Officially paid by Jeff Davis.
Sent reports on progress of killings -- to Davis.
Supported in public -- by Davis

 Who killed who -- and why, leading up to the Civil War.

Did you know about the US Senator, the same Senator who passed the Kansas Act, who boasted he was killing,  boasted he was leading the  "war" to spread slavery "for the entire South"  in 1856?

Did you know this Senator was the same Senator who passed Kansas Act, telling folks they passed it so the people of Kansas would be "perfectly free"  to decide "domestic institutions(slavery) themselves?

Yet this Senator, officially working for, paid by, and reporting to Jefferson Davis, went to Kansas immediately after passing the Kansas Act, with hired men, to invade Kansas, to terrorize, then kill, to spread slavery.

And he boasted about it. 

You never read it in any any US text book.  None of the major "historians" ever mentioned it.



Atchison's full speech here 



You should know all this, but you don't.

You can't know. It's not in any -- any -- US text book.  North or South. High school or college, at least not in a clear way.

Instead, you will find nonsense about "Trouble in Kansas"  that mentions Atchison's "supporters" who "supported slavery".

Jefferson Davis, officially, sends a US Senator to KS in 1856, and that Senator is the one who got Kansas Act passed. See below.

You will not learn Atchison paid the men, or that he worked for and reported to Jeff Davis. You will not learn he passed Kansas Act -- and you will not learn he and others boasted of the killings.

You will not learn Atchison issued (see below) his own proud War Ultimatums, in 1856, during his first invasion of Kansas, as all Southern leadersship would do in 1861,  per Richmond newspapers, boasting about it at the time.

The War Ultimatums?  In 1856 and 1861, were nearly identical -- we demand the spread of slavery into Kansas and the West.  Atchison 1000 men could not get the job done in 1856, so he promised to get 5000 men and just "kill them all"  as you will see.



Nor will you learn that Charles Sumner, US Senator from Massachusetts, was himself beaten on the floor of the US Senate.


Do you know who Sumner was talking about?  
He was talking -- for hours -- about what David Rice Atchison was doing in Kansas. Hour, after hour, after hour, detail, after detail, after detail, Sumner was talking about David Rice Atchison and his paid killers. 

That Senator, in Kansas, not only terrorized and had  his men kill citizens of Kansas, he boasted he was killing, he boasted he would continue to kill until slavery was spread to all of the West -- including into states that were already free states.

And there is much much more -- Atchison boasts who pays the men,  and  Atchison sent reports to Davis on the progress of the killings.

That's right, Atchison (the Senator who passed the Kansas Act) sends reports to Davis, about the progress of the killings. 

Davis himself boasts of spreading slavery - by force of arms -- into the North.  See below, documents from his OWN papers.

Southern War Ultimatums- - issued in 1856, then again 1861 -- were about one thing - the spread of slavery.  Five out of five of the war ultimatums, boasted about in Richmond papers in 1861, were about the spread of slavery into states that were already free states.

And it's not just the speeches and documents boasting of killing to spread slavery, or justifying killing to spread slavery.  More than anything, it's the actual killing and torturing to spread slavery.

And not some nuts -- not a few drunks at the far end of a bar, blubbering. These are the very top leaders -- Davis, Atchison, Toombs, Stephens, the Davis cabinet, the Richmond newspapers. 

They were not coy, or timid. They boasted of killing. They were not parsing words at this time. They were killing and terrorizing.  


If you think "history teachers"  know this -- they do not.    How could they know -- it's not in college text books either, in any clear way.

Oh -- text books do mention, in a watered down way, the "troubles".   But no text book shows in any candid way, what Southern leaders did, or bragged about at the time.


As Lincoln and many others said -- always always used violence. Specifically, and the huge current issue of Lincoln's life- - Southern leaders killing sprees in Kansas, and how they used Kansas Act to set up the killing sprees there.

 But most history teachers could not find Lincoln's letters about the violent nature of Southern leaders, the killing sprees in Kansas, if their life depended on it.

Nor do history teachers know that Lincoln went to Kansas -- after the Southern leaders made it illegal, a crime punishable by torture - to speak against slavery, and there Lincoln spoke against slavery.

See --you only know what you are told.  I get my information from primarily SOUTHERN leaders themselves. Southern books, Southern speeches, Southern documents, Southern newspapers, at the time. 


Every US text book should have Atchison's speech, Davis's boasting of invading the North in installing slavery there, and a dozen other documents.   But they don't.

Tell your "history teacher"  that Jeff Davis boasted of spreading slavery North, and they will look at you like you are out of your mind.

But Southern leaders -- Davis, Atchison, Stephens, Toombs, Stringfellow - were themselves violent men or apologist for violence. 

We will continue to lynch, and hang, tar and feather and drown, every white-livered abolitionist who dares pollute out soil.

In fact, Atchison and Stringfellow created a "bogus legislature"   as it's now euphamistically called, which actually not only made it illegal to tell a black person there were free by the law at the time-- but made the death penalty for doing such things.

They also made it illegal to publish anything against slavery.

Atchison and Stringfellows raids into Lawrence, for example, were to enforce the laws against publishing an anti slavery newspaper.

See Atchison's full speech here TEXT VERSION


Atchison also promised to keep killing until slavery was spread into all the West. This obsession to spread slavery was the obsession of only a few men -- Davis chief among them.   But Davis and Atchison were able to hire enough other men, and get Stephen A Douglas to push through Kansas Act, to very nearly push slavery into the rest of the US.

Slavery -  dressed up today by dumbasses as "not that bad"  was based entirely on violence.  Try to escape, we will torture you. Fight back using force, we will burn you to death, hang you, and likely torture you in front of the other slaves, first.

Yet you have history teachers telling students that slaves "were part of the family"  and that the owners of the slaves "worked in the field with the slaves, side by side".

As George Mason said of men like Lee and Davis, born in an age where entire races of other men were seen as inferior beings, created men who were "of poisoned mind" -- in today's jargon, sociopaths and psychopaths.

They might dress up in fluffy blouses at times, but they were as vile as any men in history, was Mason's point.

Maybe he knew?

You probably never heard what Southern leaders boasted of -- loud and proud, repeatedly, in context, until they lost.

But the ISIS like boasting of killing, the threats, the beatings, the drownings --all that is taught to day, if at all, as if it were a few nuts and not typical of Southern leaders way of operating.

For example, Atchison and others killings, tortures, promises for endless killings -- etc etc -- is taught in the bullshit " Trouble in Kansas" crap.   And most teachers not only don't know that Atchison passed Kansas Act, then raced out to Kansas to terrorize, and was paid by Jeff Davis to do so, officially, they don't want to know.

They tell their students such shit as "Oh, there was plenty of blame to go around out there".   Idiots.  They need to learn what the fuck  happened -- who killed who, and why.  And what they boasted of.


and many others....

 We will tell you about the Senator, and how he worked officially for Jefferson Davis, reported progress of his killing sprees to Davis, and damn near got Kansas as a slave state, by violence,  never mind that 95% of white citizens in Kansas rejected slavery.

David Rice Atchison came as close as humanly possible to terrorizing and killing enough white citizens of Kansas, and making them a "slave state"  even though 95% of white citizens in Kansas rejected slavery already, and would eventually defeat Atchison and his men, and be admitted as a free state, before Lincoln took office.


States Rights?  You may have heard -- Southern leaders cared about state's rights!

Uh - not so much.   Not for slavery, as Jefferson Davis himself explained.   The people of Kansas, the legislature of Kansas, the Congress of the US, could not keep slavery out of Kansas.  That's what Davis wrote himself.  See below. 

Even after --that's right after -- Kansas voted 95% against slavery, and even after Kansas became a free state, Davis himself demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas -- specifically Kansas.

In fact, the Five Southern War Ultimatums, issued after -- that's right after"  Kansas became a free state by overwhelming vote, were all about one thing -- the SPREAD of slavery.

Not one word in Southern Ultimatums about "tariffs".   Not one word about "states rights".   Not one word about taxes.

But a lot of words about spread of slavery into KANSAS.

So no, there were no state's rights, per Southern leaders, after Dred Scott decision. 

Southern leaders hatred of state's rights to reject slavery. 

You never heard this, till now.
The South was proud as hell about it, then. 

David Rice Atchison's amazing speech should be in every US text book, and on the door of every US history teacher.  It's that basic.

Atchison's speech is more important than any speech made by Lincoln --  because in his speech, Atchison makes it clear, loud, and proud, they are killing to spread slavery, and they will continue to kill, until slavery is spread (and spread against states rights)  into Kansas and all of the West.

No.  You don't know.   But guess who did know about Southern leaders boasting of war, killing and torturing, and passing the Kansas Act to force slavery to all of the US?  

David Rice Atchison knew -- so did Jefferson Davis,.  Senator Atchison, the business and political partner of Stephen A Douglas, and childhood friend of Jefferson Davis, was working officially for Jeff Davis at the time.


In their own publications.   Not "gotcha" speeches, but repeated, in context boasting of killing to spread slavery, and boasting of killing to stop folks from even speaking against slavery.

Let me repeat that -- boasting of killing to spread slavery.  Not by a few nuts, but by Southern leaders, including the US Senator who got Kansas Act passed. 

Not sorta, not kinda, not "in a fucking way".   

And it was common knowledge, then. In fact, Southern leaders boasted of it -- justified the killing and torturing, even boasted of it,  all justified by the bible and by the Dred Scott decision.


This is from Jeff Davis own book.  He wrote it.  He was very clear, Dred Scott changed everything -- because the Dred Scott decision ordered the federal government to protect slavery, even in areas that rejected slavery.


Davis was correct, the Dred Scott decision did in fact order that the federal government protect, yes protect slavery, and did in the same sentence, order, yes order, that blacks can not be seen as human beings (as people) but must be seen as property.



A few "little words" in the  Dred Scott decision.

Those "few words" are exactly the words Davis himself spoke of, and wrote about, claiming correctly they made all the difference.

Davis -- and the South -- based their justification for killing on these words.   Dred Scott did indeed, as Davis claimed, order the federal government to see blacks not as persons but as property only.

Jeff Davis -- in his own damn book -- made it clear, Dred Scott decision changed everything.  This is a screen capture from Jeff Davis own book.  Please -- no more idiots email me, to say Jeff Davis never said this.  He wrote it, in his own damn book.

Blacks are not "people".

Not people.

And on that basis -- as Davis  himself said -- no citizen, no legislature, no Congress -- no one - could keep slavery out.

Kansas citizens voted repeatedly -- overwhelmingly -- to keep slavery out. That did not matter.

Congress had precluded slavery in that territory, and granted Kansas state hood as a free state.  That did not matter.

Davis send Atchison to KS - and as Atchison boasted of -- he was not in Kansas to talk. He was there to kill and silence opposition to slavery.  And to spread slavery all the way to the Pacific. 

Why not report, what Atchison boasted of did?

Why not report what Davis boasted of and did?

That is how Jeff Davis and all of the South justified sending the killers to KS, in 1856, even though the Dred Scott decision did not come out till 1857, a little time like that never stopped Davis.  He justified sending Atchison to Kansas, by the Dred Scott decision, never mind that no one heard of the Dred Scott decision at the time, it was not even made yet.

To Davis mind -- and his actions everything Atchison did was "constitutionally required"   because of DRED SCOTT order that blacks are not human beings, and slavery must be protected.  Kansas or not, people's votes against slavery or not,  that all did not matter, once Dred Scott ruled.

Protecting slavery meant shutting down any opposition to slavery, no newspapers, no public speeches against slavery -- it was even against the law set by Atchison with Davis help, to speak to free blacks and tell them they are free. 

The violence  Southern leaders did BOASTFULLY.  They not only killed and terrorized to spread slavery, the boasted of it, out the ass boasting, until they lost.

Oh you heard of this-- in Orwellian double speak, in watered down nonsense, acceptable to Southern crybabies, as "TROUBLE IN KANSAS",  As if trouble just fell from the sky.

Trouble was paid for -- Davis paid the killers Atchison hired.  Trouble was organized -- Davis sent Atchison officially to Kansas as "General of Law And Order".   Trouble was calculated -- Atchison and his men were killing before Dred Scott decision was even decided.

Davis just had no problem retrofitting his justification for the killing sprees in KS, by men hired from Texas and South Carolina, because he had to justify it somehow.  And that worked for him. 

Find out what Lincoln actually faced -- not the watered down shit approved by Southern liars and cowards on Southern school boards.


Think the US Civil War started in 1861? 

Not really, because Southern leaders had already declared war, already bragged about killing and torturing, and already sent paid killers to spread slavery into Kansas and beyond.

They -- the Southern leaders -- boasted it was war.  They killed and tortured, and boasted about that, too.  They also demanded the spread of slavery into states that were already free states -- yes, they did. 

1861 was when the USA started to fight back against these fuckers -- including Jefferson Davis, US Senator David Rice Atchison, and Vice President Robert Toombs.

Any history teacher, any book, any lecture,  any movie, any documentary that implies the US Civil War started in 1861 is nearly worthless, including the otherwise fine work by Ken Burns, in "Civil War" film.



The Southern leaders who were killing, and boasting of killing, should know what they were doing. They were not shy, not timid,  not cute about it. There were killing "for the entire south"  and they would keep killing until slavery was spread all the way to the Pacific, into states that were already free states.

Jeff Davis did that even better, saying he looked forward to the day when, by "force of arms"  he could spread slavery to all the North, and said so in emphatic terms.  He made the declaration, he said "so there will be no confusion in the future".

Slavery must be spread -- and they were killing to spread it.  And they boasted of it.  

This was widely known at the time, but whitewashed by Southern cry babies and liars who succesfully prevented US text books from telling you the ISIS like insanity of Southern leaders, their tortures, their killings, and their boasting of both.  Their promises of endless killing and tortures, their hatred of state's rights.

Just part of his amazing speech.... 

see full speech below.

The biggest con job in US text book history, is how SOuthern crybabies kept the ISIS like killings, tortures, and war ultimatums, out of our text books, since US text books began.

Like Lee's torture of slave girls. 


Did you know that Southern leaders were already at war -- and called it a war to spread slavery -- 1854 on?   Oh, no one told you?

They did not admit they started killing, and were already  at war to spread slavery "for the entire South,"  they bragged out the ass about it. 

And not some nut -- the top US Senator boasted of it. Bragged about it.  The Senator was David Rice Atchison.

Atchison worked for- - was paid by -- Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War.  Atchison took out ads in Texas and South Carolina newspapers, shown below, to hire men to kill. He admitted that's what they were going to do, kill.



Atchison burned his papers, during the civil war, when it became clear the South would lose.   But a few remained elsewhere, like on of his reports to his boss, Jefferson Davis.

Here, he boasts of the progress of killings, and predicts a quick success in Kansas.   Remember, Atchison is the guy who got Kansas Act passed. A US Senator, who pushes Kansas Act through (supposedly to "give people the right to vote")  then rushes to Kansas and starts killing and terrorizing, to STOP not just voting against slavery, but to stop anyone from speaking or writing against slavery.

Atchison demanded the spread of slavery into the area in red. It's important to understand, the same violence and subterfuge, like the war against Mexico, was how slavery territory and states spread to begin with. Slavery was always -- always -- spread by violence.   Those who spoke, preached, or wrote against slavery were punished, including torture, and killed or pushed out of the area.
Unless you know that, you don't know US history.  Most stupid "history" teachers assume whites were allowed to vote and speak against slavery. Oh fuck no.  Slavery did not last where it could be preached against, spoken against, and voted against.   The South learned that, and from 1820's on, enacted laws against speech, including religious speech, that was anti slavery. Very basic, and you never hear of that in US text books.

Very basic. Atchison demanded the spread of slavery into the area in red, even though California, Oregon, were free states, and Kansas was a free territory.,  Atchison was loud and proud, we will continue to kill and torture to spread slavery to that entire area.

It's time your idiot "history teacher"  knew these basics.

The area in white was the land slave power had ALREADY used violence and killing to push slavery there.

If you think slave power EVER, EVER, EVER allowed a vote on slavery you don't know history.

Atchison, in fact, rushed to Kansas to PREVENT a vote on slavery, as you will see. 

The "crybaby" South has never allowed anything like this -- which Southern leaders boasted of at the time -- into text books.  This was common knowledge at the time.  Southern leaders boasted of things then, you never heard anything about now. 

Atchison's speech to his Texas men, just before their invasion of Lawrence Kansas, is below.  He made it clear to them, they were at war, and made them promise to kill.

 Senator David Atchison, the day after he got Kansas Act passed, personally went to Kansas, and there started his violent efforts to kill enough people in Kansas so that, as he himself said, slavery would spread not just into Kansas, but in the rest of the US -- all the way to the Pacific Ocean.

His speech should be in every US text book 

Lincoln got back into politics BECAUSE of David Rice Atchison.

And your stupid "history" teacher does not know, though if they read this, they will pretend they did know.  That's how  history teachers are.


WHY?   Why did Atchison get Kansas Act passed, then go to Kansas and start  his killing sprees?

Why hire Texas killers to come to Kansas?

Because Kansas citizens were against slavery. And 90% of them would vote against slavery.  Atchison tried very hard to kill enough people -- and he said so -- that not only would Kansas citizens not vote against slavery, they would not even speak badly about slavery in newspapers.


SHORT VERSION..   When Kansas rejected slavery in early 1850's, Southern leaders lost their Goddamned minds. The untold story of Southern leaders bragging about killing to spread slavery, 1856 on.


Long before Lincoln was famous -- five years before the US Civil War - Southern leaders already issued War Ultimatums.

They did not just talk. They killed. They tortured. And they bragged they were killing. They bragged they were torturing.  

Not a few nut jobs. The TOP Southern leader in the US Senate, at the time, was David Rice Atchison, of Missouri.  A business partner of Stephen A Douglas,  he got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas immediately, went to Kansas and started his violent assault on the citizens of Kansas.


The South would issue War Ultimatums later, too, that the state of Kansas, by then a STATE, must accept and respect slavery.

That's below, too.  But Atchison issued more amazing War Ultimatums in 1856,  by then he was Jeff Davis's official "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.

Remember that, because your "history teacher" sure as hell does not know that a US Senator, who got Kansas Act passed, then immediately went to Kansas, worked for Jeff Davis,  and hired over 1000 men to invade and try to control, Kansas.

None of this is in dispute. Atchison not only boasted of it, but his fellow Senator, Charles Sumner, spoke about it for two days straight, on the floor of the Senate.   That is the speech after which Charles Sumner was beaten, almost to death.

The beating of Charles Sumner was such a big deal, even your history teacher heard about it, and will insist he or she knows all about it.  As usual, ask them a question, and you see, they know very very little.  

The question you should ask -- "What was Charles Sumner speaking about, when he was beaten nearly to death on the Senate floor".

The answer is -- Sumner was speaking about David Rice Atchison and his paid killers in Kansas, detailing what they did, in detail, after detail, after detail.

Charles Sumner was beaten for speaking -- at length, in detail -- about Davis Rice Atchison and his killing sprees.  But those spreed got much much worse, after Atchison was beaten. Atchison led the group of paid killers (paid by Jeff Davis) into Kansas, a few days after Sumner was beaten.  

Sumner was detailing the killings BEFORE the men arrived that Davis paid for.  Remember that.



The Ultimatums?  Spread slavery against the will of the people not just in Kansas, but all the way to the Pacific Ocean, including California and Oregon, already free states.  Later, Jeff Davis, in his own clever lanaguage, would substantiate this, writing in his own book that the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas was "the intolerable grievance".

Remember-- Kansas voted 90% against slavery, and became a free state, and even then South issued war ultimatums that Kansas must accept and protect slavery.  EVEN AFTER Kansas became a free state, they made these WAR UTLTIMATUMS.

Still buy this shit about South caring about states rights?  FUCK NO.  That was never true. It was a slogan some ass wipes used, and got repeated. Got repeated by idiots so often, it's become a perpetual myth.  Southern leaders cared about spreading slavery and power.  


FROM 1820

That's right. Southern LEADERS issued War Ultimatums not just in 1861, but from 1854.

We teach the euphemisms of "Compromise of 1820" and the "Compromise" of 1850.   Fucking bullshit. As Lincoln said -- what compromise?    Every time, every single time, Southern leaders used violence to spread slavery, then used violence to sustain slavery, then demanded the spread of slavery again.

And again.

The difference in 1860?   Everyone knew  Kansas and California and Oregon were already free states,   But now, Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas.  And their leaders, like Atchison, like Davis, were boasting of spreading slavery North and South.

You never heard that, did you?  Never heard of Davis boasting of spreading slavery "by force of arms" into the North, as well as the West. REmember, slavery never spread anywhere by peaceful means.   And Kansas -- Southern efforts to kill enough in Kansas to push slavery there -- was the blue print they always used.

And you never heard of ANY Southern War ULtimatum, though Southern leaders were quite fucking proud of them, at the time.

See the speech by Senator Atchison in it's entirety, below. 


But it was much more than speech. This was the attitude, laid bare. This was to his hired men, not a group of children. Not a white washed bit of double talk.  

Atchison did Jeff Davis bidding in Kansas, with his full official support.  Atchison bragged about that, too.

That Atchison  passed Kansas Act was not in dispute -- he boasted of it. That he immediately went to KS and started his killing and terrorizing -- also  not in dispute, because he boasted of it.

That Atchison worked officially for Jefferson Davis, was paid by Jefferson Davis, and his 1000 Texas men also paid by Jefferson Davis, in 1854, is also not in dispute.

Davis confirmed Atchison was doing the will of the South, and claimed his actions were "Constitutionally Required.

The third invasion of Lawrence Kansas - all three invasions done by order of David Rice Atchison.

Atchison was the leader of the first two -- he openly advertised in newspapers for them, told them it was about killing, told them to be ready to kill.

Atchison brags he hates the US flag -- and only rides under the rebel flag, that is red in color, he explained, for the blood they will spill, to spread slavery.

He was paid by -- and his men were paid by -- Jefferson Davis.  


Atchison's  words and actions got all the stars in the sky moving, re Civil War.

If there was one particular person who   got Civil War going, in was David Rice Atchison.

He got Kansas Act passed.  He went personally to Kansas and started killing and terrorizing there. His men killed John Brown's son.   His supporters in Congress beat US Senator Charles Sumner on Senate floor 

Atchison got John Brown moving. John Brown was the first guy to push back against the thugs -- and was hung for his trouble. 

Atchison pulled Lincoln back into politics.

Atchison was Jeff Davis "tough guy" who did not just stay in Washington, but actually went places, actually hired killers, actually put the thugs together to do the dirty work.

Maybe more than anything, Atchison got Jeff Davis excited about killing to spread slavery. Davis already had talkers and bullshiters, but Atchison was a drunk, a thug, a bully, who would DO the deeds, or at least, hire men and be on the ground when the kilings and terrorizing started.

BTW The Dred Scott decision was written -- probably by Jeff Davis -- in order to justify Atchison's killing sprees and acts of terror.  Before Dred Scott, Atchison was just a thug killing people.  Jeff Davis claimed Dred Scott decision justified everything that happened in Kansas -- meaning, Atchison's killing sprees and terrorizing.


Atchison also brags he will continue killing until slavery is spread to the Pacific Ocean.

He wasn't  kidding.   He bragged he started the war -- he called it war -- to spread slavery in 1856.  Then he did exactly that.

  He worked officially for Jefferson Davis.

   HE was not some nut on his own. 

Atchison was officially Jeff Davis's "General of Law and Order in Kansas".    He was also Stephen A Douglas business partner.  Atchison, according to many sources at the time, forced Douglas to push Kansas Act through Congress, under a threat of taking away Douglas's very powerful position as Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas. 


Shame on every "history teacher" who does not know this. You can not get more basic than this.

Lincoln got back into politics BECAUSE of Atchison.

John Brown went to Kansas BECAUSE of Atchison.

Jeff Davis sent 1000 men to Kansas BECAUSE of Atchison.

Kansas Act got passed, BECAUSE of Atchison.

Southern War Ultimatums came directly from ATCHISON's Actions.

Dred Scott decision came about to justify what Atchison was already doing in Kansas.




Full speech below.


Atchison's speech should be in every history text book, in the United States.  It is as important as Lincoln's House divided speech, in fact, Lincoln gave the House Divided Speech BECAUSE OF David Rice Atchison.

The confederate flag -- Atchison boasted to his Texas men in 1856 -- was red in color because of the blood they would spill to spread slavery.  

Who killed who -- and why -- is real history.  Everything else is bullshit.   Nothing proves this more than the US Civil War.

Get who killed who, and why, right first. Then add all the bullshit you want.   What "historians" have done re US Civil War, is first add the bullshit, and never did get to the basics -- first or later -- of who killed who, and why.


Next time someone claims  the Confederate flag had  nothing to do with slavery, s
how Senator David Rice Atchison speech, he bragged out the ass it was red for the blood they would spill to spread slavery. 

That's the first mention of the "Southern flag"  - by the way.   Atchison was officially paid by Jeff Davis, as Secretary of War.

Jefferson Davis officially supported him, and said so. 





No one was surprised Atchison was in Kansas, nor that he was killing to spread slavery, and working for Jeff Davis.

Newspapers, North and South, reported it.

Atchison got Kansas Act passed -- he boasted of that, and other Senators said yes, Atchison was the guy who actually got Kansas Act passed, with his friend and business partner, Stephen A Douglas. (Douglas claimed  he wrote it all, Atchison bragged he made sure Douglas put in specific language).

Those who knew Atchison, at the time, said Atchison was up to exactly this -- he passed Kansas Act, so that his violence in Kansas would have meaning. Before Kansas Act, slavery was restricted to certain geographic lines.  Kanas was outside those lines.


Atchison's bragging made it clear -- he was going to spread slavery not just into Kansas Territory, but all the way to the Pacific -- the land outlighted in red, above.

First, Atchison said we MUST get Kansas territory.  Then, we will get the rest, all the way to Pacific Ocean.



This was not news to anyone alive -- and paying attention  -- in the 1850s.  

Nor should it be news to your history teacher.  It does not get any more basic,

No one talked about anything more -- virtually every newspaper, North and South, every speech, every vote, on any office, was about spread of slavery, one way or another. 

To say it was the center of national attention and focus, is a gross understatement.  The justification -- the killings, the war ultimatums,  Kansas Act fraud, the whole thing, engulfed every election, every newspaper, ever day.

Southern newspapers of course cheered it, claiming they had "every right" to expand slavery, even against the will of the people in Kansas.    They dropped that "state's rights"  excuse when Kansas rejected slavery, something your "history teacher" is clueless about.

You might be surprised the spread of slavery, including Atchison's killing sprees and the War Ultimatums/ Kansas Act/ Dred Scott decision were the biggest news of 1853 to 1861.  That's not your fault.

It's your teachers fault.


We all heard in school about of the "compromises of 1820 and 1850.  But as 

Compromise my ass.   What you did not hear, is that there was no compromise.  About as much compromise as a robbery at a 7-11.

Lincoln once said -- what compromises? 

Bet you are never told that -- not ever. Not told about Southern War Ultimatums, not told that "COMPROMISES"  was a euphemism for "WE DOUBLE SLAVERY TERRITORY OR WE SHOOT YOUR ASS.

Southern leaders- - BY VIOLENCE -- had killed enough to spread slavery  in all of the South, all the way to Pacific, under a certain line.

But now -- after they got all that "compromises"  they wanted even more.  

No one told you that. 

Southern leaders demanded spread of slavery again, and again and again. No one dared fight them for it. Slavery was "down South"  and then all along the South, but who wanted to face these guys? 

As Lincoln pointed out in 1846 -- slave power had created a war against Mexico, to double the size of slave territory. 

In 1854 -- they demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas and the entire west (YES  the entire west, as you will see).


Southern war ultimatums -- Kansas Act and Dred Scott -- was the South's stupid and violent "all in" move.   Lincoln pointed this out, in his House Divided Speech.  He was not kidding.

Now, slavery was not going to be just "down South".   Now, by the perverse logic of Dred Scott, and the crap from Kansas Act, slavery could not be stopped.

Slavery was now a terminal, metastasizing cancer.  It had to go, or the USA would go. One or the other.
Did anyone ever explain that to you? Lincoln did, in his own gentle way, in House Divided.

And this time - the people of Kansas were against slavery.   Because of the telegraph, no one was fooled by Southern bullshit.  Killings, tortures, terrorizing -if it happened on Friday, by Monday folks in New York, Chicago, Springfield, St. Louis knew it.

And no longer could the very bold and brutal slave power folks control the communication.  This is a woefully underlooked aspect of US history -- how information about killings to spread slavery, became common knowledge, because of the telegraph.

 Anyway,  no one there was surprised by Southern War Ultimatums

 So no one was surprised when Southern War Ultimatums, of 1861, were specific and proud -- Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery, never mind the white male voters there rejected it, and KS citizens fought back against Atchison and his Texas men.

The South had spread slavery into the area bordered by white, by "virtue: of violence already -- namely war against Mexico, where US slave owners pushed for war to  double size of slavery.  The fact you have never seen a map that shows what Atchison demanded, is a reflection of how meekly your history books show what SOuthern leaders were bragging about, at the time.

Atchison demanded the spread of slavery into the area in RED border.   Try to grasp that.  You can not understand Lincoln, or the Civil War, unless you know what Southern leaders demanded, who they killed, and what they boasted of.

ALmost none of that is shown is US text books, in a candid way.

Yeah, I know -- your history teacher didn't tell you.  Your history teachers doesn't know much, unless he knows about who killed who, and why.

Because of the explosion in availability of Southern speeches, Southern documents, Southern books,  we now know more than the bullshitters could or bothered to know before.

David Rice Atchison's speeches, reports to Jeff Davis, and his role in passing Kansas Nebraska Act, is just the tip of the iceberg.


Lincoln was well aware what Atchison was doing, and what the killings in Kansas meant.  Read his letter to Speed, which I will post soon.

It was no secret.  Stephen A Douglas, Atchison's  business partner, and the other Senator that got Kansas Act passed  was hung in effigy,for his initial support of Atchison.  Douglas quickly flipped on Atchison, at least in public. 

Behind the scenes, and in clever double speak, Douglas supported Atchison, by actively preventing Kansas citizens from getting their all important paperwork to Congress and the President, so Kansas could become a free state,


Because Kansas citizens did not let Atchison's terror work -- they continue to publish anti slavery newspapers, and continued process to become a free state by a 95% vote -- Southern leaders came up with Plan B.

Dred Scott. As Lincoln pointed out -- and Jefferson Davis boasted of -- because of Dred Scott decision, there was no way to stop slavery in Kansas, no matter what the people there said, voted, and no  matter how the fought back against Atchison. In fact, Douglas and Jefferson Davis supported Atchisons actions.   Douglas doing a political balancing act.

Atchison should know -- He was one of the leaders doing it. ANd he bragged, as Davis would later brag, how forcing slavery into Kansas by Kansas Act and Dred Scott gave all power to slave owners.  They and they alone would decide where slavery went,

Atchison knew what he was doing, when he passed Kansas Act, because he quickly left DC and rushed to KS to begin his violence there.

Atchison was refreshing, in a way -- he would give the most amazing speeches, to anyone that would listen.   Most Southern leaders spoke in double speak or euphamism -- not Atchison,

Kansas killing and terrorizing, and bragging about it.   So what if Bruce Catton claims abolitionists cause the Civil War. Seriously, Catton was dumb about David Rice Atchison, and Jeff Davis machinations and killing sprees, in Kansas.

Yeah, yeah, we all heard that booooshit about Southern leaders "deep concern" for state's rights.

Uh -- not so much. They got rid of the "state's rights" excuse, when Kansas white males dared to vote against slavery, and speak against slavery.

See Atchison's full speech below.

It was common knowledge then.  Did you know who Charles Sumner was talking about - by name -- for hours, on Senate floor, when he was beaten almost to death?

He was talking about David Rice Atchison.




Atchison  boasted he would kill, exterminate, hang, to spread slavery not just into Kansas, and beyond.   

He worked for -- and officially for -- Jefferson Davis.  What the fuck was the "Secretary of War" (Davis was Secretary of War then)  doing sending US Senators to Kansas to kill and lead killers into Kansas to spread slavery?

Not kinda, not sorta, not in a way. And Atchison boasted it was war

"It will soon be over"

Atchison boasted to his men that Kansas citizens were cowards -- a quick show of force, against heavily armed men, led by Atchison,  who would kill a few folks, torture a few others, terrorize a few more, the Kansas citizens will wilt away.

At first, Atchison was right, Kansas citizens ran from the thugs Atchison hired.     But they started to fight back.     Atchison wrote his boss, Jefferson Davis,  that he had everything under control, it would soon be over.

Uh -- not so much. 


Remember -- this was the US Senator that got Kansas Act passed,

This is the guy that made Lincoln get back into politics.

This is the guy Sumner was talking about for HOURS.

Shame on every "historian"  including Bruce Catton, McPherson, and every other stupid bastard for not mentioning this guy -- at least in a clear way.

Everyone knew who Atchison was then --  Lincoln got back into politics because of Atchison and Stephen Douglas passing Kansas Act.

Remember, Charles Sumner's speech was ABOUT Davis Rice Atchison.   Atchison is the guy that got Kansas act passed, and bragged he got it passed.

Almost no one knows who he was, now.

No one ever gave such a candid, powerful and proud explaination of what Southern leaders demanded.

To show you how "historians" have missed David Rice Atchison, go ask your history teacher, any college history teacher, whatever.   Ask if they know about Senator Charles Sumner's speech --- the one he was beaten for.

Of course, of course, we know that very well, they will say, smug as  hell.

Ask them who Sumner was talking about - by name, as the guy who passed Kansas Act, then went to KS to kill, torture, and terrorize, to stop free speech, and stop folks from voting, or even speaking, against slavery.

Sumner also made it clear-- to the Senators listening to his speech -- that Atchison was doing the bidding of Jefferson Davis, with the help of Stephen A Douglas.

Events and documents proved Sumner correct.



Atchison made it clear, in his own speech, what everyone knew already.  He was there "for the entire South"   and for "Southern rights" to have slavery all the way to the Pacific Ocean, state's rights or no.

And -- Atchison himself called it war.  He was proud of that. In effect, South had a five year head start, in the Civil War,  at least in Kansas. 

In fact, if you read his full speech, Atchison boasted the flag he rode under was red -- red for the blood he would spill to spread slavery.  And the words on the flag?  "SOUTHERN RIGHTS".

What was he talking about?  He was talking about their "right" to force slavery into Kansas, and beyond.

And he wasn't fucking kidding. 

According to Jeff Davis, the Confederate leaders, and David Rice Atchison, states rights did NOT apply to Kansas, even after Kansas became a state.  Did you know that?

Davis had a certain "logic" -- see his logic below, re Dred Scott case. 




Kind of a big deal -- and you never heard of those, either.

Headlines in Richmond paper -- "THE TRUE ISSUE"   -- was the spread of slavery into Kansas.

Exactly what Atchison had been doing and saying for years already, so no one was surprised.  Do you know Southern War Ultimatums of 1861?

That may shock you now, but it shocked  no one then.  This is what was going on for five years, already. 

The Confederate Constitution, in effect, directed the same thing - salvery SHALL go into the territories. (Kansas was already a state by then, but the Confederacy  did not recognize Kansas state hood). 

New York papers actually reprinted the Five ULtimatums -- and suggested Lincoln obey them.


Atchison played "boldly" -- meaning bloody.  He first hired Missouri men, then when there werent enough Missouri men,  he hired from Texas and South Carolina. 

If he could have hired more men, he might have got the job done.  

Davis also appointed the governor of Kansas Territory, and the marshals.  He had help from Stephen A Douglas, who was Chairman of House and Senate Committe on Kansas, all the time Atchison was in Kansas.


See his full speech below...

Atchison was not just some drunk -  he was  the US Senator that got Kansas Act passed (see below). He works officially for Jefferson Davis as "General of Law and Order of Kansas Territories"   He reported to Jeff 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.


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 people in Kansas blamed for what happened.   Douglas denied it, but events and Douglas comments later in life, confirm it was so*.

Atchison in fact, bragged he worked for Jeff Davis, and bragged the men would be paid by "the present authorities,"  plus they could have all they stole from the houses they would attack!   Really -- read Atchison's speech.

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


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 publically pretending to be for popular soverieghnty, actually kept in language in Kansas Act that prevented it -- the very language proslavery folks in Kansas used, to deny people's right to reject slavery there.

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.    The guy who got Kansas Act passed -- personally went to Kansas and made it impossible to vote against 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 usally 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 torure.  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.


Do you know who Charles Sumner was speaking about -- for hours on end -- in the speech he was beaten almost to death for, on the Senate floor?

Don't feel bad -- your "history" teacher doesn't know either, though they will swear they read that speech.

Atchison was talking about Davis Rice Atchison, by name for hours on end.  Sumner and Atchison knew each other very well, they were in Senate together, served on committees together. 

Sumner warned the Senate and Congress NOT to pass Kansas-Nebraska Act, because it was a ruse to spread slavery  into Kansas, even though most people in Kansas did not want slavery.

Atchison's actions -- going to Kansas and doing his proud reign of terror there -- proved Sumner's warnings were exactly correct.  And Sumner reminded the listeners of that, in his speech.


Charles Sumner was beaten after exposing David Rice Atchison -- by name, hour after hour, detailing his killings, tortures, and terror in Kansas.


After that speech, Atchison's Texas men increased the violence 100 fold.

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 Douglas to switch, at least on the surface.

Behind the scenes Douglas still helped Atchison's killing sprees and Davis.  Douglas is one of the most vile creatures in US politics, the books about this has not yet been written, but showe by.

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.

 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.

He never was able to get 5,000 men. Apparently, the most he could hire was about 800, and that was not enough.  He almost got the job done, however.


According to the famous "Crimes Against Kansas" speech, by Charles Sumner,  Atchison personally  got Kansas Act passed, went to Kansas, to make damn sure the people of Kansas could not possibly vote against slavery.

Atchison did not disagree, at all. Atchison boasted, when he got to Kansas, that he did, just as Sumner indicated, get Kansas Act passed.  And he did boast of killing to spread slavery.

Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.  Not "well that's one way of looking at it."   

This is what Atchison did -- and he boasted of it. He did all but rent billboard space to explain to his Texas men, what he was doing, and why.

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.  





Gentlemen, Officers & Soldiers! - (Yells) This is the most glorious day of my life! 

This is the day I am a border ruffian! (Yells.) The U.S. Marshall has just given you his orders and has kindly invited me to address you.

For this invitation, coming from no less than U.S. authority, I thank him most sincerely, and now allow me, in true border-ruffian style, to extend to you the right hand of fellowship. (Cheers.)
 Men of the South, I greet you as border-ruffian brothers. (Repeated yells & waving of hats.) 
Though I have seen more years than most of you, I am yet young in the same glorious cause that has made you leave your homes in the South. Boys I am one of your number today (Yells.) and today you have a glorious duty to perform, today you will earn laurels that will ever show you to have been true sons of the noble South!
 (Cheers.) You have endured many hardships, have suffered many privations on your trips, but for this you will be more than compensated by the work laid out by the Marshal, - and what you know is to be done as the programme of the day.
 Now Boys, let your work be well done! (Cheers.) 
Faint not as you approach the city of Lawrence, but remember 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! -
Draw your revolver and bowie knives,  cool them in the heart's blood of all those damed dogs, that dare defend that d--d breathing hole of hell. (Yells.) 
Tear down their boasted Free State Hotel, and if those Hellish lying free-soilers have left no port holes in it, with your unerring cannon make some, Yes, riddle it till it shall fall to the ground. Throw into  the Kanzas their printing presses; let's see if any more free speeches will be issued from them!
 Boys, do the Marshall's full bidding!
 Do the sheriff's entire command! - (Yells.) for today Mr. Jones is not only Sheriff, but deputy Marshall, so that whatever he commands will be right, and under the authority of the administration of the U.S.! 
And for it you will be amply paid as U.S. troops, besides having an opportunity of benefiting your wardrobes from the private dwellings of those infernal nigger-stealers. (Cheers.) 
Courage for a few hours; the victory is ours, falter and all is lost! 
 Are you determined? Will every one of you swear to bathe your steel in the black blood of some of those black sons of bitches---- (cries, yells of yes, yes.) 
Yes, I know you wil,  the South has always proved itself ready for honorable fight; you, who are noble sons of noble sires, I know you will never fail, but will burn, sack and destroy, until every vestige of these Norther Abolitionists is wiped out.
 Men of the South and Missouri, I am Proud of this day! I have received office and honor before; - I have occupied the vice-presidents place in the greatest republic the light of God's sun ever shone upon; - but, ruffian brothers, (yells.) that glory, that honor was nothing, it was an Empty bsubble, compared with the solid grandeur and magnificent glory of this momentous occasion!
 Here, on this beautiful prairie-bluff, with naught but the canopy of heaven for my covering, with my splendid Arabian charger for my seat, to whose well tried fleetness I may yet have to depend for my life, unless this days work shall annihilate from our western world these hellish Emigrant Aid paupers, whose bellies are filled with beggars food, & whose houses are stored with "Beecher's Rifles  (Yells prolonged.)
 I say, here, with the cool breeze of the morning blowing fresh around my head, with the U.S. Marshall at my left, - completely surrounded by my younger brothers, (terrible enthusiasm.) each supporting a U.S. rifle, and on the manly countenance of each, plainly seen, his high and fixed determination to carry our to the letter the loft and glorious resolves that have brought him here
- the resolves of the entire South, and of the present Administration, that is, to carry the war into the heart of the country, (cheers.) never to slacken or stop until every spark of free-state, free-speech, free-niggers, or free in any shape is quenched out of Kansaz!

 (Long shouting and cheering.) And what is also pleasing beyond my powers of description, is the fact that, having above me, - as I speak the honest sentiments of my heart and the sentiments of the administration and  the blessed pro-slavery party throughout this great nation, - is the only flag we recognize, and the only one under whose folds we will march into Lawrence, the only one under which these d--d Abolishionist prisoners were arrested - who are now outside yonder tent endeavoring to hear me, which I care not a d--n if they do! (Cheers.) 

Yes, these G--d d--d sons of d--d puritan stock will learn their fate, and they may go home and tell their cowardly friends what I say! - I care not for them! - I defy and  d--n 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 say under all these circumstances I am now enjoying the proudest moments of my life, - but I will detain you no longer. (Cries of go on, go on.)

No boys! - I can not stay your spirit of patriotism, I cannot even stay my own; - our precious time is wasting. - No hasten to work, - follow your worthy and immediate leader, Col. Stringfellow!

(Yells.) he will lead you on to a glorious victory,  I will be threre to support all your acts assist as best I may in all your acts, assist completing the overthrow of that hellish party, in crushing out the last sign of damn abolitionism in the territory of Kanzas. - (Three times Yells for Atchison.)


This was not a surprising speech -- other Southern leaders said much the same thing.

Southern newspapers had for years called out for the arrest and hanging of folks in the North who even spoke against slavery -- IN THE NORTH.

It was illegal for anyone in the South to speak publically, preach publically, or even own a book, against slavery.

Very basic part of US history -- and no one told you.

No one. No one every told you that even preachers could be-- and were -- arrested just for owning the wrong book.

This was how slavery got so tenacious in the South -- it was against the law to speak or write or preach against it.

No one thought to tell you -- ever. I sure never heard that preachers were arrested and tortured for owning the wrong book.

Nor did I know, till I was about 60, that people in the South demanded  that the NORTHERN states also arrest people who published newspapers against slavery.

Who the fuck KNEW THAT?   But it's in SOuthern newspapers at the time.   

So when Atchison made it -- declared it -- illegal to speak or publish newspapers against slavery in Kansas, hell, that was normal stuff for slave states.   

That governmental control of speech - even religious speech -- is why slavery could not be challenged in the South.   Why the hell is that not taught in your schools?  Because most "historians" spend too much time reading each other's bullshit books, and not enough time reading Southern newspapers and documents, that brag about such things.

Other  Southern documents, including official documents,  pointed out that slavery was "of God" and condemned the North for "radical religious error". 


Remember this, when your "history" teachers tries to paint Kansas settlers as the problem, as if there were a lot of pro slavery farmers in Kansas,  and those mean old abolitionist caused problems.

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

And there were almost no slaves in Kansas, and even fewer slave owners, in Kansas.   The killers were imported, and paid.  Remember that. 

You didn't know that either. Shame on US text books for not making these most basic facts known, instead repeating the false narrative that "anti slavery zealots" just "would not compromise".

Shelby Foote, in his usual disingenious old grampa schtick, acted like it was just a "shame" America didn't "compromise"  because "compromise was our genius, but we didn't do that"  with Kansas.

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

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

 Keep in mind, this was five years BEFORE the Civil War.   
It seems unreal, right, no way. NO WAY.  You would have heard of this, right?

Well you should have. The speech itself wasn't known then, but the killings and terror he caused were known, well known. 

In fact, you probably didn't know anyone killed to spread slavery, much less that a US Senator did,  and that he bragged about it.

The US Senator worked for Jefferson Davis -- officially -  as "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.

Your history text book probably left that out too.  Nor have heard Jefferson Davis claimed killing to spread slavery was justified, because the US Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not human beings, but property.

Not only were blacks not human beings - they could not be "acknowledged" as persons.   See this from Jefferson Davis own book

From Jeff Davis Book
"Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government"
page 84

Jefferson Davis claims blacks are "so inferior" they are not human beings, and can not be considered persons, by order of the Supreme Court. 

According to Atchison,  bragging about it, he started the Civil War in 1856.

Jefferson Davis insisted it did not matter what the people of Kansas wanted - Dred Scott had rendered that moot, by finding blacks were not human beings, not persons, for purpose of the law

If you think the Civil War was complicated,  it was not complicated to the men who boasted from 1854, that they were at war to spread slavery.   Excuses are complicated -- reasons, not so much

Davis excuse, for example, that slaves are "the most contented laborers on earth"  and have "a natural affection" for their master, is bullshit.  

This is Jefferson Davis -- claiming he was motivated to push slavery into Kansas ( and beyond)  because slaves have "an attachment" to the master.  Elsehwere Davis claimed slaves are "the most contented laborers on earth"  with a "natural affection" for the slave master.  Only the "evil serpent"  whispering the "lie of freedom"  makes them disatisfied".  

Atchison called it WAR.



Bullshit sounds smart -- and historians love to sound smart.   As the book "On Bullshit"  by  Frankfurt  essentially said, people love to sound smart by spewing bullshit.  That's what they really care about when writing a book, or whatever, they want to sound smart.  The desire to sound smart is more important -- yes it is - that the desire to get history right.  

History is no exception to that rule, and historians are just as guilty of it, as anyone, if not more so.   Bullshit increases in direct proportion the opportunity to use it, to impress others.  

And that was BEFORE Atchison got the Texas men.   Sumner's speech covered the two year period before Atchison was able to hire the Texas men.   Things grew much, much more violent, when the Texas men got there. 

or two years already, Atchison was in Kansas, terrorizing to spread slavery.    But Charles Sumner -- and hundreds of newspapers -- already exposed what Atchison was doing.  

The "logic" Davis used -- in his own book, and speeches -- was well known then.  Blacks are not human beings (not persons) but property.   This was "established"  by the Taney court in Dred Scott decision.

Davis was exactly right -- the Supreme Court said exactly that, in their ruling.    The Constitution recognizes slaves as property -- NOT PERSONS.   

Furthermore, the court "pledges"  the federal government to protect it - it, being slavery.

There is much more.   The story of Southern leaders violent killing sprees, their Orwellian excuses for doing so, has not been told -- not in US history books, and it's one that should be told.

It was common knowledge at the time, and it was the reason Lincoln got back into politics.


Why have "historians" not mentioned Davis logic to spread slavery?   I never found it, till I read his own book, and his wife's book, where they were both proud of it.

That's right, such amazing things in the South's own books, by their own leaders, at the time.

Even more amazing things in their letters, and newspapers, where they boast of killing to spread slavery. They boast of using terror.  They boast that they killed and will keep killing.

No, not some "bad" historian making things up later, I'm talking about what Southern leaders -- THEMSELVES -- at the time, boasted of.

 In a recent book about Davis, "historian" McPherson "forgot" to mention many of these excuses.  

 Yet they are in Jeff Davis own speeches, even his own book. 

Robert E Lee did not have slave girls whipped (yes he had slave girls whipped), because he thought God ordained slaves to feel painful discipline, though he used that as an excuse. Yes, in a letter to his wife, about whipping slaves (see "Reading the Man, by Elizabeth Pryor)  Lee defended "discipline"  which was torture, by his excuse that God ordained that.  God "knew and intended slaves feel painful discipline.... pain is necessary for their instruction."

Luckily -- enough of those Southern leaders  in power, bragged out the ass about who the killed and why, and who they worked for.   Their own speeches, their own books, their own documents, and above all, their own actions, show they were killing and terrorizing for the very reasons they claimed -- to spread slavery.

 Southern leaders, at the time BRAGGED their goals were.  These were not drunks, they were top Southern leaders. They were not caught in some "gotcha" moment, this was their clear, loud, and repeated boasts, at the time.

That is, until they lost. It is factually true, accurate, and not sophist at all, to say Southern leaders boasted out the ass of things at the time, that they would not dare whisper later, nor would their apologist whisper it.

If you don't know about these men, you probably know bullshit.   Get who killed who, and why, right. You wont be so gullible about the the Civil War.

Then men who started the fight, who bragged about starting the killing, who bragged about why they killed, knew what the hell they were talking about.    You should know them.  




Atchison and his "legislature" made it a crime  to speak against slavery.  Did you know that or not?

Very basic.  Hardly anyone knows today, and certainly this basic feature of the struggle in KS was about Kansas citizens being able to speak and vote against slavery.

Something Atchison made against the law.  Why is that not spoken of, it was a major issue then.  

You think you know the history of slavery in USA?  Not unless you know who killed who, and why.

Great excitement ? 

- they heard about a guy who was suspected of being against slavery.

They chased him.  They found him.  They tried to get him to sign a card that he was pro slavery.

He refused.

They arrested him. They tortured him.  They told him to leave the state,

And they bragged of it.  In their own papers, they bragged of it.

Later, they found him. He had not left, as they told him to.

They killed him

That was  not a group of thugs -- try to grasp that. That was Davis Rice Atchison and his men, acting officially.

They were being paid. P A I D. Who paid them?   See Atchison's speech. Jeff Davis paid them.   

It would also help if you know which politician controlled Kansas -- in congress. A guy named Stephen A Douglas was chairman of house and senate committee on Kansas.

On reason Lincoln tried to defeat Douglas in 1858, was to get his ass off of that commitee, where he was doing a world of damage to folks in Kansas, never mind what Douglas told people in public.

And by the way, Atchison boasted, and it was reported at the time he boasted (1854)  that he got Kansas act passed, and that  he wrote the languge.    Douglas was trying to take the "credit"  and Atchison, by then in Kansas, didn't like that.  In a drunken speech - which you can still see in papers from that time,  Atchison bragged he got it passed.

The folks who got Kansas Act passed -- try to grasp this, if you think you know history -  bragged they got it passed as a ruse, and LIncoln said as much.  

The leader?  David Rice Atchison.  His boss?  Jefferson Davis.  His other boss?  Stephen A Douglas.

Furthermore, Atchison's men were paid, they were not from Kansas, they moved to Kansas to help Atchison.    He ran out of Missouri men, and had to hire Texas and South Carolina men.

What where they hired to do?  To kill and terrorize, to spread salvery.

They were bragging about this -- get this through your head. 



Atchison Kansas raids, were to arrest or kill those who spoke -- just spoke -- against slavery. 

That was the purpose of his raid -- and he said so.   To shut down the Free State Hotel, and the newspaper they printed there.

Your history teacher will claim they know all about Sumner's speech. Bullshit.  If they knew Sumner's speech, they would teach about Atchison's killing sprees and that Atchison is the guy that got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas, and started terrorizing out there, according to Sumner.   


Atchison's actions (getting Kansas Nebraska bill passed) got Lincoln back into politics.  

Atchison's killing sprees in Kansas got the attention of the entire country, though the South approved of the killings as "our rights in the territories".

The untold story  is that only a few farmers out in Kansas Territory fought  back - at first.  Atchison,  however, demanded too much.

He demanded people not speak -- that's right -- not speak against slavery.  

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



It almost worked.    Atchison's quick invasion into Kansas, his use of violence and terror, almost got Kansas into Union as a slave state.


In speeches, Douglas pretended to be for popular sovereignty
but behind the scenes, Douglas helped Atchison, and covered for him.

 Douglas actively prevented official papers from Kansas to be submitted to Congress that would have proved Kansas citizens were against slavery overwhelmingly.

Stupidly, most "history" teachers claim Douglas was a champion of popular sovereignty, because he said so.  He spouted that in speeches.    But behind the scenes, a different story.  

That's too complicated for "historians" who honestly, are mostly too stupid to even wonder what did Douglas DO?   We know what  he said -- though he said all kinds of things, he was firmly on all sides of every issue, sorta like Newt Gingrich today.

The point is, without Douglas duplicity, Aitchison and Davis could not have started their killing sprees. They could not have passed Kansas Nebraska, they could not have used military at first to stop free speech in KS, then hired the Texas killers Atchison is talking about. 

Douglas knew all that, was part of all that.  


"Douglas, Davis, and Atchison worked together on Kansas. 

 The fourth son of a bitch, was Roger Taney. "


Why get Texas men?  You nor your history teacher even knew Atchison had killers in Kansas, so you could not know where he got them.

He got them from Texas.
Why?  Why get the killers from Texas?

Because almost no one local would kill to spread slavery.  There were not even enough men to do the killing in Missouri, right next door.

There were few citizens in Kansas who cared much about spreading slavery at all, much less to kill to spread slavery.

Gov Perry, from Florida, would make it very clear -- officially clear.  The SPREAD of slavery was the issue, not keeping slavery where it was.   That was not a worry to the South.

But not being able to spread slavery -- he specifically and formally announced -- was "like burning us to death slowly"

That may surprise you now -- but it surprised no one then, this was common knowledge.  


Slave owners and southern leaders sometimes gave bullshit speeches about "state's rights" -- yes.    That sounded better.  They were not about to say "We get more power, prestige, wealth, and slave women, if we spread slavery".   


The NORTH didn't start fighting back, till 1861, because frankly, most people in the North didn't give a shit about slaves,  and were not about to stand up the hot headed violent slave power folks. 

Jeff Davis wisely tried to avoid overtly attacking the US -  he would have prefered to bluff his way through, and almost did.  Bluffing and show of violence worked before.

   Davis even claimed no blood would be spilled below the Mason Dixon line -- he had already planned a military coup of Washington DC, if Lincoln showed up, but that was thwarted by General Scott, who suspected as much. 

 Even Lincoln tried to pacify Southern war ultimatums. He did not reject it out of hand. He refused to meet Alexander Stephens, who carried the ultimatums with him.  New York papers suggested Lincoln obey the Southern Ultimatums -- meaning, let South force slavery into Kansas, even after Kansas was in the United States as a free state.

  But the South was stupid -- Lincoln could not possibly do that, if he wanted.  The South, in its bravado and competition among the men to be more macho, had demanded something Lincoln could  not allow -- because Kansas was now officially a state.  It was a stupid move to demand the spread of slavery into Kansas, after Kansas became a US state.  But thats exactly what SOuthern leaders did -- even if your "history" teacher doesn't know that. 





States rights?  As you will see, Southern leaders, including Jeff Davis, hated states rights when Kansas rejected slavery, and sent killers to KS to force slavery into Kansas, and bragged about it, then.

 Yeah, yeah, you probably heard Jeff Davis was a big "state's rights" man. Bullshit.  Not about the SPREAD of slavery, he wasn't.  Details matter.

As you will see, when it came to the SPREAD of slavery, Davis did a complete 180 degree turn, and made up bullshit nonsense to explain why state's rights and popular sovereignty didn't apply to slavery.

 The excuse he used to force the spread of slavery was ---- Dred Scott decision.  

Yet Dred Scott decision came after -- after -- after -- the killing sprees. Davis rushed to get the Dred Scott decision in place, but that took two years.   He and Atchison were paying the Texas men to kill, that whole time.  And they promised to get 5000 more men, on top of the 1700, and just "kill them all" as Atchison said.

Not just Kansas, but the rest of the western US, if  possible. California had rejected slavery too, just like Kansas did.  




In fact, of all the amazing things in Atchison's speech, two things stand out. 1) He called it a war the "entire South" wanted, to spread slavery,.

And 2) He bragged he killed not just to spread slavery, but to silence opposition to slavery.

You didn't know that either.
  I know PhDs who claim they are "historians" who had no idea that Dred Scott decision specifically declared blacks are not persons, and that the same sentence ordered the federal government protect slavery, based on that logic of blacks being non - persons.

Yet Lincoln shouted out the injustice and horror of this decision -- because it said blacks were NOT PERSONS.  



Remember, Atchison hired 1700 men, bragged about the killings, worked for Jeff Davis, all these guys were paid. Atchison got Kansas Act passed, organized killing sprees, bragged that Kansas citizens were cowards, etc etc.

But read how WC Davis put it, in one of his boooshit books.  About as mild as you can write this "events quickly got out of hand"

Out of hand? No, dumb ass. As Atchison made very very clear, this was the plan -- to rid Kansas of anyone against slavery. He boasted of that, repeatedly, for years.  IN his letter to Davis, he boasted of it, in his speech to his Texas men, he boasted of out.

Out of hand?  God, these Southern apologists really are pieces of shit, and have no shame. 

The way WC plays it -- "Atchison supported pro-slavery group" .  

Atchison is killing abolitionist, terrorizing, arresting, promising to spread slavery allthe way to the Pacific, brags about it before hand, brags about it later, and to WC Davis, he explains "it quickly got out of hand".

 Like all Southern apologist, WC Davis is not going to tell you who killed who, and why.


What's the Secretary of War doing sending men to Kill in Kansas?

Notice, no biographer of Jeff Davis -- not one -- even mention his role in sending Atchison to Kansas, much less the killing sprees with 1700 men, nor Atchison  bragging about it. I've looked through a dozen biographies of Davis - they just avoid that topic or mischaracterize it.

 Gee, I wonder why?



Lying bastard, stupid, or hiding?



To hear guys like Kenneth Davis tell it, Jeff  Davis just cared soooo much for state's rights.

There are over 300 books about Davis,  over 100 biographies.   One Davis "expert" is Kenneth Davis, author of "Don't know much about  history" Kenneth Davis, in his narrative of what caused the Civil War, blames those bad old "extremist"  and make you think those damn Kansas radicals "would not compromise". 

He never --ever (nor do any other Jeff Davis apologist) even mention the army Davis paid for to kill and terrorize in Kansas. Not one word!

Do you think Kenneth Davis doesn't know about Atchison, and how Davis named him General of Law and Order?   Think guys like K Davis has no clue Atchison and Stephen A Douglas got the Kansas Nebraska Bill passed, then Atchison went to Kansas, worked for Davis, and started these killing sprees?

  You may not know what Charles Sumner said in his famous "Crimes Against Kansas" Speech - but Davis, and every other "Davis expert" does.

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

We arent picking on K Davis  --all Davis apologist  do basically the same thing. Of COURSE they know Davis demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, Davis was proud of it!  Davis  wrote about his demands to spread slavery in his own book. Do you think they did not read Jeff Davis own book?

Atchison and Stephen A Douglas got the "Kansas -Nebraska" bill passed in the US Senate, then Atchison rushed to Kansas to kill people who voted against, or spoke against, slavery.  This is a fundamental course of action -- not an event. 

First, Davis tried to use US troops, he was Secretary of War.  But those troops would only do so much, they would not invade cities,  like Atchison would, or use terror, like Atchison bragged of.




To justify the killings and terror in Kansas, Jefferson Davis claimed Atchison was doing what was "constitutionally required" - because of Dred Scott decision.

According to Davis, it did not matter what the vote in Kansas was against slavery -- the Supreme Court had ruled, slavery was protected, because slaves were property, not persons.

The "DAVIS LOGIC"  was the "Dred Scott decision, which claimed blacks were not human beings -- not persons.

 Atchison promised to kill all these people -- and many more.

He called them "abolitionist dogs"  and said he would wipe them from the face of the earth.

He didn't kill them all -- here some  of the "dogs"  -- survivors -- reunited 50 years later.

Shame on your history book for not telling you who killed who, and why.    150 years of bullshit is enough. 


  Jefferson Davis boasted of it -- blacks are NOT persons.   Stephen A Douglas boasted of it --the Supreme Court officially ruled blacks were not persons.

Atchison boasted of it.  Stephen A Douglas boasted of it.

You would think something all three men boasted about, as a major reason slavery should go into Kansas, would be important enough to mention.

What Southern leaders bragged of, you don't even know about, because our text books don't show it this way.


This was the basis -- the very basis, the very thing Davis said was the basis, that made it a crime for Kansas to reject slavery.     Did you know -- yes or no that Davis emphatically and clearly explained his "logic" to force slavery into Kansas?

Blacks are SO inferior, they were not human beings, and therefore, Kansas must protect slavery as they must protect any property.

 1) Southern leaders killed to spread slavery 
 2) Southern leaders bragged the logic to spread slavery, was that blacks are not human beings.

Even though this was well known then, even though Lincoln himself referred to the South's intention of spreading slavery by any means -- your history teacher does seem to make a big deal of that. WTF?

Turns out, everything Sumner predicted, happened.  Opening up Kansas was a ruse -- Atchison had no intention of letting Kansas vote against slavery.  


 The killings were not a one day, or one week, or even one year event, they were a process that lasted for years, up to, and all through, the US Civil War.


He can't tell you Jeff Davis hired Atchison, sent him to Kansas to kill and terrorize, as early as 1854.   He can't tell you about Jeff Davis insistence that blacks are not human beings but "so inferior" they are ordained by God to be enslaved.

Surely he would tell you if he knew, right? He would not keep that basic truth about Kansas Nebraska Act a secret? 

That the guy who bragged about passing KS act, a US Senator, then went to Kansas and started killing to spread slavery. 

Nor did McPherson ever -- not once -- tell folks of the relationship between Davis and Atchison and Douglas. The most important relationship of the 1850s.. 

Bruce Catton had the same problem. 

"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