US SENATOR BRAGS ABOUT KILLING TO SPREAD SLAVERY -- then kills to spread slavery, 1856

under construction...


He worked officially for Jefferson Davis.1856.  

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

And he should know -- he was doing it. He was not a reporter saying bad things about it. He was the guy actually out there doing this.

It was David Rice Atchison who got Lincoln back into politics.

Shame on "historians" like Foner, McPherson, Catton, and 100 others for glossing over this, and never -- ever -- making it clear to anyone, in any of their books, who was killing who in Kansas, and why.

Not once - go check -- in any Fone, McPherson, Catton book, have they ever even told you Atchison worked for Jeff Davis, got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas and started killing in Kansas, and bragging about it.

Yes, bragging. You should know about this -- almost everyone alive at the time knew, as you will see.

And Southern leaders bragged of it.  You may think the Civil War started in 1861.  Not really. 

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

Not just bragging about being at war -- actions of war. Killing. Torture. Terror. Organized, paid troops, riding under a Confederate flag. And Atchison made if very clear -- he was at war. He was at war "for the entire South".

Atchison made it equally clear what his goal was -- to kill abolitionist and spread slavery to the Pacific.

This was well known then. Extremely well known.  Charles Sumner was beaten on Senate floor - after he described what Atchison was doing. Hour after hour, for two days, Charles Sumner spoke of nothing else, but the Crimes Against Kansas, and David Rice Atchison. 


1856   1856    1856   1856   

Atchison sent Davis reports on the "progress" of killings.  Atchison was the guy who, years early, chased the Mormons out of Missouri -- and he promised Davis in writing, that he would do the same to those who were against slavery.

As you can tell, Atchison promised the work "would soon be done" 1856.   Not so much



Atchison was very much a braggart.   He boasted  that a show of force would scare the Kansas citizens into letting him create his own "legislature" -- which he did, using the Missouri men he first hired, when he left the Senate in early Janurary of 1854 (as Sumner said in his speech).

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

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

And your history teacher does not have a clue.  It's  not your history teacher's fault. For the last 100 years, the really vile stuff done by Southern leaders -- the tortures, the killing sprees, the War Ultimatums -have been glossed over, in euphemisms such as "Trouble in Kansas"  and the details not mentioned at all.

Ever hear of a US Senator going to Kansas to in 1854, to kill to spread slavery in Kansas, and the rest of the US West?


Right now, you likely know more about Kansas, who killed who and why, than most history teachers.

Oh -- they know Kansas "was an issue".   They just don't know who killed who.

They don't know Jeff Davis sent several Southern leaders to Kansas   -- Atchison was just bragged the most -- to spread slavery.  If they had to kill and terrorize, that was fine. 

At very least, your teacher should know, but does not, that Atchison is the guy who got Lincoln back into politics.

And your teacher should know Atchison was the guy Sumner was talking about -- his crimes -- and how Atchison got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas to begin killing and terrorizing.

Bet not. 

Those who knew Atchison claimed he was the important US Senator, more important than Stephen A Douglas or Jefferson Davis -- at the time.   Atchison was partners with Douglas, and worked officially for Jefferson Davis, the entire time he was killing in Kansas. 

Atchison did the dirty work Davis and Stephen A Douglas wanted him to. And it almost worked 



Charles Sumner was talking about the killing sprees by Atchison, in the speech he was beaten almost to death for.


Atchison is the reason John Brown went to Kansas.

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

Everyone knew Atchison then -- you should too.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015  You never heard of Atchison. Never heard of Southern War Ultimatums. Never heard that the Supreme Court officially ruled blacks are not human beings.

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

Atchison leads three invasions of Kansas -- and laughs when people flee, as he has 1000 Texas men, recently arrived.  The speech below is to his Texas men, paid by Jefferson Davis, as you will see. 


Survivors meet.










Speech to "pro slavery"?

That's how this in entitled in KS archives.    But as everyone knew -- and the speech made it clear -- these are the Texas men, just arrived.

See full speech below.

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

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

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

Actually paid for by Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War, as Atchison makes clear in the speech.

The speech itself is one of the best history lessons of that era.



This was five years before the Civil War started.  Atchison already got Lincoln back into politics, when  he passed Kansas Act.  As you will see, according to Atchison himself, he is the one that got Kansas Act passed.

Charles Sumner, in the speech on Senate floor where he was beaten, confirmed that. Atchison indeed -- according to Sumner -- got Kansas Act passed, then left immediately for Kansas.

Very basic.  And a fact that most history teachers have no clue of.  They should read Atchison's speech, and Sumner's speech, as well as newspapers from that era.

 As you can tell by his speech, Atchison was already at war, and he called it war.



This is the man who got Lincoln back into politics.   

This man got Kansas Act passed.

This man was in Kansas killing people.

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

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


Bragging about killing to spread slavery.  To the Pacific. 


Arguably, David Rice Atchison -- for a few months anyway -- was the most famous man in the United States.

He claimed he passed Kansas Act.  Charles Sumner said he passed Kansas Act, too, in the speech Atchison was beaten almost to death for.

Two months after Atchison leaves Washington, he turns up in newspapers in Kansas and Missouri, as leader of armed invasion of Kansas.  

He is named "General of Law and Order" in Kansas -- officially -- by Jefferson Davis.   He was not some wacko running around on his own.

Read this again -- in the speech on Senate floor, Sumner was talking -- for two days, hour after hour after hour, about the killings, about the tortures, about the crimes by Atchison in Kansas.

 Specifically - clearly -- about Atchison passing the Kansas Act, then going immediately to Kansas to being his terror, his ongoing crimes, killings, and torture.

SPecifically -- about Atchison making it a crime to speak against slavery. 

Meanwhile, Atchison speeches in Kansas do not just admit this, Atchison, in his speech to Texas men recently arrived, boasts about it.

Very basic -- what was Sumner talking about, hour, after hour, after hour?   Your history teach can not tell you.

Oh, your history teacher can tell you who Charles Sumner was. And your teacher can tell you how important Kansas Act was - but will tell you some bullshit about Kansas Act being about "popular sovereignty".  

What a dumb ass. I mean that in all due disrespect for "historians" who put "popular sovereignty" in the same sentence.  As Kansas Act.  As Lincoln (and many others) pointed out, Kansas Act was a ruse to claim popular soverity, but use violence and terror to prevent popular sovereignty.

The only way anyone can not figure  out this basic fact, is if they are ignorant of who Davis Rice Atchison is, and what he did -- what he bragged about -- and who he worked for.

It was Atchison -- Sumner said -- that got Kansas Act passed.

It was Atchison -- Sumner said -- that left the Senate immediately, went to Kansas and started his killing and terrorizing.

Your teacher will not know that. 

There may be someone who knows all this -- but I have yet to meet a "history professor" -- even at the Lincoln library -- who can answer the simple question:   who was Sumner talking about, by name, and what did Sumner claim that person did?

They do not know.  They can tell you many details -- like the name of Lee's pet chicken.  But can't tell you who Sumner was talking about?

Sumner's speech was two days long. Hour after hour, after hour.   He was talking about Davis Rice Atchison -- how Atchison got Kansas Act passed, then rushed to Kansas, and started the "Crimes Against Kansas."

Very specific charges -- names, date, the torture or killings Atchison did, or his men.

Instead, your history teacher will probably tell you how Sumner spoke about someone's wife -- a very common bit of sophistry, started at the time.  Because of that personal attack, he was beaten.

He was beaten - and Stephen A Douglas actually admitted Sumner was beaten, and said he deserved it -- for castigating and implying Douglas and others were lying.  That does not get reported now, but see this -- Douglas was happy Sumner was beaten.

Douglas was Atchison business partner, and partner in the Senate.

More -- even more amazing -- Atchison gave a speech two days later in Kansas, and boasted to  his Texas men, about exactly the things Sumner spoke about.  And no, your teacher never put 2 plus 2 together on that, because they don't even know Atchison, and do not know  his amazing speech.

They should know -- but no one told them.  They could have read the speech and figured it out. But they did not.

This was extremely well known at the time. Sumner predicted Atchison's name would go down in history with Benedict Arnold.  It should have.  But few "history teachers" know who he was, and almost none know what he did, who he killed, who he worked for, and what  he bragged about.

So -- we are here to tell you. And tell your history teacher. 

 Who?  A US Senator.   Not some nut, in a bar.  He not only worked officially for Jefferson Davis, Davis supported him entirely, financially and with Texas men.

Stringfellow, Atchison's right hand man, boasted in writing they would keep hanging, keep drawing, till they killed all abolitionist. 

Davis would claim everything Atchison did was "constitutionally required"





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

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

You are  told about this -- in euphemism of "Trouble in Kansas".   Major understatement. 

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

Even so -- even though Kansas became a free state, Southern War Ultimatum, headlines in Richmond papers -- demanded Kansas be a slave state.   Jeff Davis himself wrote that the resistance to the spread of slavery was "the intolerable grievance".

Let that sink in because you history teacher has no clue about this. After Kansas became a free state, Southern leaders demanded Kansas accept and respect slavery. And the PRESIDENT of the Confederacy specifically said the resistance to slavery in Kansas was "the intolerable grievance".

Your history teacher is probably so stupid, they claim the South cared about states rights.  No, they did not. Once in a while they said such things, but when Kansas rejected slavery, the shit hit the fan, and suddenly, states rights didn't matter.

Kansas citizens being against slavery by 95% did not matter to Davis. That's what Davis was talking about, when he said this.

Remember, Davis paid Atchison, and paid his Texas men. 


Did Davis know Kansas became a free state? Hell yes.

Did Davis know Kansas citizens voted against slavery by a stunning 95%?   Hell yes.

Davis is the guy who sent Atchison out to Kansas, in the first place. 

Lecompton  and "bogus legislature".

Working for Jeff Davis.

Leading three separate invasions of Kansas.

Reporting to Jeff Davis.

Working officially for Jeff Davis.

Still think your "history" book and "history" teacher have the all  basic information?  

They only know what they are told.  The stuff I present here, is not told, or told in watered down way.

I was almost 60 years old before I realized "historians" generally repeat bullshit, maybe dress it up a little. They aren't doing this on purpose, they only know what they are told.  In the case of Southern leaders killing to spread slavery, they were not told much.

So they don't know.

Historians are humans, who have a special need to be seen as smart, knowledgable. The problem is, they are often not curious enough.  This is an example of that. 

  No, your teacher does not know.

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

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

Your teacher will not know.   The answer is, David Rice Atchison, and he boasted he was killing to spread slavery. He boasted he worked for Jefferson Davis. He boasted he would spread slavery to the Pacific.

And he boasted he would kill and keep killing, till there were no more "abolitionist" in Kansas Territories.

Was Atchison spouting off like an idiot?  He was a braggart. and a drinker.  But the things he said in his speeches, were things that he actually did, and were reported in papers at the time.

Southern newspapers of course agreed with Atchison's actions. 

Northern papers exposed Atchison.  

Kind of a big deal. 

One of Atchison's letters, telling Davis of his progress in killing, survives. 

Will soon be over -- Atchison told Davis. They will shoot, burn, hang enough, and it "will soon be over".

Problem was -- Atchison was boasting of it. Atchison BOASTED he got Kansas Act passed.Atchison also BOASTED he was in Kansas terrorizing, and promised death and violence.

Atchison officially worked for Jefferson Davis, openly. Atchison sent Davis reports on the progress of his killings and terror. Not sorta, not kinda.

This is not some conspiracy theory, this is what Atchison BOASTED about, and everyone knew it.


You gotta like Atchison, in a way. He boasted of things others would say only in double speak.   Atchison's partner in Kansas Act -- Stephen A Douglas, tried to explain away many of Atchison's truthful outbursts as "his way of talking".  

Indeed, it was.

Nor did anyone deny Atchison worked for Jeff Davis -- it was official.  

The point is --  Sumner was talking about, for two days, what Atchison and his men were doing in Kansas.  The killings, the tortures, the violent suppression of anyone who even spoke against slavery.


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

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

Why don't you know that?   Because you are not taught. Instead, you hear some bullshit confusing nonsense about "Border Ruffians" and "Trouble in Kansas".

You are not told who killed who and why -- which is what history actually is.  Atchison made it very clear why he killed, he was PROUD of it.


Atchison worked officially for Jefferson Davis.

And they were hanging. They were torturing. But not enough, when John Brown started fighting back.  Folks like to play John Brown as some kind of lunatic -- actually, after they killed his son, and tortured others, and promised to keep killing till slavery was spread to Pacific, Brown got pissed.  

Soon will be over, said Atchison, to Davis.

Not so much.



Oh, your history teacher will insist they read  Sumner's speech,  but it's like the bible or Lincoln Douglas debates.  People claim to have read it-- but usually never did. Maybe they skimmed it.

I could be wrong -- there may be a history teacher somewhere who can tell you what the hell Sumner was talking about -- who, and what that person did.

They all should know. It does not get more basic.   But they all seem to have this bs meme about Sumner speaking about someone's wife.  God, what idiots.  They just repeat each others bullshit.  They seem to think that's scholarship.  It's not.

Sumner could, I suppose, have lied with every word.  But events proved he was right. 

In fact, Atchison himself would boast of things Sumner said.  Atchison is unique in history of that period -- he boasted of things, others would use euphemisms for. That's what's so amazing about Atchison -- he bragged of doing the things, others accused him of doing. He wasn't admitting it, he was bragging about it.


Most teachers can not even tell you who Atchison was -- he was that man who got Lincoln back into politics. 

It's a BFD.  Not because Sumner talked about him.

Not because Lincoln got back into politics because of what he did.

But because Atchison worked for -- officially -- Jefferson Davis.  Davis paid him. Davis named him General of Law and Order. And Jefferson Davis paid his men.

And -- Atchison worked with Stephen A Douglas too. As "Chairman of House and Senate"  Committee on Kansas, behind the scenes, as Lincoln well knew, Douglas helped Atchison. Douglas helped him pass Kansas Act, then Douglas helped Atchison in other ways, discussed below.  These three men - Atchison, Douglas, and Jeff Davis, worked together.





Atchison boasted he and his men would spread slavery  to the area outlined in red. Kind of a big deal, since he was already in Kansas, killing to spread it there. He had credibility, because he was already doing it, already had 1000 men, and already worked for Jefferson Davis.  



I can't help it that you never heard of this. You should have. It was common knowledge at the time.  Go read Southern newspapers, Northern newspapers at the time.   That's where this information comes from.

Remember, this is the guy Sumner was talking about in his famous speech.

Ironically -- Atchison was bragging as fast as he could.


Atchison makes his men swear to kill 

Atchison tells his men who they work for

Atchison tells his men who they work for....
  and calls it a war.   

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

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


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

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

Pissed John Brown off, more than a tad.

Very basic stuff.  And you never heard it.  This guy - the man leading the killers, the man who got Kansas Act passed, the man Sumner was talking about -- and you never heard any of this, have you?

Everyone knew it then.  But everyone from Bruce Catton to James McPherson to Eric Foner never told you any of this.  Not in any clear way. 

All three times time Lawrence was invaded,  was because they disobeyed David Rice Atchison order that they stop the anti-slavery newspaper there.

He had made anti-slavery newspapers illegal. Really.  Read his speech, he refers to this in his own speech.



The best place to find what Southern leaders boasted of is their own newspapers at the time, such as Richmond papers boasting "THE TRUE ISSUE" was the spread of slavery, and listing the Southern War Ultimatums.

  We show you those, below.

We should not have to show you this -- it already should be in every US  history text book, North and South. It was that basic.

No one -- literally no one -- was surprise that Southern newspapers called the spread of slavery "THE TRUE ISSUE".   Hell, it was the entire fabric of US life, from 1856 on.    

This was not a side issue. This was not a footnote.  Everyone knew there were killers in Kansas pushing slavery. Everyone knew about non-stop threats, beatings, bullying by the South about spreading slavery. You'd have to live under a rock not to know.

Lincoln sure knew -- and said that was the issue -  the spread of slavery. He was not kidding in his House Divided Speech, even if the "historians" claim Lincoln was "overstating the nationalization of slavery".  If anything, in public, Lincoln understated what these bastards were doing.   In private letters, he was more blunt.


Boasting of it, in Southern newspapers.


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

In fact, when Southern leaders issued War Ultimatums -- Kansas was already a free state.

Do you grasp that? Kansas was a FREE STATE, when Southern leaders demanded Kansas accept and respect slavery. There is not a single text book in the US that shows this basic, and amazing fact.  Southern War Ultimatums -- spread slavery into Kansas, even though Kansas citizens had already become a state, and already rejected slavery by a 95% vote.

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


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


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

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

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



Anti-incendendary laws. 

When you read Atchison's speech -- notice he is bragging about stopping the newspaper in Lawrence.   He had made it a crime (through his "bogus legislature")  to speak or publish newspapers against slavery.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

"Let Kansas sink into hell"  

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

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

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

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






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

...The U.S. Marshall has just given you his orders and has kindly invited me to address you. For this invitation, coming from no less than U.S. authority. ( Jefferson Davis, as Secretary of War, created a "Generalship" and named Senator Atchison as "General of Law and Order of Kansas Territories)

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

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

Today you have a glorious duty to perform, today you will earn laurels that will ever show you to have been true sons of the noble South! (Cheers.)

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

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

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

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

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

(Yells.) For today Mr. Jones is not only Sheriff, but deputy Marshall, so that whatever he commands will be right, and under the authority of the administration of the U.S.! (Again, Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War approved this -- and Atchison sent reports to Davis on progress of hangings)
For it you will be amply paid as U.S. troops, besides having an opportunity of benefitting your wardrobes from the private dwellings of those infernal nigger-stealers. (In other words, they can keep what they steal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

For example, there is not a text book in the USA -- that I know of anyway -- that even mentions Southern War Ultimatums. Never mind they were headlines in Southern papers at the time.

Trouble was in Kansas?

  They should call it "Senator Atchison goes to Kansas for Jeff Davis".  And then explain what Atchison did there -- and what he bragged about.

Lincoln had to deal with Southern War Ultimatums and the killings, violence, and promises of more violence.


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

Stupidly not mentioned in text books today

According to Southern leaders --- namely Atchison himself --  at the time,  the Civil War started in 1856, with this official killing spree.   Yes, it was a killing spree.  As one witness said, the roads were littered with dead bodies, after Atchison and his men went through an area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not just any Senator -- President Pro Temp.

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

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

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

Atchison, in this particular speech, was talking to his Texas men, who just arrived. The men Jefferson Davis sent, and paid. 1856.

He bragged he was killing to spread slavery -- and would not stop until slavery was spread to the Pacific.  This is the area -- in red border -- he demanded to be slave states.  

Slave power had already taken over the area in white border.

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

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


This was common knowledge at the time.  

 Remember that. You never heard of it.


Atchison worked for -- officially -- Jefferson Davis.

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

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

The US had plenty of soldiers -- Davis could not use those.  Davis tried to get US soldiers to do his dirty work,  but it did not work. US soldiers, following Davis orders, did o break up some meetings by Kansas citizens trying to create  a state constitution and gain entry into US as a state .

But more than break up a meeting, for Davis, these soldiers would not do.   Kansas white males kept trying to create a Kansas government that would get accepted to the United States as a free state-- and eventually that DID happen, despite killing efforts by Davis and Atchison. But Kansas only became a free state by resisting the killings and terror by Atchison and his paid help.

If you do not remember anything from here -- remember this -- Atchison could not get volunteers. Atchison and Davis had to pay those folks who would kill and terrorize.   A basic fact simply omitted in any US text book.  In fact, no US text book I know even shows Atchison speeches, nor mention that Atchison worked for Jeff Davis officially.

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


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

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

How Senator Douglas had pushed Kansas Act -- supposedly to give people the right to vote  on slavery, but in fact, in action, quit the opposite happened.   Douglas would forever stick to claim that he just wanted people to have the right to vote -- but everyone knew his business partner, and political ally, was in Kansas killing and terrorizing to STOP any real vote.

Lincoln's first goal was to defeat Atchison's business partner, Stephen A Douglas, to get Douglas out of the US Senate, where Douglas was helping Atchison behind the scenes as powerful Chairman of House and Senate  Committee on Kansas.   While in public Douglas would claim to support popular sovereignty, as LIncoln made clear (and many others)  that actually the plan hatched by Atchison and Douglass did the reverse.



So Atchison was a BFD.  Yet most "history"  teachers would have to fake it, to tell you who he was, or what he actually did.

Atchison, and his actions, were a BFD to Lincoln.

Atchison and his actions, were a BFD to Sumner

Atchison, and his actions, was a BFD to Stephen Douglas.

Atchison, and his actions, was a BFD to Jeff Davis.

Jeff Davis even sent Atchison 1000 or so Texas men, in 1856, to invade Kansas.  The Missouri men, which Atchison used earlier, were not enough. Do you think Davis would have sent 1000 men without anyone in Kansas to lead them?

Atchison did get over 4000 Missouri men in 1854-- they would create that "legislature"  where Atchison made it against the law to publish newspapers against slavery. When Atchison invaded Lawrence -- that was his reason -- to stop the "crime" of publishing an antislavery newspaper.

But not enough Missouri men would kill for Atchison.  They may be thugs and create a fake legislature for him, but they melted away after that endeavor, and Atchison had to find men who would kill, and would torture.  So he did.


The US army "Dragoons" which Davis ordered to Kansas in 1853, would not do the kind of terror that would burn down a city if the newspaper published anti-slavery newspaper.  

The dragoons and others did disrupt meetings, per Davis instructions, they did stop Kansas citizens from forming an official government that could submit documents to become a free state.

But more than that, the US soldiers under  would not do.

  Hence, when Atchison arrived, he hired Missouri men.

This is another basic aspect of Atchison's killings in Kansas, that, if you hear of at all, they gloss over the fact - ATCHISON hired his men. They were paid. He even advertised in the papers, in Texas and South Carolina!!  In the ads, he even told them to be ready for violence, the time for peace has gone. (Im looking for that ad, I had it a few weeks ago - really).

  For that level of violence,  the level Atchison needed to terrorize an entire territory, to shut down newspapers,  to kill those that resisted -- Jefferson sent Atchison.

 We know Davis sent him, because Atchison said so, and Davis validated that.

 The speech below, is Atchison's amazing speech to those Texas men.  The speech your "history teacher" probably never heard of, but will pretend he did, as soon as you show it to him.


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

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

That's basic as hell. 

But now -- in 1853, the South wanted even more. 

And they made it clear what they wanted -- not just Kansas territories but all the way to Pacific. 

Don't get mad at me that you knew none of this -- get mad at those who left all this out of US text books.


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

The fact most people can get out of college, and think somehow "Kansas Trouble" was some dispute by local folks over slavery there shows how bad our education system is.   Local folks were not in dispute -- the killers came from OUTSIDE Kansas, and were hired. That's one.

Two - the issue -- and Southern leaders boasted of it, Lincoln warned of it - was slavery all over, in Atchison's speech, about the area in red. House Divided Speech -- ever hear of it?  This is what it was about. Kansas Act. Dred Scott decision. This is exactly what Lincoln was talking about.

Stupidly, people today assume Lincoln was over stating the case -- that the goal of the South was to spread slavery in the entire US. No, he was not at all overstating the case.

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


And Lincoln was exactly right -because of Kansas Act, which Atchison got passed, and Dred Scott Decision, which justified what Atchison was doing, the "machinery"  was in motion.

Yes, the Dred Scott decision about -- the specific language -- was geared to justify what Atchison was doing. No, you history teacher does not know that. 

Atchison was "protecting slavery"-- per the court order in Dred Scott. Did you even know about the order in Dred Scott? I show it to you below.  Davis boasted of it.  You never heard of any order of the court to "protect" slavery, did you?

Blame your history teacher, it's as basic as it gets.Nothing -- nothing -- is as important as the Dred Scott decision which ordered the federal government protect, literally protect, slavery.

Davis was as clear as he could be -- Dred Scott ordered the government to protect slavery THEREFORE -- go read book -- everything that happened in Kansas was justified. It did not matter that Kansas citizens rejected slavery, which they did.

Think the spread of slavery into all the the West -- by force -- was not an issue?  Then you don't know much about US history from 1800 -1861.   When you learn what Southern leaders boasted of -- and what they did -- you won't be so stupid about that. 

Dred Scott decision was trying to do, by decree of the court, what Atchison had so far failed to, with bullets, lynchings, and torture. 

People who knew them, believed them, including their supporters.


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

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

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

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

3)  Lincoln gets into politics because of Kansas Act

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

4)  Atchison brags he is killing to spread slavery.

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

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

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


 Reading is Fundamental.

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

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


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

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

 Southern leaders made it crystal clear what that trouble was -- Kansas citizen not only rejected slavery, they kept publishing anti slavery newspapers, against the laws Atchison personally passed.

   Not only did Atchison arrest or kill such people, he had the support of Jefferson Davis and President Pierce.   Even if your "history teacher"  tells you about "Trouble in Kansas"  they leave this out. But Atchison and Davis were quite proud of it.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

Davis was quite proud of it.

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


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

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

must be "accepted as final"

This was from his OWN DAMN BOOK about it.

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

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

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

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


While before Kansas Act, Atchison and others claimed their sole purpose was the "noble principle"   of "local control of local institutions"   and "popular soverignty.

Indeed, on line Stephen A Douglas  used repeatedly -- Kansas Act would "make people perfectly free to decide for themselves" (except blacks, of course).

But as Lincoln and many others pointed out -- exactly the opposite was the case, as event proved.   This is why it's so important to know, as Senator, David Atchison got Kansas Act passed.  Then he immediately left the Senate, goes to Kansas, and starts his reign of terror, including killing, hanging, drowning, and torture. Yes, his men tortured abolitionist, trying to scare them all out of Kansas.

It almost worked.


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

In a way, Davis was RIGHT.  The court did -- really -- order that blacks not be seen as persons.   This was not a suggestion or comment (ober dicta, they call comments)  The court ORDER was that blacks not be seen as persons.

And the Court ORDER was that slavery be protected.

Davis was proud of that. He pointed it out. So he was right.

He almost certainly had Taney use that language -- though no one knows for sure.  But the specific language in Dred Scott was almost a key that fit exactly into a lock, that would close any legal possibility of people in Kansas rejecting slavery.

It did not matter what the people of Kansas wanted, 95% vote or not.   That's what Dred Scott decision did, and Davis was P R O U D of that.

 We show you the decision.  The court ORDERED blacks to be seen as property, not persons, and ordered also, that the federal goverment (Pierce and Davis were the federal government, of the military) to protect slavery.

Not kinda of. Not by implication. Not by suggestion. Im telling you-- thats IN THE GOD DAMN DECISION.  And you had no clue. So it did  not matter at all what Kansas folks wanted.

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

THIS is how Davis explained it, in his book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are just not taught that he was right. 

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone tell Foner. That guy is some kind of stupid.

Though Jeff Davis was very clear -- though the Supreme Court was very clear -- slavery was now a protected right, because blacks were not persons -- Foner inexplicably is so fucking stupid, he actually calls Dred Scott a " a rather narrow decision about citizenship"
Narrow? Ordered blacks to be seen as not human beings.

Narrow?  Ordered the Federal government to protect slaery in Kansas, even though 95% of the whites there would reject slavery.

Narrow ruling?    Though Davis and the South boasted this was their justification for violent spread of slavery, as "protecting property".



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

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



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


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

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

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

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try to grasp the stupidity of what you hear from "historians" and teachers. Cotton gin my ass. State's rights my ass.  This was about power, prestige, and slave women -- that's what slave masters and slave politicians were about -- power, prestige, and women.

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

When Atchison was killing to spread slavery, when the Southern leaders were writing the war ultimatums, they didn't mention cotton, or gins. 


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

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

No one would  help.  Kansas was on it's own.   Atchison had created the laws -- he was backed by Jefferson Davis, and President Pierce. This is very basic, and it was a war.  It was not kind of a war, it was not sort of a war.  It was a war -- when Lincoln said Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision were the South's way of spreading slavery to all of US, he was NOT fucking kidding, and he was NOT fucking wrong.

People today think Lincoln had to be exaggerating in House Divided speech.  Hell no he wasn't. 

Southern leaders were bragging about their goal -- their War Ultimatums were front page news in Richmond.  They bragged about stuff, you never hear in any US text book.

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




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

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

You can then no longer pretend this crap about "States Rights"  by Southern leaders. Jeff Davis himself made it clear, state's rights did not -- not -- not -- apply to slavery, because of Dred Scott decision.  See below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on the text book companies.

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

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



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

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

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





S  P  R  E  A  D

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



"Trouble in Kansas"

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

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

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


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

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


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

He did not mumble.  He boasted of it.

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



Bet you didn't know that.

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

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

Try to grasp that.

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

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

Why are they  in Kansas killing ?

Atchison brags of it-- so does his newspaper.

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

He BOASTS about that, too.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Remember that. 

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

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

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

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

Atchison's killings  made everything clear -- no middle ground any more. 


Southern War Ultimatum s-- headlines in Richmond papers, bragging of it.  They demanded exactly what Atchison was killing for, in Kansas. The spread of slavery there. 

 The first two war ultimatums ?  Kansas must accept and respect slavery -- even though they had already become a free state, by 95% vote.

Why the hell is this not taught?  Southern leaders were boasting of it!  They were not ashamed.  Instead we teach this  in euphamism and double speak, as "Trouble in Kansas".



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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

Read the Lincoln Douglas debates!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This is why LIncoln got back into politics.  

Did anyone even tell you that?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quit a bit to "forget to mention".

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

We only know what we are told.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




You heard of of Charles Sumner, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind of a big deal. 

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not cotton.

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

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

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

Not a word about cotton gin.

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

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

Historians my ass.   Bullshitters is more like it. 

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


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

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



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

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

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

Did your  history teacher tell you that? Hell no.  

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

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

Why is this not taught?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln was not the only one to point that out.

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


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

Did you know that? Hell no.

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

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

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

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

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


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



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


Atchison worked for Jeff Davis -- officially.

Jeff Davis paid Atichson and his men -- officially.

Your "history" teacher has no clue. 

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

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



Not one word about "tariffs" 

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

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

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

But not once can I find Atchison even mention tariffs.

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

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

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

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

Why?  Because they are not told.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Robert Toombs brought crowds to their feet screaming that stopping the spread of slavery would doom the white race. Another speech no US text books shows.  That's right, if we can not spread slavery, the white race will be exterminated.   The governor of Florida said the white race was doom to "burn slowly to death" just cause Lincoln was against the spread of slavery. 

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


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

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

Why is that not important?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

That's another story for lter.

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

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

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

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

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

Who would know better what Douglas was up to? 


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

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

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

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




Orwellian double speak existed before Orwell.

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

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

 David Rice Atchison, made it impossible to vote against slavery, in Kansas. I don't mean he made it difficult, I mean, he made it fucking impossible for five years.

Try to grasp that.   

Why?  Any action by the people of Kansas to reject slavery, had to be approved by the US Supreme Court and the President, according to Atchison.

You could vote FOR slavery all you wanted. 

And the US Surpreme Court did not approve. Blacks were not human beings (really) but property, the court ruled (see below) therefore the people of Kansas could not vote against slavery, could not keep slavery out.

As LIncoln and others pointed out -- the Court had just mandated the spread of slavery, by that logic.   There was no way for anyoone to stop slavery., The people could not stop it by vote, the legislature could not stop it, according to the Surpeme Court, and  Congress could not stop slavery.

1200 miles-- the hard way

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

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

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

Also, publishing newspapers against slavery was also outlawed.

This may sound bizare to you - outlawing newspapers?  

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


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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

From Jefferson Davis:

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

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

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


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

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

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

Lincoln forced Douglas to switch.

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

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

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

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

 He was talking about David Rice Atchison, US Senator.



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

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

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

Charles Sumner, for example, was one such man. 

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Can't read it?

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

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

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

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


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


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



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



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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Lincoln's speech about Kansas Act -- excerpt

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


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

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

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

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

How the hell do you miss that?

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

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

And he works for Jefferson Davis.

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

McPherson blabs vaguely about Atchison "threats".   WTF?

Seriously WTF?

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

WTF McPHerson?   

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

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

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

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