, and what they bragged about at the time.

Not one text book (that we know of).

But it get's worse.   There are few historians who candidly mentions it, and none, as far as I can tell, who lay this out, as it should be, leading up to the US Civil War.

Ask a high school senior, for example, who was killing who, and what did they brag about, you will almost certainly get a strange look.

Worse, you will get the same strange look from most high school teachers.

But -- there is good news. They can tell you about the cotton gin.  

That, in a nutshell, is our "scholarship"  of what led to US Civil War, millions of students who are taught some nonsense about the "cotton gin"  but damn few, if any, are taught who killed who, why, and what did they brag about at the time.






At best -- and even that's rare as snow in Sarasota -- we get a few words years later in our "education" about who killed who, but it's surprisingly little information, and if we hear anything about Southern leaders boasting of killing to spread slavery -- you can be pretty sure it's immediately after telling the student about John Brown's killing in Kansas.

For all the world, any same person reading such narratives would assume Southern leaders were "just protecting their economic" interest"  as the "radical" abolitionist like Brown went around killing folks, for no apparent reason.

Even if a teacher, a "historian"  then adds the "back story" - such as the killings, tortures, and terror boasted of by Southern leaders, the invasions of Kansas, and torturing one of John Brown's son to madness, killing another son, and promising to kill his wife--  by then, even the smartest student is necessarily often stupid about who killed who, and why.

Even if in college, they read, for example, Jeff Davis boasting of invading the North and forever enslaving blacks in the North, it won't matter. It won't fit.

By the lateness of the information  the student is incapable of arranging the dates, the who did what, who killed who when, in their head.

It's common, even among "teachers"  to just claim, as we have heard "Oh there was plenty of blame to go around there".


From the narratives of most books and web pages about the US Civil War, it seems damn few "experts" even know Jeff Davis himself boasting of killing ('by force of our arms')  to enslave blacks in the North in perpetuity.

Not only did Davis boast of such things, Davis actually sent killers to various places to enslave or force slavery into places and states that rejected slavery.   He sent hired killers in 1855 and 1856 into Kansas to kill, and he sent the Confederate Army to kill and enslave in the North.

If you told that to most high school teachers, they would shake their head and walk on.   Such nonsense -- they would think. Davis wanted only "to be left" alone.  And Davis tried for "20 years"  as he said to have peace.  Above all, they would think, because this is the slogan bouncing around their head-- that Davis was for "state's rights".   Maybe it was states rights to keep slavery, but it was for state's rights.

Davis would never do or utter a word about killing to spread slavery into places -- and states- - that rejected slavery. No way.  The slogans are quite clear, in the teachers head.  He or she has stood up in front of students and made that clear.  
The South, for all it's fault's was for state's rights.  So the absurd nonsense -- because Southern leaders killed to stop state's rights as you will see- - marches on.


Thousands of people were killed, thousands more tortured and enslaved,  and these killings, these tortures, were done by people with names.  

There was a time where the leaders of those who killed and tortured-- you should know this but likely you do not-- bragged as loudly as they could, as proudly as they could, and as clearly as they could,  why they were killing, even that they were killing and torturing to spread slavery.

They explained it well.

They were clear.

They were proud. 

They wanted this to be known "in perpetuity"  said Jeff Davis himself, as you will see. 

So why the hell are these amazing facts either entirely ignored, or taught so weakly, as if trivia to be learned for a test rather than a basic and true explanation by Southern leaders at the time?

Why?   Because by the time anyone bothers to learn these things -- they are so full of bullshit, so full of Foner, so full of Shelby Foote, so full of McPherson, so full of our US text books that on the best day they ever lived, it would be stunning if any history major, much less anyone in the general public, can explain to you or anyone else what was going on leading up to the Civil War.

Kind of a an important topic.

Southern leaders explained it pretty damn well. Until they lost. 


Ugly stuff. Ghastly stuff.  But at the time, these men, as you will see, not only were proud of it, not only made it clear their justification for the killings and tortures, but they also made it clear what they wanted.  They wanted -- they demanded-- they were killing, to spread slavery.

Not kind of.

Not sort of.

Not "if you want to look at it that way". 

They were so clear, so specific, so proud of it, that there is no misunderstanding their repeated, full, incontext writings speeches and official proclamations.



We do -- in a weak ass, watered down, essentially Orwellian way -- what happened before the Civil War.  But not in terms of who killed and tortured who.

We teach it largely in bullshit terms. Bullshit is more damaging to understanding history than lies -- and lies are a big deal.

Yet the tendency to  bullshit is human nature, we all love to sound smart, we all love to explain things in a way that makes us seem profound. 

Bullshit is like the fat that builds up in our arteries -- and kills us when it gets too thick around our hearts.   Fat is a crucial to life, but get too much, in the wrong place, and it ends life.

So too bullshit, too much, and in the wrong places, ends truth, stops our understanding.

The reason there is so much bullshit and stupidity about US Civil War is that we don't teach the basics  ---- who killed who, and why. 

We certainly do not teach who killed who, and why.



Stupidly, and largely because of Southern school boards,  we do not teach Southern killing sprees, tortures, and Southern leaders boasting about killing to spread slavery for God first.

They not only would never allow these facts -- so proudly bragged of before the Civil War -- to even be mentioned, after the war -- they controlled the textbook publishing industry.  Textbook companies did not have two sets of books -- they published the books that were acceptable to South and North.

Not a big conspiracy.

Yet by not mentioning Southern leaders own boasts of killing and torture to spread slavery, not mentioning Southern War Ultimatums and the like --  not mentioning who Southern leaders had killed (yes, they had men killed) and why (yes, they explained why)  they ripped the basic story out of the national consciousness.



We do not teach about crowds cheering for killing to spread slavery for God and White survival.

We do not teach about crowds cheering about spreading slavery -- by violence because that is the only way it can spread -- to all of the world as perpetual biblical punishment to blacks.

We do not teach Southern leaders bragging they will kill --then keep killing -- to spread slavery to all of the US (yes, they did). 

In fact, we do not teach such horrors first or last, or at all.  We simply skip over them.

We should teach all that -- before we utter the name of Abraham Lincoln.


To begin to teach Lincoln without first teaching who  Southern leaders were killing -- what they were boasting about,  who they tortured, and bragged of, and their War Ultimatums - is not only stupid, it does not work.

The people doing the killing had names.  Do you know the names of the men killing and torturing others -- paid to do so--leading up to the Civil War.

No -- you do not.

Do you know the names of the men who boasted they were killing to spread slavery?  Yes, you many know their names.  But you are not taught to connect their names with the killing sprees, war ultimatums,  tortures, invasions, and other horrors leading up to the US Civil War. 



You can not grasp Lincoln at all -- not his speeches, not his actions -- if you are stupid (as most of us are) about what was going on.  

What was going on was PEOPLE -- men -- seeking power by speech - by pumping up hate and fear.  

This was an astonishingly few men -- but these men had the power, the position, and the eagerness for more power, even if that meant killing and war.

No, they did not necessarily want war -- or death for others.   It's important to know this.

They wanted (and got) power for pumping up the hate and fear.

Hate and fear sold very well all through history, it sells well now. It will sell well a thousand years from now.

What was going on was this --the men who pumped up the hate and fear, even though they didn't want killing, torture and wars (they only wanted power - status, attention, money, women)  brought the  massive violence and terror.

Hate and fear are necessary -- to kill, to torture, to enslave.

The words of these men caused others to hate, fear, and justified the horrors that follow. 

The horrors was  violence and terror inflicted on millions of slaves,  but  as Lincoln pointed out (as did many others)  that hate fear does not stop.  It is a cancer. 

Slavery will spread BECAUSE humans formed that hate and fear into political realities of Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision,  which were the "machinery"  to force that killing terror and violence to the rest of the US.    

Over and over, and over, and over, Lincoln explained how Kansas Act and Dred Scott had now become that cancer -- that physical reality --that was going to make the US all slave, or all free.

The "House Divided Speech"  was about this "machinery" the construction that was now going to destroy the United States (the Union)  or it was going to destroy itself.

Lincoln knew -- everyone knew -- the spread of that slavery  was always violent,  It was always by terror, violence and subterfuge. Men justified -- and pumped up that hate and fear, for political power.

Don't forget that. 



It is not difficult -- it is impossible -- for any high school or college student in the US to know  the basics about the Civil War if they only get their information from a text book.

Why?  Because our text books teach (as you will see) bullshit.  It's not that all the bullshit is false -- but much of it is bullshit.  

A perfect example is the "cotton" gin bullshit.  But there are endless others --the "states rights" bullshit is the big one. 

There is not, for example, a single US text book that we know of (and we looked) that even mentions Southern War Ultimatums. 

Southern War Ultimatums is not bullshit.

Just like Jefferson Davis explanation of why he could send killers and kill people in Kansas (which is what he did, using paid killers) is not bullshit.

Jeff Davis explanation why he was sending killers NORTH -- yes NORTH,  and why that would be perpetual slavery in the NORTH -is not bullshit.

Also, other SOuthern leaders boasting of killing to spread slavery -- is not bullshit.

How the hell do you leave out Southern War Ultimatums?  Are you F-N  kidding? How do you leave out Jeff Davis very clear explanation of how he will enslave -- and why he will enslave -- blacks in the North?

Are you fking kidding me? 

Southern leaders claim that it's a "joy" to kill to spread slavery -- is not bullshit.   

So why the FK does "cotton gin" crap get in our text books, and not the very clear boasting and facts about Southern leaders killing to spread slavery -- 1855 on?

That's right, 1855 Southern leaders made it clear -- sometimes in very candid words -- that they were killing to spread slavery.

Not kinda.

Not sorta.

Not in a way.  

Not as a joke.

There is probably not ONE student, in the entire USA, that ever got the standard text books, and were taught the standard BS, that has any clue Southern leaders not only sent hired killers to stop states rights in Kansas,  but they bragged about it.

Not only bragged about it -- they promised endless killing unless slavery was spread -- yes they did -- North and West.  And even beyond.

That's what Southern leaders did to get crowds to cheer.

And the did not issue idle threats.   They did the killings (paying or forcing others to do them)..

 Not one word about Southern War Ultimatums.

Much like Virginia teachers their children the name of Lee's pet chicken -- but not one word about his torture of slave girls, and purchase of kidnapped women, all in his slave ledgers and bounty hunters.




Not one word of Southern leaders long repeated explanations that they were killing for God and white survival.

Not just lengthy explanations -- but loud proud speeches that got crowds to cheer "Down with Niggers"  and have the suckers in the audience eager to kill to spread slavery.

None of that -- not one damn word -- do you get in history text books.  But you get the BS about the cotton gin.

And the student  better get that right on the test.  You better not tell your teacher about Southern leaders paid killers, the boasting of killing to spread slavery, and Southern War Ultimatums.  Teachers tend to be pissed when a student corrects them. 

The cotton gin. Yep.  That's the important thing.  Not the killing sprees. Not the invasions. Not the tortures. Not the War Ultimatums. Not the years of killing.  Not the years of bragging.

Not one word -- not one word -- about Southern leaders speeches bragging that they were already at war, already killing, and specifically killing to spread slavery into all of the West -- and even into the North, as boasted about by Jeff Davis himself.

But they have that cotton gin drawing.


The cotton gin bullshit, the state's rights bullshit, the "agricultural vs industrial"  bullshit, would never see the light of day,  if teachers and texts books taught Southern leaders killing sprees,  their boasting of them, and their own very clear War Ultimatums.

Bullshit is fine -- put all the bullshit you like, all the bullshit you think makes you feel smart (which is why we have bullshit in the first place).   But first show who killed who -- and why.

Teachers love to pretend (as do historians)  that they know all about these things.  Certainly they would not tell us the "cotton gin" was part of the reason for CiviL War -- unless they knew all about it.

Human nature -- teachers are humans, so are those who write books about Civil War.  We want to sound smart.

You can't even utter most bullshit about the Civil War, though, if you know who was killing who.

If you know Southern leaders hired over 2000 killers from deep South -- bragged about it -- and had those men kill and torture (remember, they bragged about it)  and then ignore it, and yap about cotton gin.

That's why you have to know first who was killing who, and why.

Southern leaders made it undeniable -- they were PROUD of it, at the time.  Do not forget this.  Do not let this slide.  Southern leaders -- over time, repeatedly, clearly, emphatically and correctly boasted they were killing to spread slavery, and would spread it by violence, and spread it against (yes, against) state's rights.

But you have to read what they wrote -- you have to read their proclamations and War Ultmiatums.  

Read too, of course, the newspapers and books of the time. 

Sadly, as a practical matter, reading US history text books makes students stupid -- they actually prevent students from knowing Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery, and that -- not some cotton gin -- led to the Civil War.

Not  a single US text book that shows Southern leaders speeches -- repeated, proud, loud, clear, speeches about killing to spread slavery.   They didn't just admit they were killing to spread slavery, they bragged about it.  

Until they lost. 

Southern leaders could not make it more clear.   They could not be more proud.

They were at war -- 1855 on -- to spread slavery.

AT WAR -- their words.


Jefferson Davis and David Rice Atchison  used hired killers to invade Kansas --they were NOT "settlers" as is stupidly and often taught.  Hired killers, as you will see.

Why use hired killers?  

They had no choice: there was never -- not one day, not one minute, enough "pro slavery settlers"  to do anything, much less nearly kill enough people in Kansas to very nearly force slavery there.


Remember this every time some teacher, some book, some fool, claims some bullshit like "they failed to compromise". The killers -- as you can tell by the speech to them (Atchison speech is actually to the killers he meets for the first time)  are there to terrorize and kill.

Not to "negotiate".   Atchison and Davis (and all of the Southern leaders) knew very well almost all settlers in Kansas were against slavery.

 Here is a speech by David Rice Atchison -- the Senator that passed the Kansas Act in 1854.   Atchison had already used hired men, about 800 of them,  from Missouri (again -- not Kansas settlers)  to terrorize at first, to swarm in just before election with cannon, guns, and knives, and dare any one to do anything about it.

But that didn't work.  The largest percentage and number of white males in Kansas were still against slavery -- in fact, as reported at the time, those white males in Kansas grew MORE anti-slavery as they saw the violence and killings done by Atchison's hired me. 

The early terrorizing and killing  almost worked -- but not quite.  

 As you will see, Kansas residents fought back, and eventually defeated not only the hired men from Missouri, but later defeated far larger and deadlier group of hired men from Texas, South Carolina and Alabama.

As the Kansas men fought back,  Atchison and Davis had no choice -- lose face, lose status -- or hire more men, and deadlier men.   The plan to quickly terrorize Kansas settlers with 800 men from Missouri was not enough.

They would need killers from Texas, South Carolina, and Alabama. 

Still sound like "historians" present it?  As "pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers not compromising"?



Two Southern leaders said it was a joy to kill. 

 Read Senator Atchison's speech, where he describes the joy of killing to spread slavery, and much more.

Furthermore, it was documented at the time -- Senator Charles Sumner for two days in 1856 listed hundreds of the "crimes" in Kansas by Atchison's men.  Tortures, hangings, burnings, downing.

But Southern leaders were bragging of those anyway -- they did not deny it. They were proud of it

He was not the only one who claimed to have joy to kill to spread slavery.  A guy named Quantril also expressed joy at killing -- in fact, he invaded the same city as Atchison did, only later.  He did the same thing Atchison did-- only the people ran from Atchison.

Quantrill killed women and children, too, anyone who was out and visible, he killed, according to hiding eye-witnesses. 

Including women.

David Rice Atchison told his men to kill the women, too.

Quantrill (see below), according to a witness in a letter to his father, said Quantrill boasted after the massacre that he could now "Die happy".

This is what happens in war -- blood lust.  Those eager to kill find joy in it, like Atchison, like Quantrill. 

Atchison's men and Quantrill's men operated years apart,  but it was for the same sick reason -- to spread slavery, and spread it against  -- remember this -- against states rights.

Quantrill's men and Atchison's men invaded the same place, and Quantrill picked Lawrence for the same reason Atchison picked Lawrence -- Lawrence had allowed a an anti-slavery newspaper to operate in Lawrence after Atchison warned them not to.

Survivors of first raid into Lawrence, 1895



Southern leaders said they not only had a right to use violence (in other words, kill and torture)  they had a duty.  A duty to God and to white survival.

This kind of speaking got crowds to cheer.



Jefferson Davis actually issued an official proclamation boasting of invading the North to enslave blacks in the North - in perpetuity. He was proud of it -- so proud, he issued an official proclamation, in response to Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation.

Read the document yourself.  He makes it so clear- - "so there will be no misunderstanding in the future" he will enslave blacks in the North "by force of our arms"  and do so -- in perpetuity. 

This was not -- not -- any departure from what he had already said in other ways.  The Southern War Utimatums of 1861 did not mention enslaving in the North -- but in the West.  

Still -- Davis "logic"  and justification to kill to spread slavery in Kansas and beyond -- clearly against states rights -- was exactly as applicable to anyplace else.

Again, and again, and again, and again, Lincoln pointed this out. By the "machinery"  of Dred Scott and Kansas Act, if South could use killers to spread slavery into Kansas,  the exact same logic, and exact same means (violence) could spread slavery anywhere.


Ever hear of any of this?

 But you heard about the cotton gin.

No. Yet nothing can be more basic.  A group of hired killers -- used and paid by Southern leaders, who boasted of it, to kill and torture to spread slavery.  How the FK do you miss that?

So you never heard of it -- at least, not candidly. 

 Thankfully -- and no thanks to your high school teacher or textbooks -- original documents still exist, and this was well known at the time.  






HTF does that get overlooked? 

We do teach  -- even high school teachers know enough to teach -- "about Kansas".   But because they have (often) no clue that Southern leaders sent paid killers to Kansas, the words used by teachers and textbooks now is so watered down, you see sentences like this   

   "Pro slavery and anti-slavery settlers disagreed over the extension of slavery"

That's tautological nonsense -- of course pro- and anti-slavery settlers disagreed.   But only Southern leaders needed to, or even though of, hiring 2000 killers Texas, South Carolina, and Alabama, were not settlers.
They were hired killers.

In fact, the entire reason to hire the men, first from Missouri, but then from the deep South, was BECAUSE there were so few pro -slavery settlers.    It's not that there were no settlers there that were okay with slavery --  but those men were few. As Stephen A Douglas said repeated, and he was correct, 19 of out 20  of the settlers in Kansas were against slavery.

Get that wrong -- get it wrong that almost all settlers were against slavery, and that Southern leaders hired killers to go to Kansas, and no matter what else you write or teach about it, you are stupid, and your students are stupid.

The invasions, killings, war ultimatums, etc, are  NOT an "aspect" of Civil War history.  


  We have whitewashed, stupidly,  what actually happened.  We not only don't teach what Southern leaders bragged about - till they lost.

We don't teach what they did, either. 


"But but but -- Kansas was not a state yet"

When teachers learn that Southern leaders were killing, torturing, and issued War Ultimatums to spread slavery,  they not only never heard of that, typically they defend their lack of knowledge by saying "oh, but Kansas was not a state yet".

Actually, even AFTER Kansas became officially a free state -- Southern leaders sent more killers there.  And they issued War Ultimatums AFTER  Kansas became a state, that Kansas had to accept and respect slavery.

But since we do not even teach -- or show -- Southern War Ultimatums -- how the hell would a teacher know that.  The killing and tortures went on before and after Kansas was a free state.

And those doing the killing were hired men.  They were not "volunteers".   They were paid.

The killers were paid. The killers were paid.

They were not "settlers"  as some stupid text book or stupid "historian" might repeat later.

They were paid killers- - almost all of them from elsewhere.

And Southern leaders bragged about it. 



After Kansas became a free state,  Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums- - five demands. The first war ultimatum in US history was issued by Southern leaders against the North, that Kansas (already a free state, remember) must accept and respect slavery.

Yeah, you thought South cared about states rights, didn't you?

What you didn't know is that Southern leaders insisted having slavery or not is NOT -- NOT up to the people in the state.  And Jeff Davis himself explained that very very clearly.

It did not matter at all if 95% of the people of Kansas rejected slavery or 100%  rejected slavery.

It was not up to the people of Kansas because of Dred Scott decision, Davis made clear.


Davis made it clear who could NOT decide slavery.

Not the people in the state -- they could not decide.

Not the legislatures of the state-- they could not decide.

Not the US Congress -- they could not decide.

So who was it that could decide if Kansas was a free state -- remember even after Kansas was a free state, Southern leaders issued their War Ultimatums, the first of which was that Kansas accept and respect-- and protect -- slavery.



Davis had a valid point -- the SCOTUS did order federal government to see blacks not as human beings but as property.

SCOTUS also did order that federal government PROTECT slavery.

Davis, therefore, and he made this very clear, in writing, had every right to protect slavery in Kansas, even though Kansas was a free state, and 95% of the people in Kansas had rejected slavery repeatedly.

This is the basic story of the US Civil War.  And we teach it either stupidly, or not at all.

Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery 1855 on

Southern leaders were bragging they were killing to spread slavery 1855 on.

Southern leaders in writing made it very clear their "logic" to kill to spread slavery, even in Kansas, by then a free state, and by then well known for being against slavery overwhelmingly.



This is particularly true where the leaders of the killers boasts about killing, boasts about violence, and boasts about their own War Ultimatums.

In fact, we might be better off ONLY teaching Southern leaders own official and in context documents, books, speeches, and war Ultimatums from 1848 on.

Especially in 1856  through 1863, when Southern leaders were brazen, bold, proud, and in writing, in speech,  not only killed to spread slavery, and posted ot it, a Southern leader (the man who passed the Kansas Act) bragged as others described it -- he found joy -  yes joy -- in killing to spread slavery.

And he was not the only Southern leader to express joy at killing to spread slavery, as you will see.


No -- no -- these were not "a few nuts"  boasting of killing to spread slavery.  They were top most, the highest possible Southern leaders, including Jeff Davis himself, in his own style.


Read his own official "Address to People of the North."  

You decide.



Stupidly, our text books basically teach what Southern leaders said later -- not what they bragged about at the time.

At the time Southern leaders were boastful, proud, clear, and highly specific.  They were killing to spread slavery.

They had every right to kill to spread slavery -- and Jefferson Davis himself made that justification very clear, see below.

We don't even teach the killing sprees paid for by Jeff Davis  himself, then Secretary of War. 

Our teachers and textbooks give a watered down bit of Orwellian doublespeak about the killing sprees, There is no clear and specific information about Southern leaders boasting of these -- and justifying these-- killings and tortures.

Why not?  

As you will see, Southern leaders boasted about them, until they lost.


The leader of those killers was a US Senator, the same Senator who got Kansas Act passed, then rushed to Kansas to terrorize and kill.

That leader -- David Rice Atchison -- bragged he was there to kill. His speeches to his men boast about killing. He makes it very clear there were there to spread slavery  -- and spread it against the overwhelming vote of the people in Kansas, who voted 95% against slavery.

At the time, this was common knowledge.  Lincoln spoke of the "machinery" used by Southern leaders over and over again -- Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision.

So why on earth do we teach these things so badly, so watered down? Southern leaders boasted these two things -- Kansas Act and Dred Scott justified killing sprees, invasions, tortures, even if people voted 95% against slavery, did not matter, per Jeff Davis.  

Why don't people know this?

Simple.  They are not taught what Southern leaders bragged of, until they lost. 







We do teach -- in a whitewashed, and stupidly vague way -- what happened leading to the US Civil War.

We teach about the cotton gin.  About "Uncle Tom's Cabin". 

 Teachers give hour lectures on "agricultural vs industrial" economics.   We make the children repeat on tests nonsense about  how the South cared for "states rights".

When you see why Southern leaders sent killers to Kansas, and why SOuthern leaders issued their War Ultimatums, you will know -- Southern leaders hated states rights to reject slavery so much, they sent killers to Kansas after Kansas citizens rejected slavery by 95%.

If you asked

If you asked most history teachers  why Southern leaders sent killers to Kansas, and how many killers they sent, it's unlikely they could tell you.   They probably don't know.

If they had learned the basic facts, they could tell you.  Southern leaders hired about 2000 men, mostly from Texas, South Carolina and Alabama.  Southern leaders themselves explained at the time why they got these hired men.

They bragged about it.

They got the men to kill to spread slavery. At first, Southern leaders hoped to do it by terrorizing -- no killing.  But that did not work, as hoped.  Soon the hired men did kill, did torture, and Kansas men fought back.

This would be easy to know -- in fact, it would be impossible not to know -- if the teacher had studied original documents including Southern leaders War Ultimatums, and speeches.

They would not even need to read eye witness accounts at the time, though there are thousands of such reports over the years. You would not actually need to get Southern leaders boasts and war ultimatums, but it helps to  understand how vicious and eager -- and proud -- these men were to kill to spread slavery.



Ninety five percent of residents of Kansas were against slavery, and voted that way, and everyone knew it. Kansas became a free state when -- by about 19 out of 20 -- the residents voted to reject slavery.

Yet before they could become a free state, Southern leaders sent killers there for years to force them to be a slave state.

No one thought or said, in any serious way, that Kansas residents were okay with slavery. Quit the reverse. So the answer to "why use hired men" ?   There were not nearly enough pro-slavery men to hire.

Yet your teacher- - almost certainly -- will stupidly assume that there were  many pro slavery settlers in Kansas, and that like many stupid history teachers might tell us, "there was a failure of compromise".

The killers did not go to Kansas to compromise, they were there and were paid to be there to kill and terrorize to spread slavery.

And it almost worked.

Stephen A DOuglas explained this -- he was partners with Atchison, the leader of the killers in Kansas. Douglas explained repeatedly that 19 out of 20 people in Kansas were against slavery.  Southern leaders tried very hard to get people to move to Kansas, but had to hire 800 men, then more, then more, to go there -- and to do there  to kill, as you see from their actions and words.


We must teach something -- and stupidly, dishonestly, we do not teach the ugly basics.

As you will see, 95% of the citizens of Kansas were against slavery.

Kansas citizens voted against slavery overwhelmingly, repeatedly.  Everyone knew it. But Atchison hired paid killers, and at first, the hired killers seem to have won.

Davis came very close to getting the job done.

He did it, of course, by violence, not by persuasion or compromise.  Entirely by terror and then killing.

Which was  the only way to make Kansas a slave state -- violence.  Slavery, however, had always spread by violence, as everyone knew. In case you or your history teacher think the public voted for slavery -- utter nonsense.  Atchison and Davis hired paid killers to make sure any "election"  they had violent paid men take over the polling places.  

And they bragged about it.  Elections were up for the taking, it was a big help, in fact, to Davis and Atchison.  Their plan to make Kansas a slave state revolved around sending killers at the right time -- election time. 

It  almost worked, if Davis had  hired the killers a year earlier.  In fact, there was a time people in Kansas thought it DID work, that Davis and Atchison and the paid killers were successful.  This book was written in 1856, and assumed Davis and Atchison, using the paid killers, had one.

But Jeff Davis, officially, in writing, claimed it was "INTOLERABLE"  that Kansas citizens resisted slavery!

Intolerable -- he not only said that, he acted on that from 1854 on, sending killers to Kansas almost 7 years before the US Civil War started.

He sent more and more killers there -- to Kansas -- as time went on.

The ugly truth includes torture, killings, and invasions. Southern leaders killed to spread slavery. They hired thousands of men -- and tried to use the US Army -- to spread slavery for them by invading places that rejected slavery, and forcing them, by murder and torture and terror - to accept slavery.

Not sorta.

Not kinda.

Not "well that's one way to look at it".

Killing -- in 1856 -- for "the entire South"  to spread slavery all the way to the Pacific.

Southern leaders bragged --bragged -- about it. They were proud of it. Proud of the killing. Proud of the torture. Proud of the hired killers to invade.

Proud most of all that they were spreading slavery "for the entire South"  and for God and for white survival.

Not for states rights-- in fact, Kansas rejected slavery by 95% vote, and became a free state on the basis of that overwhelming vote against slavery.





Southern leaders made it clear -- they were not ashamed or shy about killing to spread slavery.

They were proud of it.  That was how they got crowds to cheer --that was how they found favor and status is the South.

Southern leaders had their own "logic"  that gave them the "authority" or even made it a duty to spread slavery.  

They made that logic clear. 

They explained their justifications for the killings. They make it clear, too, how and where they would spread slavery by the "force of Arms".

They would spread slavery into the North, and into the West, and over time, into all of the white world.  A very special kind of slavery -- slavery done for GOD, per God's will, to punish the black race for biblical sins.

Each time Southern leaders gave these speeches, crowds cheered.  Remember this -- crowds cheered.  In fact, those who bragged the most got to be the to leaders.  You could not become a Southern leader unless you fully supported the killing to spread slavery.




No one was surprised -- at all -- when Southern leaders issued their War Ultimatums of 1861. In fact the newspapers reporting -- proudly -- the War Ultimatums actually mentioned this -- they had been killing to force slavery into Kansas and beyond for five year ALREADY.

Their first War Ultimatum was -- precisely -- that Kansas citizens must accept slavery.

This was not a preference. This was a War Ultimatum. And Southern leaders ALREADY had been killing and bragging about killing in Kansas, so no one, absolutely no one, was surprised.



No one was surprised- - at all -- when Jefferson Davis himself made it very clear he would use "force of our arms" to enslave blacks in the North."

That was in 1863,  so it was  8 years already that Davis was head of South and was actively sending killers somewhere to push slavery where it was not wanted.  In this case, into the North.

So why on earth do people deny Southern leaders were killing to SPREAD slavery-- or never heard it before, and do not believe it?

Because we don't teach any of this. It is not shown candidly in any US text book.

In fact, we spent several hours in a major university library, in history section, just looking through indexes.  Southern War Ultimatums were a BFD - yet not one book had it listed in the index.

It should have been on the front page of any US history book, text book or otherwise, about the US Civil War.   The Southern War Ultimatums were written by the South, loudly and proudly, and lined up perfectly with what they were doing already -- killing to spread slavery.

But if don't mention Southern leaders boasts about killing to spread slavery -- or their killing sprees -- those War Ultimatums would seem bizarre.

But if students know -- as they should -- about Southern leaders using paid killers to spread slavery for years, the Southern War Ultimatums make sense, as do Davis boasting of his justification for sending those killers, as do Atchison speeches about killing to spread slavery, using the hired men, 1856 on.





If you don't know Southern War Ultimatums -- and killing sprees -- of 1856 and 1861, blame your teacher.

Not a few nuts. Not a few loudmouths.  Not just a few times.

Loudly, proudly, over time, clearly, with specific claims, specific justifications for sending killers to spread slavery.

Nothing is more basic.  The killings and tortures done by hired men (yes they were hired) is what caused the US Civil War.   The South -- the leaders themselves -- bragged they were already at war. They called it war. They bragged they were killing. And they bragged why they were killing.

Until they lost. 

If you don't know Southern leaders boasted about killing to spread slavery with paid killers in 1856 -- blame your teacher.

When Lincoln said (as he did repeatedly) that the South was now spreading slavery in such a way that we would be all slave or all free. All "one thing or another".

We act like LIncoln was using hype -- that he could not possibly know what he was talking about.  Southern leaders were not killing to spread slavery --they were for state's rights!



This US Senator bragged about the joy of killing to spread slavery

He is the same Senator who passed the Kansas Act. 

Atchison's speeches should be required reading -- they are more important than anything Lincoln ever said about the cause of US Civil War.  

 Very basic.  It does not get more basic.  




Even history teachers are educated enough to know what the Crimes Against Kansas Speech was, and who gave this speech.

Charles Sumner gave the speech.

Sumner was immediately beaten on the floor of the Senate-- as Stephen A Douglas reportedly sat by laughing. Stephen A Douglas told Sumner the day before (it was a two day speech) that Sumner should be "kicked like a dog".

The next day, this happened.  That short man laughing nearby, as shown at the time, was Stephen A Douglas,  Atchison business and political partner.

But we have yet to met one -- one -- teacher or PhD, or curator at Civil War sites, that could tell us who Sumner was talking about. He was talking about David Rice Atchison, and his paid killers in Kansas.

They simply do not know.  That includes "Civil War scholars" who work in libraries.  I am sure someone will know if I ask enough "experts"  but as of now -- none have known.

Those teachers probably have the Crimes Against Kansas speech featured in their text book, they may even have questions on it, in their test.

But I am still waiting for one such teacher to know who Sumner was talking about.

For two days Sumner went on, and on, and on, in great detail, speaking the names, the dates, the crime -- killing or torture -- done by Atchison's paid killers.

You would think a teacher, a Phd, a curator at a Civil War related Museum would know -- and they should know.

But we don't teach -- so the teachers don't think -- in terms of who killed who and why.




Only one historian I ever read even noticed that the same week Sumner gave his speech about Atchison in Kansas killing and torturing, Atchison himself gave his own speech, boasting about exactly that -- killing and torturing.

Atchison did not deny these things -- he bragged about this.

Remember, Atchison is Stephen A Douglas business partner, and partner in Kansas Act.  As soon as Atchison and Douglas pass Kansas Act, Atchison goes to Kansas and starts his "reign of terror" as newspapers reported in Kansas at the time. 

If you even know that much, what is in the above paragraph, you know more than most high school history teachers. 

So it's highly unlikely your teacher knows this -- Southern leader David Atchison boasted of the "joy" he got, and his men would get, from killing to spread slavery.  

 Ugly, but true.   

Not only ugly, but basic to understand what happened in Kansas.  

Atchison sent reports to Davis about the progress of the killings.  Virtually everything Atchison ever said publically is more important to understand the US Civil War than Lincoln's House Divided Speech, or Gettysburg Address.

But few history teachers can tell you who the hell Atchison was -- and if they can, the claim he was "President for One Day" nonsense.




Southern War Ultimatums are, of course, profoundly important.  Southern leaders sending killers to Kansas and bragging they were there to spread slavery to the Pacific-- also important.

 These speeches and documents by Southern leaders should be in every US text book.

I doubt they are in any US text book.   They probably are not even mentioned candidly,  but they should be in the text books, in full, and fully candidly taught.

Do you know how many times the famous historian James McPherson mentioned Southern War Ultimatums?


As far as I can tell, he mentioned them once.  Once.  

McPherson did not even bother to tell what they were. He just MENTIONED them. 

So to hear now about Southern War Ultimatums (that Kansas must accept slavery, even though 95% of the citizens in Kansas were against slavery) sounds bizarre -- but only because you don't know (yet) Southern leaders own words and documents at the time.

Yet that is only the tip of the iceberg. 

Every teacher, every text book, should explain to every child, North and South, how absurd these War Ultimatums were.

Lincoln -- in effect-- to obey these War Ultimatums would have to HELP -- yes HELP -- Southern forces kill to spread slavery into Kansas.   Kansas was already a free state.  Kansas had voted to keep slavery out repeatedly.   But here -- in their own proud War Ultimatums-- Kansas must accept and respect slavery.

Did they think Lincoln would obey, that Lincoln would make the citizens of Kansas accept slavery?

Hell no.   This was just the kind of hate speech so common by Southern leaders for the 1840s, and 1850's.    

It would have been bizarre for Southern leaders -- after they sent killers to Kansas for several years by this time, after they had boasted of killing to spread slavery there, and claimed it was their right, even their duty to do so, would suddenly back of their violence to spread slavery into Kansas and beyond.

Notice something?   The Southern leaders who boasted of their War Ultimatums and boasted of sending killers to Kansas -- they never went near battles.  Even Atchison who personally greeted the hired killers and got them pumped up, somehow in every case found something else to do, when the killings started.





After they lost, Southern leaders came up with an entirely different story -- that's how humans operate, no surprise there.  

They were not about to --for example -- after the war boast they were killing to spread slavery for GOD, as some boasted before.   How would that look?

Southern leaders gave speeches to cheering crowds that they would spread slavery to all of the US, and all of the white world, to align with God's will and scientific truth. 

Remember - - crowds cheered those speeches.

Of course they were going to give an entirely different story later.  Human nature.

But shame on "historians" like McPherson, and most others, for letting them get away with it. 


Stupidly, we have taught, for all intents and purposes, Jeff Davis's pathological distortions after the war, as fact, rather than even mention his actions and words that brought on the war, at the time.

Big mistake.


It should not come as surprise to any high school senior in the United States that Southern leaders bragged loudly and proudly they were at war from 1855 on to spread slavery -- until they lost.

Yet there is not a single textbook in the United States, that we know of, that even mentions that Southern leaders were, in fact, at war, and they were, in fact, killing and torturing to spread slavery, and that they did, in fact, boast of exactly that.

Southern leaders boasted - boasted repeatedly, loudly, proudly, that they were at war to spread slavery.

They did not mumble.  They did not equivocate.  They did not stutter.  They did not apologize.  They were proud.

They went to war -- they called it war, and it was- - to spread slavery.

 Not to keep slavery where it already was, but specifically to spread slavery where slavery was already rejected.



Our text books show do a horrible job of teaching this.

For example, not one textbook in the United States -as far as we know, and we looked - show the Southern War Ultimatums of 1861.

Worse --go to any big university library in the US.  Go to the Civil War section.  Spend an hour opening the index of a hundred, two hundred books, of all sorts, on the war.

Do you see "Southern War Ultimatums" in the index?

Probably not.  But Jeff Davis himself made it so clear, even US history teachers could notice, and learn.   Kansas had no right to reject slavery -- even though they were a free state by the time he wrote this.   Not only did Kansas not have the right -- he, Davis, and the South therefore had a right, a duty, to send killers (that's what he sent) to Kansas, to terrorize, later torture and kill, to spread slavery there.  

Arguably nothing is more important than Southern War Ultimatums other than Southern leaders actually hiring killing to invade Kansas and force slavery there, and bragging about it.

The two are linked - Southern War Ultimatums came 100% from Kansas citizens defeat of Jeff Davis and David Rice Atchison's killing sprees (which is what they were) in Kansas, after Atchison got Kansas Act passed.

You can tell that the first Southern War Ultmatum of 1861 was from Kansas defeating Davis and Atchison's paid killers, because the first War Ultimatum is that Kansas must accept slavery.

This was not a suggestion - Davis sent killers already, to Kansas, and would again send killers to Kansas, for this very purpose -- to spread slavery there.

So the nonsense we hear about "Trouble in Kansas"  and "Cotton gins"  and "agricultural vs industrial"  might make the teacher seem smart to his stupid students, but it's not correct. It's not even close.

The BS we teach is  worse than useless.

Most history teachers have probably taught their entire career, and not once mentioned candidly that Southern War Ultimatums even existed, much less led the students to examine each one, and give the history of killing and violence that preceded it.

The "TRUE ISSUE"  according to Jefferson Davis and the Richmond newspapers at the time ?

The spread of slavery into Kansas.  Kansas was already a free state by then (1861)  and was a free state because the citizens there repeatedly voted overwhelmingly against slavery.

This is an extremely important point, that virtually no high school teacher even knows, much less teaches. Oh they say some words about "Trouble in Kansas".   They say a few words about Dred Scott decision, too.

But they do NOT tell how Southern leaders used both things -- Kansas Act and Dred Scott -- as justification for killing sprees and torture.

You have to read their speeches -- they bragged about it.  They did not admit it, they BRAGGED.  Not sorta. Not kinda,

Not a few nuts. 

Their top leaders, the men actually hiring the killers to go to Kansas. The men actually leading the killers.

The men actually justifying the killings --  Jeff Davis particularly.   They were the leaders, they caused these things to happen.

Why not teach what they bragged of?  What they wrote officially, even. What they said in speeches? 

The loud proud Southern War Ultimatums issued by Southern leaders at the time demanded that slavery spread into Kansas -- after Kansas was already a free state.
Jefferson Davis himself claimed that the resistance to slavery into Kansas was "the intolerable grievance."


What happened to that whole "states rights"  thing we hear about? The South was for "state's rights"  weren't they?

Actually after Kansas rejected slavery, Southern leaders instantly and violently rejected states rights.  Davis himself explained it pretty well.   Kansas had no right to reject slavery -- even after Kansas became officially a free state, they had no right to reject slavery because of Dred Scott decision.

If you don't know that Southern leaders not only rejected states rights -- and don't know that Davis made it very clear, in writing, that Dred Scott decision ordered the government to protect slavery even in places that rejected slavery -- blame your teacher.

Nothing is more basic.

Nothing was discussed more.

Lincoln explained this -- oh, at least 200 times.  Over and over. 

And over.  Dred Scott-- as Davis himself boasted of -- changed everything.   Because of Dred Scott no people, no vote, no Congress, no state legislature, no majority of the people had the right to decide where slavery spreads.

How many times would Lincoln have to explain this -- 200, 500?   Lincoln explained it very well.

Jefferson Davis explained it very well, from his eagerness to spread slavery and his justification for the killers he sent to Kansas.

One of the few things Lincoln and Jeff Davis agreed on, was that Dred Scott decision ordered the federal government to ignore states rights and protect slavery even where slavery was rejected overwhelmingly.

Do we think Jeff Davis was stupid about Dred Scott decision?  He was not stupid, the Dred Scott decision actually says that -- actually orders the federal government to protect slavery, and orders too that blacks be seen not as human beings (as persons) but as property.

Davis was proud of that.

Lincoln was not stupid about Dred Scott decision, either.  He also said Dred Scott decision orders that essentially states rights do not matter.   The court ORDERED -- ordered- - that the federal government protect slavery, even where it was rejected by an overwhelming vote of the public.

Davis actually used this language when he justified sending killers to Kansas in 1856.

So when Lincoln said over and over that Dred Scott was the "machinery" used by the South to spread slavery where it could not otherwise spread, he was not only right, he was obviously and profoundly right.

Jeff Davis actually defended killing to  spreading slavery into Kansas exactly as Lincoln predicted the Dred Scott decision would be used.


It was never about state's rights -- if it was, Davis would never have sent killers to Kansas in the first place. Southern leaders would never have issued War Ultimatums that Kansas must accept slavery.

This is why you need to know the facts, instead of a few slogans -- like "states rights".   The fact is, Southern leaders sent killers to Kansas, and bragged about it, to stop Kansas from using their own states rights.

95% of the people in Kansas were against slavery -- Jefferson Davis knew that.

Yet Davis and other Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery there -- and sent killers there-- and wrote clear, loud and proud "logic" for their demands to spread slavery there. 



 When Southern headlines reported -- joyfully -- of the War Ultimatums in 1861, no one North or South thought it in any way odd.  


Because every day since 1855 Southern and Northern newspapers were increasingly filled with stories about the violent effort by Southern leaders to spread slavery into Kansas and beyond.

A great place to get information is from newspapers, North and South, from 1855 on, particularly after September of 1856, when the 2000 or so men arrived from Texas, South Carolina and Alabama -- Jeff Davis paid men, working under former US Senator David Rice Atchison.

Atchison not only boasted he was killing to spread slavery, he sent reports to Jeff Davis on the progress of those killings.

No one was ignorant of this -- like they are ignorant today.  Oh we teach this -- as you will see-- but in a watered down way of a "dispute" over "slavery".

We are not given the information that Southern leaders were boasting of killing to spread slavery, used hired men, and promised to keep killing until slavery was spread all the way to the Pacific.

When Davis  said the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas was "intolerable"  he was simply repeating his own basic message that he had given for at least five years.

So no one was surprised -- except your  history teacher perhaps, 150 years later. 


Jeff Davis made it very clear -- he was remarkably specific about this -- what his justification was for sending the killers.  Kansas had no right, even after they became a free state, to be a free state because, as you will see, the Dred Scott decision. 

And Davis made that clear repeatedly, including in his own book after the war.  See more about this point, below.


  A student in US history could easily get an "A" on a test about the US Civil War, yet have no idea that Southern leaders hired over 2000 killers from Texas and South Carolina (mostly) to invade Kansas, and their leader bragged that they were there to spread slavery against (yes against) states rights.

Remember, Southern War Ultimatums of 1861 were specifically that Kansas accept slavery -- even after Kansas became a free state.

Don't be confused.  AFTER Kansas became a free state, Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums -- and sent even more killers to Kansas -- to force slavery there.

Southern leaders had been sending killers to Kansas already for years.  And they were bragging about it. Not admitting it, they were bragging about it.


Jeff Davis himself, in great detail,  made it very clear in writing that he would spread slavery into the North.  Read that document -- his official document---from 1863.

Though this is from 1863,  it's much the same as his earlier justifications of sending killers to spread slavery into Kansas,  almost ten years before.


Southern leaders, Jeff Davis most particularly, claimed the South  had every right -- and a duty -- to spread slavery.

For white survival, and for "Southern Rights"  they had the right, the duty, and the hired men to invade Kansas, invade the North, and enslave both in the North, and in all of the West.

See Jeff Davis "logic" or justification for spreading slavery by violence, below. 

Do we think Jeff Davis and other Southern leaders were kidding?

No one thought they were kidding.  Vile and cruel, yes, but Southern leaders did not issue idle threats or promises.  When they said they would kill  to spread slavery -- they did it. In fact, by the time Southern leaders issued their War Ultimatums, both of 1856 and 1861, they were already killing, already bragging, already doing what they said -- killing to spread slavery.

At war to spread slavery since 1855-- by their own speeches and their own documents.  More than their speeches, however, their actions -- they were at war. Doing war things -- torture, killing, boasting, invading.

That is what Southern leaders hired men to do -- men from Texas, men from South Carolina, men from Alabama, all hired, all went to Kansas, and if Atchison's speech is any indication, all cheered when told about the joy of killing to spread slavery.

Why the hell have we not taught this?   Southern crybabies and Southern school boards for one thing.   



Typically, when you hand history teachers quotes by Southern leaders but do not tell the quotes were from Southern leaders- the teacher will say "Oh, of course, but there are extremists and jerks on both sides, so what?"

They assume the insane quotes are from some low level person at the time, maybe a newspaper editor or slave owner in Mississippi.

Nope.  The top most Southern leaders, Jeff Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs, David Atchison.  The people actually doing things -- actually hiring the killers, sending he killers, paying the killers, as you will see, are the ones bragging of these actions at the time..

It's not the teacher's fault.  They are not taught to think in terms of who killed who, and why. 

Sadly, in our "history classes"  the goofy emphasis is on long winded BS about "agricultural vs industrial"  influences, and "the cotton gin".   So called "scholars"  like James McPherson writes of things like "sectional differences"  and "different viewpoints."

Shelby Foote did his aw shucks grandpa act and talked about "American genius was compromise, but there (in Kansas) they didn't compromise".

So it was a failure to compromise that led Southern leaders to hire 2000 killers from Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina, invade Kansas, and boast about killing to spread slavery all the way to the Pacific.




A common bit of bullshit is the meme that Southern leaders cared deeply about state's rights.  As you will see, they actually killed to spread slavery against -- against -- states rights.  

Davis, as you will see, justified killing to spread slavery, even against -- against -- the overhwelming votes and overwhelming intent of the people in Kansas.   Davis came up with a "logic"  that totally and absolutely made state's rights a joke.

Even after - remember this -- even after Kansas officially became a free state, Davis insisted Kansas had no right to reject slavery -- and he explained the logic of that, in great detail.

So "state's rights" conflict, and "agraian vs industrial" may impress those who don't know what happened. It's vile that so many teachers use and teach such nonsense terms as facts -- and make the students repeat the nonsense in test. 

BS oftens sounds nice -- but it omits the basics: who killed who, and why. 

Not that drivel  and BS is always wrong, but first any student or teacher of history needs to understand who killed who, and why.

Ironically, Southern leaders made that rather easy -- because they bragged out the ass about who they killed, and why.  That is, until they lost,

After they lost?   They and their offspring gave a drastically different story.


The men who bragged of killing, bragged of torture, and even bragged of the joy of killing to spread slavery, were the top Southern leaders.  Not some drunk in a bar.



David Atchison speeches (and actions) are a great source for clarity.   He was not only the man who got Kansas Act passed,  he was officially Jeff Davis's  "General of Law and Order in Kansas".  

It was Atchison who bragged to his paid killers (see below) that they were all in Kansas killing (yes, killing)  "for the entire South.   They are "bringing the war to Kansas".

Bringing the war to Kansas.  

This was 1855 and 1856.    It is war-- not only because he claimed it, but they were killing and torturing, and bragging about it, using eventually over 2000 paid killers.  

Atchison actually placed ads in newspapers in Texas, South Carolina and Alabama,  and got men from those states mostly.  He made it clear in the ads it their job would be violent "THE TIME TO TALK IS OVER".

And then in person, he made it more clear-- they are here to kill.

So the men doing the bragging were were not some low level or mid level person yapping.

The top most Southern leaders bragged about killing.



Promises to keep killing until slavery in spread in all of the North and in all of the West. By top Southern leaders.

Until they lost.   Remember, until they lost, Southern leaders bragged they were killing to spread slavery, and promised to keep killing until they spread slavery to the Pacific and into the North.

This would be a complete surprise to most US history teachers, who stupidly (yes stupidly) assume Southern leaders were "fighting to keep slavery".

Nonsense -- they were at war 1855 on, and said they were at war 1855 on -- to spread slavery.  S P R E A D slavery.

Yes, into the North. And all the way to the Pacific.

They had no intention of "selling slavery".   No one ever ran for office based on "we need slavery".   Slavery was always spread by violence,  which is another basic fact we should teach, but do not teach.

This was not historically unique -- Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery.  Not sorta.  Not kinda.  Not "if you want to see it that way".   And they were proud of that, until they lost. 


So there will be no misunderstanding in the future -- Davis was making it known that he will spread slavery into the North. And he issued this address "so there will be no misunderstanding in the future".

Here is the link to that official declaration.  NO MISUNDERSTANDING ADDRESS


This was during the civil war....but Davis had been trying to violently "vanquish" places against slavery since 1854.  So this was nothing new -- what's new is you probably never heard this.


We all know that Northern states did not want slavery.  Jefferson Davis did not care. In Kansas, when Davis sent killers there in 1855 and 1856, 95% of the citizens there were  against slavery.

In fact, Kansas voters repeatedly rejected slavery by 90 and 95%.  No one even pretended the people of Kansas were for slavery. Stephen A Douglas, Atchison's partner in the Senate, repeatedly and correctly said that "19 out of 20"  people in Kansas were anti-slavery.

So why send killers to Kansas to force slavery there, when 19 out of 20 Kansas citizens were against slavery?   Davis explained that himself -- see his own explanation of why slavery had to go into Kansas, below.

And remember, Jeff Davis wrote that justification, and acted upon that justification.  He sent the killers to Kansas based on that "logic". 


"I will see Kansas in hell before I see her as a Free State."

David Rice Atchison. 

Atchison had a slightly different "logic" for killing to spread slavery into Kansas and beyond.  We must get Kansas,  Atchison said repeatedly,  in order to get slavery into the rest of the West.

As  you will see Davis and Atchison used paid killers, they were not volunteers.  They were paid.  Still, the paid killers needed to hate and fear anyone against slavery.   If we do not spread slavery,  the white race will be "exterminated" .

Southern speakers got crowds to cheer -- and the men to kill -- by convincing them their daughters would "Sleep with Niggers"  and the white race "would be exterminated"   if we can not spread slavery.




Not only did Davis boast of it, he did send killers to enslave in the North. And he justified that in writing.  No one was surprised because Davis had a long history by then of using violence (in other words, sending killers)  to spread slavery.

Davis himself would never get near violence, in fact he ran from it as you can see by his wife's own letter about what Jeff Davis did when he came near danger.  See her letter here   

Davis, and other Southern leaders, like hate and fear mongers always do,  got others to do the killing and dying.  An interesting note on Southern leaders -- those who pumped up the hate and fear and promised war survived the war, almost all of them, without a scratch.  Those who believed them and were pulled into the killings died by the thousands.



Yet there is not a single textbook in the US that we know of that candidly states and shows Southern leaders speeches and boastings, and their official declarations boasting about, the killing sprees from 1856 on.

Not a single text book even shows Southern War Ultimatums,  which were proudly displayed in Richmond newspapers in April of 1861.

Not a single text book which shows, or even refers, to speeches by Southern leaders boasting of killing  and the joy of killing to spread slavery.

Yet Southern leaders were proud of this at the time.



At least two Southern leaders, as you will see, referred to their joy of killing to spread slavery -- one in 1856, before the first invasion of Lawrence Kansas,  and the other almost ten years later, after killing women and children in the Lawrence Kansas.  

The first man to boast of the joy of killing was David Rice Atchison, the man who passed the Kansas Act, as you will see.   The second man to boast of the joy of killing was William Quantrill, who had just killed women and childre in Lawrence,  according to an eyewitness, per a letter written to his father at the time.  See below for that letter.



 Officially Southern leaders justified the killings to spread slavery, and officially they boasted about it.  There was a time when Southern leaders were sure they would win, and during this time they bragged about things that latter they would not dare whisper aloud. 

 Jeff Davis  "logic"   for sending killers to Kansas, was the same logic for sending his army North to enslave blacks in the North.

It was INTOLERABLE -- remember this, because Davis used that term very carefully to justify sending the killers.    It was "intolerable"  even though 95% of the citizens in Kansas were against slavery, it was intolerable that they resist slavery because of the Dred Scott decision. 

Why on earth are these not taught as Davis himself wanted them to be taught?  Davis said in his own declaration, as you will see, he wrote these so "there would be no misunderstanding" in the future.

Stupidly we teach none of that. Davis wanted this known -- until he lost. 

After he lost -- he came up with a drastically different story.


Jefferson Davis himself, repeatedly, clearly, and officially boasted of spreading slavery by "force of arms". 

By force of "our arms"  we will invade the North and enslave blacks IN THE NORTH.

Sounds crazy right?  No one would brag about invading the North and enslaving blacks there?

Wanna bet?




 Davis sent paid killers to Kansas in 1856, led by US Senator David Rice Atchison and Davis made clear in writing his justification to send the killers.   It was "Constitutionally required"   Davis explained later, because of the Dred Scott decision.

Davis wrote his justification -- his "logic"  -- that Dred Scott decision justified sending the killers after the war, in his book "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government".

One tiny problem with that "logic"  that Davis "forgot"  to mention.  Davis had sent the paid killers, got the killers doing in Kansas in 1855 and 1856.    The Dred Scott decision, vile as it was (see below)  could not have justified or been the logic for anything, because it did not even appear until 1857




"I will see Kansas in hell before I see her as a Free State."

David Rice Atchison. 

It's clear by the events themselves, and the statements by Atchison and others, that the first efforts to push slavery into Kansas was to simply terrorize -- not necessarily to kill.   Atchison boasted that the citizens of Kansas were cowards, and would run from  his hired men.    Jeff Davis would later claim much the same thing,  that he could "wipe up the blood"  spilled to spread slavery with a "handkerchief". 

Davis, Atchison and others had convinced themselves that "
"Yankees"  were cowards and the authoritarian and violent leaders of the South would get what they wanted -- the spread of slavery -- as they always had, by terror and violence.    Slavery had always spread by terror and violence, it had never spread by peaceful means. 

Atchison is the US Senator who personally passed the Kansas Act, as you will see, then immediately went to Kansas and started what newspapers in Kansas called his "reign of terror".


Atchison, though he hurried Kansas Act through the Senate, and immediately then went to Kansas and used paid men from Missouri to invade and terrorize in Kansas, had waited too long. 


 "19 out of 20"  

Ninety five percent of the citizens of Kansas were against slavery, and everyone knew it.  Stephen A Douglas,  Atchison's partner in Kansas Act, repeatedly referred to the fact that "19 out of 20"  citizens in Kansas were anti-slavery.  But Atchison and Davis were hell bent to get   Had Atchison arrived a year earlier, before so many white settlers arrived, the few hundred men with guns, and a quick display of cannons, would likely have been enough. 

  Atchison had already used paid men since 1855, but when Atchison could not get enough hired men from Missouri, Davis and Atchison got men from Texas, Alabama and South Carolina.

The speech below is by David Rice Atchison to those men, who just arrived from those three states.

Why the hell don't people know this?

Gee, I wonder why Southern apologist never mention this, or many other things,  Jeff Davis did, and boasted of, until the South lost.

This official document by Jefferson Davis, published proudly in Richmond papers at the time, and still in his official papers at Rice University, was not in any way unusual or remarkable.

  This is exactly what Davis had been pushing for for over 10 years.  He had already sent killers several places to spread slavery, and made the justification for it very very clear, and in writing.

  Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.  He sent killers, he explained his logic, and he did it not only in speeches, but in writings.  





How did Jeff Davis justify sending killers to Kansas, and justify sending his army North to enslave blacks in the North?

Since Jefferson Davis explained this repeatedly, at the time, and explained it later, after the Civil War, in writing, it  should be very easy for any teacher -- any student after one year of history class -- to get this basic truth right.

Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery against -- against-- states rights and against popular sovereignty. 

  Davis was very very proud of that, until he lost.









During the Civil War itself,  when Davis boasted in his "address to people of the Free States"   that he would enslave blacks in the North,  it came as no surprise, because Davis had been using  paid killers to spread slavery already for almost a decade.  Indeed it would be a surprise if he stopped trying to spread slavery by violence.

Jefferson Davis and David Rice Atchison. You probably know the first name, but not the second name.   Yet these two men (with the help of Stephen A Douglas) pass the Kansas Act, after which Atchison personally went to Kansas and started to terrorize, then later kill and torture, to spread slavery


  At the time, because of his actions, positions, and speaking ability,  Atchison was the most important person in the United States.  He is the man who pushed Kansas Act through the US Senate, then personally, and immediately, went to Kansas.

Ask your history teacher about him -- and they likely will only know the BS trivia that Atchison was (supposedly) president for one day, when Polk refused to take the oath on a Sunday,  and waited till the next day to be sworn in.

No, he was not President for one day.  But far more important, Atchison is the main man in Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision, along with Jefferson Davis.




Atchison's speeches should be required reading in every US high school, because they are far more important than Lincoln's Gettysburg address.  Atchison was proud of his killers, proud of  his killings, and even called it a "joy"  to kill to spread slavery.





Most high school teachers can tell you who Atchison was, though they are typically unclear what he did.  

 They do not even know enough, usually, to know he was in any way connected to Kansas Act, though he was singularly responsible for it's introduction. 

 Atchison explained this himself -- he got  Stephen A Douglas to reverse his strong opposition to Kansas Act,  to then push the Kansas Act fraud throught the Senate. 

Atchison then personally had President Pierce sign it (with Jefferson Davis and Stephen A Douglas in tow).  Atchison   then personally went to Kansas to meet up with men he had already hired.

If you don't know that story, blame your teacher.   This was common knowledge then.

How commonly known?   The famous "Crimes Against Kansas Speech" by Senator Charles Sumner was all about Atchison -- all about how Atchison got Kansas Act passed, how he and Douglas vowed Kansas Act was to let the people of Kansas be "perfectly free" to decide slavery themselves,  but then Atchison (just like we elaborate on here) used hired men to kill and terrorize in Kansas.

It took two days for Sumner to even list a small portion of the killings and tortures Atchison and his men were guilty of in Kansas.  Sumner listed names, dates, and documented each killing, each torture, by newspaper reports.  

Of course Sumner was not revealing anything new -- his speech simply recounted in the Senate what the entire country was keenly aware of already.



 We stupidly teach this in watered down terms,   blaming "both sides"  for not "compromising".    Shelby Foote played a big role in pushing this fraudulent slogan.  The killers in Kansas were not there to compromise, quite the reverse.  They were there to kill and terrorize enough white settlers that slavery would spread to all of the West AGAINST the will of 95% of the citizens in Kansas.

History teachers almost alway assume, and stupidly teach, that "pro slavery"  and "anti-slavery" settlers "disagreed"  about "expansion".   Those terms mean nothing, and are worse than useless. 

 First, the killers were hired, they were not from Kansas.  So no, these were not "settlers"  in Kansas who "disagreed"  with each other.  It was paid killers hired to terrorize and kill.

 Second, it was common knowledge then that 95% of the residents of Kansas were very much against slavery.  Future elections would bear that out -- 95% of voters rejected slavery in honest elections.



They bragged about it.  Until they lost. 





As you can see from Atchison speech,  he and his men were paid by "federal authorities"  in Washington, meaning Jeff Davis and Atchison's partner, Stephen A Douglas who was "Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas."

Davis  and Douglas would pick the first three governors of Kansas.  They were not elected.

Surprisingly,  as you will see, those three governors refused to support Atchison's killing sprees, and reported him to President Pierce and Davis. 

 Of course, Davis was already the mastermind behind forcing Kansas to be officially a slave state.   At first, the three governors appointed by Davis and Douglas  supported Atchison -- until they saw what he was doing.  Had those men gone along with Atchison,  as Davis clearly assumed they would, US history would have been much different.

But those first three governors turned out to be men of honor, though it nearly cost them their lives.



 Atchison should know, he led the first invasions of the war, and worked officially for Jefferson Davis.  Atchison sent reports to Jefferson Davis about the progress of the killings, as you will see.

Furthermore, Davis said, in writing, that everything Atchison did in Kansas was "Constitutionally Required"

Atchison was not ashamed of it -- he was proud of it --until the South lost.


It SHOULD not come as a surprise......Yet there is not a single text book in the US -- as far as we know -- that even mentions, much less shows,  Atchison's speeches, or refers to it in any basic way.

Another basic document not in our US text books is Southern War Ultimatums of 1861.

Richmond newspapers called the War Utlimatums -- which began by demanding the spread of slavery into Kansas -- as "THE TRUE ISSUE"

Let that sink in -- TRUE ISSUE.

The true issue was the spread of slavery into Kansas.  Kansas must "accept and respect" slavery, even though by that time Kansas had officially become a free state, by 95% vote of the citizens in Kansas.

 It was not just Atchison, not just Jeff Davis, not just the newspapers boasting of "the True Issue" being the spread of slavery into Kansas.

The killings, the boasting, the insane and vile obsession to spread slavery was at the heart of US history from 1820 to 1865.   Until Southern leaders lost the Civil War, they were focused, and got their power and status from, spreading slavery by any means.  And those means were always violent. Remember that.  

Southern War Ultimatums in Richmond Papers 1861


Davis said the "intolerable grievance"   was the resistance to slavery in Kansas,  even after Kansas voted 95% against slavery, Davis sent killers there to force Kansas to accept slavery.

What does intolerable mean? You can tell by his actions what intolerable means - he sent killers to Kansas, a few hundred at first, then 2000 or more.  All for one purpose -- to force slavery into Kansas and the West.

If you don't believe that, see the speech by his General of Law and Order in Kansas, below.

Sound like state's rights to you?  

.....a "letter to the people of the Free States" wherein he makes it very clear he will send his army North ("by force of our arms") to enslave blacks in the North.

You can read his book about "the intolerable grievance"  but here is a snippet from that book,  "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government."

And he even writes, in that official declaration, that he wrote it "so there will be no misunderstanding in the future."

Let me repeat that -- he wrote it, so there will be "no misunderstanding in the future."   He was proud of that, as he was proud of other things like it.  

But later he sure as hell pretended differently -- that he was for "state's rights" and "peace".

Peaceful men don't hire 2000 killers and send them to kill to spread slavery.  The very fact you have to explain that to  history teachers is a horrible commentary  on how stupid many history teachers are,  if they teach that Southern leaders were for "state's rights". 

We will cover this again, this is just one example.

Here is a picture of that declaration. 

After the war, if Davis had won, he would have continued to be proud of this.

But Davis lost.  After the war he of course never bothered to mention what he bragged about before.  

When Kansas citizens (remember, 95% of citizens there were against slavery)  let an anti-slavery newspaper publish anyway,   Davis's "General of Law and Order" invaded Lawrence Kansas. Who was that "General"?

David Rice Atchison. 

Davis said -- very clearly, very emphatically -- that it was "intolerable"  that Kansas citizens resisted the spread of slavery -- in his own book.  Read his book.  It's online, it's free or at your local library.

Let that sink in. Ninety-five percent fo Kansas citizens were against slavery.   Yet Davis insisted it was "intolerable" that they resisted slavery.  Why?  Because Dred Scott decision ordered -- yes ordered -- the federal government to protect slavery in Kansas.

Sound like state's rights to you?   



Remember --95% of the citizens of Kansas were against slavery.  Yet it was "intolerable"  that they resisted slavery.


Paid men would invade Lawrence Kansas three times -- the first time, terror only, no deaths.

On the third invasion of Lawrence Southern men killed everyone they could find, including women and children, as you will see. 

See a letter from a teenager who saw the massacre at Lawrence third raid.  He wrote is father to describe this massacre of women and children.

According to his letter, the leader of the killers of this third raid said he could not "DIE HAPPY"  because of what he had done to Lawrence.   Remember,  the first Southern leader to invade Lawrence boasted it was "a joy" to kill to spread slavery.

The Southern leaders to invade Lawrence the third time outdid even that.  He said, during the killings according to eye witnesses, that he could now "die happy"  after his killing spree, including killing women and children, in Lawrence.


Excerpt from Ladd letter to his father

Drawing of the raid at the time

Survivors of the raid in 1895 reunion.

What had Quantrill  done?  Killed those he could find that did not flee, or  stood up to him in anyway. Then burn the city to the ground.  

Then bragged he could die happy. He would die, days later.  

These guys were part of a "diseased mind"  -- a violent culture, a cult of hate.  They sought power and fame by being increasingly violent.  They did not start out intending to kill or torture, but that is what their words -- their boasting -- led to.



 Like most people, I was deeply moved by Ken Burns  documentary on the Civil War.   It seemed so balanced, so thorough -- and the music touched us all.  

Burns, however, should consider doing the first 10 minutes over.  Shelby Foote, Burns  "go to historian"  for the Civil War, "forgot" to mention a few "details".

Like who killed who.

Like what they bragged about at the time. 

The speech was given by this man -- US Senator David Rice Atchison.  We cover him much more, below.  He, more than anyone else, working officially for Jeff Davis, he and his men paid by Jeff Davis, caused more death and pain than anyone else in US history.

Atchison would later claim he was a "peace-maker".   Just like later Davis would claim he "worked night and day for 20 years" to avoid violence. 

 But at the time, as you will see, Atchison claimed it was a JOY - a JOY -- to kill to spread slavery.  Read his speech. At the time Davis boasted it was "Constitutionally required"  to send killers to Kansas.

Human nature is funny that way.


The most basic possible things -- who killed who and why --Burns and Foote did not even address.  

Not one word about Atchison passing Kansas Act then rushing to Kansas to terrorize and later kill.

Not one word about Atchison's reports to Davis on the progress of the killings.

Not one word on the violent cruel men in the "bogus" legislature being paid by Atchison and Davis.

Not one world about Atchison and Davis paying over 200 men at first, but later over 2000 men,  from outside Kansas, to go to Kansas and use violence to spread slavery.

The way Foote and Burns present it, there were "pro-slavery people" who "disagreed" with anti-slavery people, and that crazy John Brown caused all hell to break loose. 

Foote pompously claimed on film, in his " aww shucks wasn't this sad" style that "American was founded on compromise, that was our genius. It's unfortunate they didn't do that in Kansas.  They didn't compromise."

That's like blaming the store owner at a 7-11 for "not compromising" with the killers to robbed him and killed the cashier on duty .  

Frankly , Burns himself was too stupid to know the history himself, and just went along foolishly with Foote.

Which, of course, is precisely why Foote did not present the ugly facts. Burns stupidly, but necessarily because he was stupid,  went with Foote's  Orwellian double speak.

Foote, of course, is not the only one.  Sadly the approach to teaching the US Civil War -- and therefore our national awareness of it --  is much the same way.  



Brazenly, the first thing the "bogus" legislature did was make it illegal -- made it a crime -- to speak publicly  against slavery.  

Instantly it became illegal - a crime -- to publish anti-slavery newspapers. 

Only pro -slavery men could run for political office.

The capital of Kansas was at first Riley KS.  The bogus  legislature  changed that to the Missouri border, Shawnee Mission,  150 miles closer to where most of the "legislature" lived -- Missouri.These men worked for Atchison.  They did not want to travel three days by horse to Riley, and another 3 days back, every time they wanted to pass something.  

The bogus legislature demanded a "Constitution"  for the state that would make Kansas a slave state. 


If you ever took a US history class, and studied the Civil War, but you don't know Southern leaders themselves boasted they were at war -- a shooting war, using paid men from 1856 on -- you can and should blame your teacher --- and text books.




Stupidly -- because it doesn't work -- US textbooks teach history in anyway other than "WHO KILLED WHO, AND WHY."

Yet nothing is more important than "Who killed who, and why".

Big mistake. 


Next most important fact in history is this -- what did the killers brag about at the time.


There are not, apparently, 10 high school teachers teaching today that know what Southern War Ultimatums even were, yet arguably nothing is more important than those Ultimatums.

Lincoln was well aware of the Ultimatums, and anyone familiar with  Lincoln's words should know what Lincoln said was the "only significant difference between us" -- as he politely put it.

Yet these were the demands made by Southern leaders so that the North could avoid further attacks.  If you don't know about the history of Southern attacks already, in Kansas and elsewhere, to spread slavery, that's yet another problem and evidence our teachers need to be taught the basics, just as much as students.

Who could guess?  War Ultimatums are a big deal?

Here are those War Ultimatums, boasted of at the time, and carried out as promised, when Lincoln did not obey.


If you get "who killed who" and why correct, and get "What did they brag about" correct, you almost need to try to mess it up with BS after that.

BS is fine, do all the BS you want.  Throw in the cotton gin, throw in "agricultural vs industrial"  nonsense, to make it seem like you know what you are taking about.

Yet we do not -- and never have- - even mentioned in a clear way who killed who. Nor did we teach or even mention what the killers bragged about.

So, necessarily, BS comes in to fill the void.  


Ask any high school teacher, or check their tests on Civil War, and they will tell you there were "overlapping" causes of the Civil War.  

 They probably will mention the "cotton" gin and "industrial vs agriculture".  

They may mention "Manifest Destiny"  and "Westward expansion" 

They may even mention the weather.

All  bullshit, but it sounds good and gives them a few questions for their test.

If you taught who killed who -- and why,  then taught what they bragged about at the time, that "cotton gin" crapola sounds silly --because it is.

No cotton gin hired paid killers.

No cotton gin issued War ultimatums.

No cotton gin hung blacks or whites who fought against slavery.

No cotton gin ever hired  500 or 1000 men and gave them a speech they led invasions and killing of people they never met before.

People did that. People paid the killers.

Those people have names.  Those people made speeches.  Those people left a record -- they were proud of -- until they lost.

 People gave the speeches.  People went to Kansas.   And none of them - not one -- ever mentioned cotton gins. They never thought of cotton  gins.

 Thousands of words Southern leaders used to justify killing to spread slavery.  Cotton gin nowhere to be found.

Documents, speeches, books -- Southern Documents, Southern speeches, Southern books -- no one dreamed of a cotton gin as having anything to do with Southern War Ultimatums or justification for killing sprees.

Yet we spend several years in the middle grades telling the kids nonsense about the cotton gin.

Kids actually make posters -- and show a damn COTTON GIN as part of the causes of the Civil War.

That is not the kid's fault.  But sadly, kid or not, most people are not taught -in fact, no one is taught based on our text books, about Southern leaders killing sprees and the boasting that went with them.

Where are we supposed to get that information?  From  a duck?  Right now you'd have to get it from your own extensive reading of Southern newspapers documents and speeches.  It sure as hell not in our text books, and sadly few "historians" cover this in a clear candid way.


As far as I know, no history test has asked "Who killed who, and why"  regarding slavery in the 1850's. 

No question about "what did Southern leaders brag about after the killings?

No question like "How did Southern leaders justify the killings".


You should -- if you read the rest of this -- answer those questions.  You will know who killed who.  You will know why they killed them.

And maybe most important of all -- you will know Southern leaders own very clear justifications for the killing.

You can learn it yourself -- no need to read this --- if you just take about 4 years and study Southern newspapers from 1844 -1865. 

Study Southern books from the same period,.

Study Southern speeches, like wise.

Or you can read below and save yourself some time.



SOUTHERN LEADERS  bragged about it.  And more, they did the things of war -- they sent killers.  They killed. They tortured.  The cheered their victories. They got men to cheer before battle.  They paid the men. 

The killings in Kansas by Southern leaders paid men was in no wise a secret to them or the country.  It was as much  focus of national attention as Pearl Harbor and 911.

Southern leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- issued official statements that are in his official papers at Rice University to this day, that he will "by force of arms"  enslave blacks in the North.

But long before Davis boasted of enslaving blacks in the North in 1863, Davis was justifying the killings and tortures by his paid men in Kansas, in 1855 and 1856.

Do you know how he justified the killings?  

It's an easy answer for anyone who knows Jeff Davis book and speeches at the time. He was pretty good at explaining it, actually.


Do you know that Davis explained his justification for those killers in Kansas?   You should,  there is probably no other thing more important than Jeff Davis own justifications for using violence to spread slavery, which is exactly what he did, until he was stopped.



Who could have guessed?  Words matter, words carry the information, right or wrong, deceptive, incomplete, hateful or otherwise.

None of us were there, of course, so our understanding must come from words others speak, and others write. 

Yes, necessarily we truncate concepts into slogans,  but Trouble in Kansas slogan says nothing, as if "trouble" fell out of the sky.

No hint that the "trouble"  was hired men, hired by Jeff Davis, paid by Jeff Davis and justified by Jeff Davis. Davis and David Rice Atchison together (Davis named Atchison "General of Law and Order" )  at first just used terror - that almost worked, but not for long.

From letters to each other, and from Davis own writings, it's clear these men thought -and planned -- for terror to work.  Davis said he instructed that no blood be shed.  Maybe that's so.   But Atchison wrote to him saying they were going to kill and hang, but that "it would soon be over".

It was not over.


In fact Kansas papers correctly described Atchison's invasions into Kansas as "reign of terror".  The terror-- and later the killings and tortures -- came directly from Atchison and his men, working officially, paid officially, justified officially, by Jefferson Davis himself. 

It was a good plan -- but three men ruined Davis and Atchison plan. If not for those three men, US history would have been drastically different. 
Davis and Atchison (and all Southern leaders) were not men to back down. They were used to giving orders and being obeyed -- by slaves, by everyone underneath them.

Slavery had always spread this way -- as Davis and Atchison knew.  And if not for the telegraph (yes the telegraph) they might have gotten by with this,  early on.



It's hard to say which is more important -- the Kansas Act or Dred Scott decision --as justification to kill to spread slavery.  

As you will see, David Rice Atchison, the man who passed the Kansas Act, went to Kansas immediately after passing the Kansas Act.

The Kansas Act, of course, was passed promising this would give the people of Kansas  the "PERFECT RIGHT"  to decide slavery themselves by vote.

In fact, a vote was coming up in Kansas about slavery and becoming a free state.    Atchison needed to be there, and he was.

Funny thing -- just as feared, Atchison and Davis had exactly the opposite in mind.  Violently take over the election, declare victory, and that 95% vote against slavery never takes place (it would take place twice later, however)

Atchison rushed to Kansas because he had to be there, with a few hundred paid men,  to do get  his job done.   But he needed the Kansas Act (which he passed) to make this work.

Atchison, Jeff Davis and Stephen A Douglas -- in a story told many times by Jeff Davis -- personally took the Kansas Act to President Pierce to sign.

Then Atchison left for Kansas.

Atchison tried, he got there in time, got weapons, including cannon and arms,  from federal armory (thanks to Davis). Atchison apparently had men ready in advance.

Atchison used hired men to invade Kansas, at first to terrorize, but later to torture and kill.


Long before Trump boasted of things he was accused of, David Rice Atchison was doing that.

As you will see, Atchison and his men themselves boasted of it.  Yes, they were accused of it, in thousands of newspaper articles,  and in sworn testimony.   Atchison and his men did not deny it -- in his speeches,  they bragged about it, as you will see.


Jefferson Davis -- at length, clearly, in writing -- justified the actions of men he  hired to invade Kansas.   Any history teacher who does not know exactly what Jeff Davis wrote and said as justifications for the killing sprees in Kansas should lose their job until they know the facts.

Not just  justified to do so -- according to Jefferson Davis himself,  who said that everything Atchison and his men did was "Constitutionally Required".  

How was Atchison's actions (and therefore his men's actions) Constitutionally required?   Davis explained it very well -- but absurdly -- he cited Dred Scott.  See below or read his book.



Davis did not think or act as if sending killers to Kansas was simply permissible,  he gave very specific logic to show it was "required"  that he take action.  And his action was to send men -- paid men --  to Kansas. 


Another question most history teachers can not answer, therefore do not teach, is why on earth would Jefferson Davis need or use 2000 men from Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina, which he did.

Answer is this....There was so little organic (local) support for slavery that he  had no choice but to import the men.   Ninety five percent of citizens of Kansas were against slavery.

Those 5% that voted for slavery were not the kind that would kill to spread slavery against the vote of 95% of the public.

Davis did try -- first -- to use the US military in 1853, to break up citizens meetings that were gathered to get into the Union as a free state. Davis had authority to do that, or used his authority, as Secretary of War.   US soldiers, to their shame, did break up citizen meetings at that time.   

But the work and support to become a free state grew -- and the US Army would not use violence to terrorize citizens.    That was a far more vile act than breaking up meetings.

Davis then sent Atchison, as you will see, to Kansas,  in time for the next effort to vote to be a free state.     Atchison had to hurry to Kansas to do this.  




Southern leaders bragged "out the ass about" these things, as we show,  until they lost.  Yet this  is simply not mentioned, much less taught, in US text books, nor in most history classes.

Big mistake.

Even Jeff Davis own official address to people of the North, wherein he boasted of "by force of our arms"  to enslave blacks in the North (yes, in the North) is not mentioned or taught.

Who could have guessed?  Remove all boasting about their killing sprees, remove the candid accounts of their killing sprees, from our education system, and students would be dumber for having bothered to learn the history of our Civil War.

Oh, our text books do mention "Trouble in Kansas".  They mention John Brown.  They mention "proslavery forces".  Yet the way they mention these things is essentially deceptive bullshit, though the teachers of course did not intend it to be, and probably  don't know enough original sources to realize it's so.



Before each raid into Lawrence Kansas,  the leader of that raid gave a speech to the men.  Each time.  We show you the first speech, given moments before the first invasion. In fact, as you can tell by the speech itself, Atchison just met these men.  His speech to them were his first words to them. 

You may think that at worst the South fought to "protect" slavery.   Not really.  These killing sprees were all about the SPREAD of slavery.  Southern leaders boasted they would have slavery in all of the West.

There was a time -- we should teach this clearly -- that Southern leaders were killing to enslave not just in the West, but to enslave blacks in the NORTH.  Sounds bizarre?

It should not be news to anyone, it was not news at the time.


One tiny problem with Atchison's  "game" theory.

Had there been support in Kansas for slavery,  even modest support, Atchison would not need to hire anyone.  He would not even need to go to Kansas himself. He could have stayed President Pro Tem of the Senate in Washington DC.

But there was virtually no support. 

 Ninety five percent of the citizens in Kansas were against slavery, as Atchison's own partner in Kansas Act said, Stephen Douglas.  Stephen A Douglas said, and everyone knew it anyway, that "19 of 20" people (he meant white males) there were against slavery.

The entire reason Atchison hired these 2000 men?  Because he knew 19 of ot 20 Kansas citizens were against slavery, and he had to act quickly to force KS to be a slave state, before they could officially be a free state.

It almost worked.

"I will see Kansas in Hell before I see her as a free state" said Atchison.  His men cheered. 



Words.  Words  in Southern newspapers -- in South Carolina, Texas, and Alabama specifically -- promised pay and glory if those men would go to Kansas to kill.  And kill "for the entire South".

Atchison told his men to spart the women -- unless the dress as men. If they "take it upon themselves" to dress as men, run them over with your horse.  If they "dare stand before you" blow them to hell.  

We show you some of those words -- it's pathetic that you do not already know them.   These words -- and the killings that followed as a result,  did not lead to the Civil War:  these words and killings WERE the Civil War.
Here is Atchison telling his soldiers to "blow them to hell"  -- he was talking about any women they may find in Lawrence if they are dressed as men.

"If one man or woman dare stand before you, blow them to  hell with a chunk of cold lead."




No one stood up to Atchison's first invasion, that was in 1855.  People wisely ran away.   But that would be the last time.

In the third raid into Lawrence, as punishment that the city disobeyed Atchison,  Southern soldiers killed women and children and burned the town.  Anyone they caught, they killed. 

Most people ran away -- an eyewitness wrote his father about what he saw.   He hid, as the killings took place.  He heard Quantrill, the leader, say "I can die happy now"  because of the killings he and his men just committed.

Letter from a survivor 

Picture of survivors in 1895


Remember, this all sprang from Atchison and his hired men.

Atchison raided Lawrence for one reason - they had allowed an anti-slavery newspaper to publish after he made it a crime to do so.


Money helped- - these men were paid,  over 2000 of them overall.

  But money did not make them cheer - the words made them cheer. A self confident man, dramatic, eager, with a way of speaking that they followed, many, to their grave.

Money did not make Quantrill kill.   He claimed he "could now die happy"  for his revenge on Lawrence -- remember, Lawrence citizens did not do anything but publish an anti-slavery  newspaper.   Don't forget that.

Don't buy that crap that some "academics" sell that it was "a lack of compromise"  that caused the "Trouble" in Kansas.  That Orwellian nonsense,  a la Shelby Foote, is an absurd and devious bit of deception.

Sadly, Ken Burns stupidly chose Shelby Foote as his "go to" guy on the Civil War.  As a result, you do not get a wiff of anything real about how the Civil War started, nothing about the killing sprees, the tortures, and the boasting of killing and torture to spread slavery.


By the way, Atchison himself would never actually be in a battle.  Though he was named a General in the Civil War, he left Kansas and rode out the CIvil War in Texas, perfectly healthy.  Yet those men who killed based on his words, many died in the war. Many innocent people died, too.
The speeches given to these men are stunning, loud, proud, clear. Not coy, not politically correct, not ashamed.   
 Nothing else comes close -- 100 history lectures (even if your history teacher knew much)  would not tell you what Southern leaders themselves told the public and these paid killers.

The words were quite clear, because the men speaking and writing them wanted it to be clear.   

It should be no surprise to anyone that before every World War, every Civil War, essentially before every war, first there are self confident men pumping up the hate and fear. 

The US Civil War is no exception to that rule.


1890 picture of survivors 
of Atchison invasion of Lawrence 

Three of the most powerful speakers of the 19th Century spent much of the 1850's pumping up hate and fear for political power.



Southern leaders bragged about it.  You should have been taught about the killing sprees, and the boasting.


To gain "top spots" in their quest for power, speakers had to not only give more powerful and strident speeches, they had to make the crowds cheer.

It worked--they got the power.  In this case, they made crowds cheer the spread of slavery.

Not sort of.

Not kind of.

Not in a way.



These men did not intend to cause a war -- let me make this clear.

They did not intend to have wars, or even any deaths. Each of them would claim they just wanted peace, and that's probably so. 

But they intended to get power, and got it, by speaking in more extreme ways that their competition in politics.  They had to "out hate" and pump more fear than the others.

Their speeches got men to cheer things like torture, killing war. The "diseased minds" as George Mason called it, came from these Southern leaders speeches and influence. 

Each of them was a dynamic and compelling speaker.    

Yet two of the men sent killers, and paid those killers,  from various places in the South to Kansas,  helped by the third man.  

The hired men knew they were there to kill -- as you will see in the speech.  The speech was from David Rice Atchison to his newly hired men.

He makes them promise to kill,  and kill that very day.  They are about  to invade Lawrence Kansas. 

The other man (Stephen Douglas)  claimed just before  his death, that  actually he had been trying to get the other two destroyed, and said they should be hung.    But that was false.  He was not trying to get them destroyed.  He was helping them, at first. 

These men, Jeff Davis, David Rice Atchison, and Stephen A Douglas, got the wheels moving, got paid killers moving, and got the "legal pretext"   for the war in place.

They did it by working together, a team if you will, each for political power.  Stupidly, the urged war and brought it to pass, whether they wanted it, intended it, or not.


We show you the three most important hate mongers of the 1850's and how they started the Civil War.

 President Pro Tem of the Senate

Passed Kansas Act

General of Law and Order in Kansas

Confederate General.

Steven A Douglas Partner




Atchison speech was to his newly hired men, moments before one of three violent invasions of Lawerence Kansas.

There is no substitute -- one must read the entire speech to grasp the stunning truth of what Southern leaders were doing.

Atchison boasted -- he did not admit, he boasted -- of killing to spread slavery.

Atchison did not go to Kansas, nor did he  hire these men from Texas, South Carolina, and Alabama, to persuade anyone.   In fact in the newspaper ads Atchison took out to hire these men -- his ad said "The time to talk is over"

The first time Atchison met these men, he gave this speech.  They were there to terrorize, and if need be, kill.  Later in other speeches he would tell them to kill women that got in the way and dressed like men.

Atchison's speeches  made it clear in other speeches their goal was to spread slavery to the Pacific.  That included two states, Oregon and California, that were already free states.

In fact, as you will see, Jeff Davis himself issued orders and promises to invade free states "by force of our arms" and enslave blacks in the free state.

That's in his own official papers, we show you.





There is no substitute for reading Atchison's speech, or any of the other hundreds of things reported in newspapers that agree with him at the time. In fact, Atchison had his own newspaper. 

He spoke of the joy of killing to spread slavery.  The men cheered. Atchison was dramatic, loud, super -self confident,  and the stupid men ate it up.  

This first invasion, mostly by Missouri men Atchison could hire, the goal was to arrest or terrify those who dared publish the anti-slavery newspaper that he and his earlier paid supporters outlawed in their "Bogus Legislature".

Atchison did not want to be seen as leading a "mob" of outlaws.   He was the "General of Law and ORder"  and he worked under the command of Jefferson Davis.  

It's crucial to understand that - and understand Atchison had the support of President Pierce.   Those against him were "traitors"  and deserved the fate of traitors.   

The first three governors of Kansas soon learned that the hard way-- when they reported Atchison's killing sprees and acts of terror,to Jefferson Davis and President Pierce,  they were called traitors.  Andrew Reeder, the first governor, a Democrat named by Davis, had to hide for three years.

Others did not hide, and others were killed.


Atchison and Davis, with the help of Stephen A Douglas, had control of the federal government.  They had control of  territorial government -- because they were it.  Douglas was Chairman of the Senate and House Committee on Kansas.  Between Davis, Douglas and Atchison, they had Kansas wrapped up.

It did not matter that 95% of the Kansas residents were against slavery and voted against slavery when able.  The people in positions of power were on the same page-- spread slavery.   

They had money because Davis was paying them from US Treasury.  

The US Army would not bother them, because Davis was their commander. 

The citizens of Kansas were running away at first, because they did not have the weapons or leadership to prevail.

Here is a link to his speech.

Brief excerpts of Atchison speech do not do it  justice.  He boasted the Southern flag was red "for the color of blood"  they would spill to spread slavery.  

Other people reported this - to Jeff Davis, and to President Pierce.

The first govenor of Kansas -- Andrew Reeder -- personally went to the President, and told him of the killings and tortures done by Atchison and his men.  Jeff Davis insisted Governor Reeder was lying.  Reeder was charged with Treason, and had to  hide out for several years.



See Atchison speech -- there is no substitute.

Here is a link to his speech.

Atchison made his men promise they would kill that very day -- and told them they would be will paid, and could keep anything they took from homes the attacked.


 1)  By 1856,  Atchison was already killing, already boasting about killing, to spread slavery by 1856.

2) Atchison got Kansas Act passed.  



Not all survived the raids into Lawrence Kansas that Atchison is famous for.  In the first raid, most citizens in Lawrence fled or did not resist -- exactly as Atchison predicted. 

In the third invasion,  women and children were killed too, though Atchison was not there in person, Atchison did give orders that women were supposed to be shot or trampled by horses if they were dressed as men, and in the way.  See  

Atchison's comments about the need for killing -- and it would be over quickly. 


Atchison had made it a law (see below) that no newspaper against slavery could be published in the Territory. 

Lawrence citizens continued to allow a newspaper to publish.

Atchison's raid into Lawrence was for that reason - and that reason alone -- Lawrence allowed an anti-slavery newspaper to publish.

He did the raid, as you can tell from his speech, with the hired men, and with the "sheriff" and support of the federal government (Jeff Davis).



Hate and fear mongering work.  

It has always been this, and probably always will be this way.

The more self confident, the louder, the more extreme, the better.   100% of those who found power in the South -- at least those leaders who pushed for a war to spread slavery--- had that "gift".



If you don't know that by 1856 Southern leaders were not only killing to spread slavery -- they were bragging about it too-- blame your teacher, and your text book.

Our textbooks, and therefore our general thinking about the Civil War (or any war)  has nothing to do with what the leaders bragged about to get crowds to cheer. 

Yet without crowds that cheer, these men did not get elected, they did not get power.  They did not become Southern leaders.



 Southern leaders -- even the "worst"  of them -- could give the most hateful speech, urging war, justifying war, then get off the stage as the crowds cheered, and be perfectly normal.  Even kind.


These men were drastically different on other days, in front of other crowds.    They said dramatically different things.  They urged caution, they issued no threats, no promises of violence.

So said Preston Blair, who spoke of this repeatedly in the 1850s.  No one listened.   Blair knew these men personally, got along with them fine.   

Blair said off the stage, the men did not care about slavery, or the spread of it.  Only on stage, only when getting public attention and support politically, did they speak this way.

But deadly results followed, no matter what the intent. 



Virtually every US textbook shows children a drawing of a cotton gin.  Supposedly the "arrival"  of the cotton gin led to the spread of slavery and "the issue" of expansion.

In fact, the "arrival of the cotton gin"  seems to be an answer the child must check as a factor in the Civil War.  Utter nonsense.

Big mistake - and total bullshit,  yet "educated" teachers, even Phd's, will repeat such nonsense, and be proud of it. 

Consider this......

A cotton gin never whipped a slave.

A cotton gin never got crowds to cheer the spread of slavery.

A cotton gin never sent killers to Kansas.

A cotton gin never boasted about killing to spread slavery.

A cotton gin never issued War Ultimatums.


People do things -- people. 

People hire killers. People buy and sell slaves.  People give speeches to get power, and people send hired killers here or there.

People sent killers to Kansas.  People justified killing and torturing to spread slavery. People bragged of it.

Sadly, that's not our approach to history.  Or approach is NOT who killed who, and why.  Our "text book"  approach is meant to piss off no SOuthern school board, frankly, which is a monumental mistake.  

That's why you can study US text books, be an A student, and even teach history to others,  and be dumber than a post about what caused the civil war, if you only read what is in US textbooks.



Your teacher should know, even if the text book did not show the actual speeches.  

Southern leaders were proud of it, thousands of newspaper pages at the time devoted to telling of it,

One of the most famous speeches of that time, the "Crimes Against Kansas" Speech was 100% about this.  

Charles Sumner, for two days, gave detail after detail after detail --he told in great detail, with names, dates, and facts,  how Southern leaders sent men to Kansas, and there in Kansas how these men killed and tortured and bragged about -- all to spread slavery.

We will mention this speech again.  We show it here to affirm how massively this was known at the time

 If you just knew Sumner's speech -- the details in it -- you could not be so easily fooled by "cotton gin" and other nonsense.   

 Senator Sumner, who gave the speech about Atchison and his killers in Kansas,  was immediately beaten almost to death on the floor of the Senate.


A few days later, the man Sumner was talking about (David Rice Atchison) gave the speech we show you to his recently arrived men from Texas, South Carolina, and Alabama.

Let me repeat that -- Atchison gave a speech the next week in Kansas.   He boasts about doing the killing and torturing that Sumner accused him of, his his speech.   One of the most amazing week of speeches in US history.

Most history teachers -- to save their life -- could not tell you this basic fact.  That Sumner speech, where he was beaten almost to death, came the same week as Atchison's speech.  

Atchison was proud of doing exactly what Sumner had accused him of. 



Southern leaders did not deny this at the time.   They justified it. Atchison justified and bragged about the killing --  others were proud too.  Our rights.  Their rights came from somewhere too, something they eventually got in writing from the United States Supreme Court itself.  (The "ironic" thing is, Southern leaders were killing and torturing already -- they got the "written justification"  later),

They were not coy, or ashamed.

It did not matter to Atchison if 95% of the citizens were against slavery.   It did not matter to Jeff Davis if 95% were against slavery.   T

hey were going to push slavery all through the territories and all the way to the Pacific Ocean.  


 Jeff Davis himself boasted of using violence to enslave blacks in the North.   See his speech. 

Why the hell is his speech not in every US text book -- he was proud of it.

Why do we show a drawing of a cotton gin -- but have no room for his speech?


Davis did send Lee  to the North, Lee did have his men round up hundreds of free blacks in the North, had them taken South, and sold as slaves.

Davis words and actions were not complicated. Not out of context.  Davis himself wrote that he issued this address "So there will be no misunderstanding in the future".


Lincoln in private said it best. Slavery was begun by violence. Slavery was maintained by violence.  Slavery was spread by violence. 

Lincoln also said (his letter to Speed) that it was a very few men, an "oligarchy,"   that were doing this.   The public in the South did not care about spreading slavery -- they were not going to die to spread slavery.

Davis and others convinced Southern men that their wives and children will "sleep with negroes"  and that if we do not spread slavery,  our white race will be exterminated"

But the South said that was radical. That was intolerable.  

So intolerable Atchison had already gone to Kansas for years to push slavery there.  So intolerable Atchison issue War Ultimatums in 1856.

So intolerable Davis and Confederate Cabinet issued the same War Ultimatums in 1861.  Both times the words were backed up with violence

I cant help it that no one told you this -- not my fault.   Over and over --and over, crowds cheered those who could speak like this.  Stephen A Douglas easily won the Senate race against Lincoln in this basis, as you will see. 

 Douglas would have won the Presidential race, too, but three men ran against him (as Lincoln hoped they would).  Lincoln only got 39% of the vote.

Lincoln never beat Douglas in a one on one race - because Douglas was able to deliver these kinds of speech.


Davis justified these killings.

Davis claimed that everything Atchison and his men did was "Constitutionally required". 



Just a few of the things in Atchison's 1856 Speech.

✔️  It is a joy to kill to spread slavery
✔️ We are the law
✔️ You will be well paid
✔️  Besides pay, you can keep what you loot
✔️  Our flag is red in for the color of blood we will spill to spread slavery
✔️ We fight "for the entire South"
✔️  Promise now to "bathe your swords" in blood that very day.




 Jeff Davis explained it as well as anyone.  He relied 100% on the Dred Scott decision.  That changed everything, said Davis.

Lincoln said the same thing.  Lincoln said that now, because of Dred Scott, spreading slavery became a "sacred right".

Exactly as Davis used it. Kansas can't keep slavery out, even with 95% vote, even after they became a free state.

Lincoln knew and Davis knew the same thing.  Davis, of course, was fully in favor of Dred Scott, he very likely wrote it, or had a hand in it.   He needed that decision, because 95% of people were against slavery in Kansas.

If Davis went by "states rights" Kansas could be a free state.

So state's rights had to go --Dred Scott ruled now.

Davis logic was a Supreme Court ruling that blacks are not human beings, but are "inferior beings". 

The Supreme Court literally ordered that the so called "inferior beings"  must NOT be seen as persons, but MUST be seen as property.



 In fact, a group of Democrats contacted a guy you may have heard about -- Abraham Lincoln?   They invited Lincoln to Kansas.  

Lincoln went to Kansas to meet with these men.  The story of LIncoln's meeting in Kansas and how these Democrats changed history by helping get Lincoln nominated, then elected, is one of the most amazing stories in US history.

Here is a picture of that book.

The Dred Scott decision had ordered -- yes ordered (see below) that the federal government protect slavery.