Five years before the US Civil War,  years before Lincoln even ran for Senate -- Southern leaders were bragging  they were killing to spread slavery, and would keep killing to spread slavery.

Survivors of first attack hold reunion 45 years later. It was  no secret -- quite the reverse.  For five years leading to US Civil War, this was the big story -- Southern leaders demanding the spread of slavery into Kansas.

Some of the "dogs" Atchison couldn't kill that day
 -- they ran away.
  They held a reunion in 1890s. 

Atchison: "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.) " 

In case you didn't know -- Southern newspapers in Richmond ran the headlines "THE TRUE ISSUE" in May of 1861,  bragging about their ultimatums.

War ultimatums -- 

Their five war ultimatums, remember, this is in their own papers, in headlines, boasting -- were for the spread of slavery into Kansas.

And no one -- absolutely no one -- was surprised.  You may be surprised, because this violent sustained and crazy effort for force  slavery down the throats of people in Kansas and beyond, is not taught clearly in schools.

Again, and again, Atchison led his men into  Lawrence Kansas to kill and terrorize -- he was proud of it.


Their "crime" in Lawrence?  Atchison attacked Lawrence on "official business".   He had made it against the law to publish anti -slavery newspaper, but "the damn dogs" as Atchison called them, allowed that newspaper to continue.

Atchison was there -- as he says -- to kill anyone who resists or defends the newspaper, and blow up or destroy the hotel where the paper equipment was.

 Where was Jeff Davis -- he was supporting Atchison. 

Atchison was officially Jeff Davis "General of Law and Order" in Kansas.   Everything Atchison did -- he did with knowledge and approval of Davis.   Davis would later say that everything Atchison did in Kansas was "Constitutionally required".    See why, below. (Hint, it rhymes with Dred Scott decision). 

AND....he brags they ride under the red flag, to denote the blood they will spill 







Kansas citizens would later get a fair vote on slavery -- and rejected it by 95%.  They were then admitted into the Union as free state in 1861 buy President Buchannan.

So when Atchison was trying to force the spread of slavery into Kansas, he knew very well, the overwhelming % of citizen there were against slavery.

In fact, Atchison had virtually no support in Kansas -- he had to hire men, first in Missouri, later from Texas, as you will see. 

Stupidly, and without any reason whatsoever, many people today think there was large -- at least sizable -- portion of Kansas citizens who wanted slavery. Hell no.  And everyone knew it.

Atchison never pretended otherwise.

Sound like " State's Rights"  to you?   Even after Kansas became a free state --- as you will see below -- Southern leaders War Ultimatums of 1861 still demanded Kansas "accept and respect slavery".

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



This was not some nut -- he was the US Senator that got the Kansas Act passed -- we show newspapers at the time, printed his speech to that effect, plus, Charles Sumner, in the speech he was beaten almost to death for, revealed Atchison is the guy who got Kansas Act passed, with his business partner, Stephen A Douglas.

His full speech is below, and is not in dispute that  he spoke those words.  He said other things exactly like it, other times, and so did his newspaper and other members of his entourage.  

They were quite proud of it, as you will see.


Not many "history" teachers even mention Atchison, though he was the most important person of the 1850's according to his biographer.   The same person who passes Kansas Act in Senate, then leaves DC quickly -- shows up in Kansas, and begins  his violence there.  Atchison set up a "bogus" legislature, consisted of his paid men, and immediately made it illegal to publish newspapers against slavery.

Charles Sumner spoke of that too -- and typical of Atchison, outlandish and bold -- he boasted of that.  Atchison did not admit things, he bragged about them.

In Kansas Atchison worked -- officially and openly -- for Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War.   Atchison hired Missouri men for his first killing sprees -- then when he could not get enough Missouri men, he hired Texas men.

Jeff Davis -- still Secretary of War - paid those men, too.



Yes, this should all be common knowledge NOW -- it sure as hell was common knowledge THEN. 

Click here for his speech to his Texas men, who he just met.  They are about to invade Lawrence Kansas. He tells them why, who pays them, and about the flag -- and much more. 




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You heard of of Charles Sumner, right?

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

SO -- Atchison's killings and bragging about killing to spread slavery, bragging about killing to silence anyone who spoke or wrote against slavery,  was no secret.    

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



No one told you this, either.

Atchison would make it against the law to publish anti-slavery newspaper, or even speak anti slavery speeches.

That was not unsual -- it was common. Every slave state (and Atchison was in Kansas to try to make it a slave state) had laws against speech and publications that even questioned slavery. 

They called these laws "anti incendiary laws"  supposedly to keep slaves from hearing anyone suggest they should be free.

But really, it was to punish -- by whipping -- anyone who dared speak against slavery, including preachers.  Preachers could be, and were, arrested and subjected to torture for simply owning a book that suggested slavery was horrible.

Don't believe me?  Here is the story of one preacher arrested when his neighbor told authorities he had an anti-slavery book in his house.   He didn't even preach it, he just had the book.

He was arrested, and found guilty, and was going to be tortured.



 When you hear that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was banned in the South -- hell, even preachers could be and were arrested, just for owning the wrong book.  Preachers could be and were arrested, and subjected to toture (whipping) if they owned the WRONG BOOK.

That is why slavery was so entrenched in the South -- and your history teacher never knew that either.

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

The invasions of Kansas -- specifcially killing sprees into Lawrence -- were to uphold that law against publication of anti slavery newspapers.

Did your  history teacher tell you that? Hell no.  Did James McPherson, Bruce Catton, Eric Foner,  anyone, ever tell you that?  No. 

This was the key to spreading slavery -- violence, and violence to anyone who spoke against slavery. 

Why is this not taught?

Well it is taught, but just watered down in Orwellian double speak.

Atchison reported to Jefferson Davis.

Atchison was not some loner with a bunch of men in Kansas.  He reported officially to Jeff Davis, and Davis paid him, and the men.

We show a letter to Davis below -- though Atchison would later burn all the records  he could, when it became obvious the South was going to lose the War.

By the way -- like Davis -- Atchison ended up being a personal coward, though that's another story....

Atchison did what he said -- he made it a war, by killing, attacking, hanging, bragging about it.

Atchison did not admit it,  he bragged out the ass about it.  And he was not the only one  bragging about killing.  Why are we not told of this by "historians" such as McPherson, Foner, Catton?

Catton may not have known -- much of the original documents, like Atchison speech bragging of killing, and his report to Jeff Davis, were not readily available to Catton.   But McPherson and Foner have no excuse. 

Still, the vast majority of documents and events -- like Southern War Ultimatums, and Sumner's speech that he was beaten almost to death for -- were available.

Did McPherson think Sumner was lying about it?

Were Southern newspapers lying?  Was Jeff Davis lying when he said the intolerable grievance was resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas.

Never mind that Kansas white males voted 95% against slavery -- Davis and Atchison were bound and determined to kill enough to spread slavery there anyway.

Not sorta. Not kinda. This is what went on, and Atchison was P R O U D of it. He did not admit it. he boasted of it.

And he would spread slavery much further than Kansas territories.  

Obviously Sumner was not lying -- Atchison bragged about it, and did the crimes, and bragged about those, too.

Go look through any of McPherson's books. Not once has he made it clear who was killing who in Kansas, and that the guy who got Kansas Act passed was leading the killers, and bragging he was killing to spread slavery.

Not. Once.

In a recent book about Jeff Davis -- again, McPherson writes as if Davis was trying for peace -- Davis was the guy paying Atchison, and authorizing, in fact getting reports from, the killers in Kansas.  

Why not mention that? Ask him.  He has always been afraid to piss off Southern apologist, by saying anything candid about what Jeff Davis did -- very odd.

 Was Lincoln lying about the reason for Kansas Act and Dred Scott?   It was clear as hell, Southern leaders were killing and terrorizing to spread slavery.  You didn't need google to find that for you. 

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

I can't help it if you never heard this -- everyone alive in 1856 in US knew about Atchison and his killings in Kansas.   You don't because it's been glossed over, stupidly, as "Trouble in Kansas"

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

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

Atchison speech should be in every US text book... but it was much more than his speech.  It was dozens of documented events, where he and his men were killing or terrorizing to spread slavery.

NOT just into Kansas -- which is horrible enough. Atchison made it very clear, his goal was to spread slavery to the Pacific, by killing if need be. Atchison told his Texas men (hired by Jeff Davis, then Secretary of War of the United States)  that the happiest day he ever had, was helping them kill to spread slavery.  

Oh -- you didn't know about that? Well, read on, especially his speech.  That stupidity is about to go away. You should have learned about Atchison, his killing sprees, and his speech, every year of high school.

Atchison speech bragging about killing to spread slavery is the most important speech of the 1850's. More important than Lincoln's House Divided Speech, because Lincoln gave his speech, in response to what Atchison, Douglas, and Jeff Davis had done, in Kansas. 
And yes, Stephen A Douglas played key role in getting Atchison to Kansas, then in the back ground, help support him, as Chairman of House and Senate Committee on Kansas.

Specifically, Douglas personally made sure the petitions from Kansas citizens to have a free state never got out of his desk -- and that the fraudulent petitions and reports for Atchison, got to the President.  Douglas would later have to turn on Atchison, because folks in Illinois found out Atchison was doing -- Atchison and Douglas were business partners and both worked to get Kansas Act passed..

Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way. 

Lincoln got back into politics because of David Rice Atchison.
Did you know that? Hell no.

Do you even know who he was?   He was the Senator that got Kansas Act passed -- then went to Kansas and began killing and terrorizing to stop folks from speaking and publishing newspapers against slavery.

In fact-- not sorta, not kinda, not in a way -- Atchison and Jeff Davis made it a crime to speak and publish newspapers against slavery in Kansas.

This may sound like bullshit or sophistry to you -- distortion. Hell no, it's not.   Stupidly it's glossed over now, called euphamistically "Trouble in Kansas".  

It was TORTURE in Kansas.

It was killing in Kansas.

It was David Rice Atchison in Kansas.

Lincoln got back into politics because of Atchison and his partner, Stephen A Douglas, and what they did to kill, terrorize, and try to spread slavery into Kansas, and beyond.

Lincoln was exactly right -- Kansas Act (in other words, Atchison and Douglas) were part of the machinery designed to spread slavery not just to Kansas, where 95% of the people rejected slavery, but to all of the US.

We dismiss that claim by Lincoln now - but he was as right as right can be. And when you learn what Atchison was bragging about, and who he worked for, and Southern War Ultimatums, you wont be so stupid.

No -- McPherson, Foner, Catton, and other "historians" never told you this, at least in a candid way.

Fuck those "historians".  Let David Rice Atchison tell you himself -- he was quite fucking proud of it. 

If you don't know that, you really don't know shit about Lincoln, or the US Civil War.


One of those killing, and bragging about it, was a US Senator, David Rice Atchison. In fact, he was the leader.

Atchison was more important than any US Senator of the time -- but almost no "history teacher" know much about him.

He worked for Jefferson Davis, during  his killing sprees, in Kansas.   He passed the Kansas Act, and bragged about it.   

And - importantly -- David Rice Atchison is the guy Charles Sumner was talking about, in the speech he was beaten almost to death for, on the floor of the US Senate.

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

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


Atchison takes credit for passing Kansas Act.  That was old news to everyone in the Senate -- Charles Sumner spoke about that for hours. 

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

No, this is not sophistry.  Southern leaders bragged about killing to spread slavery.  Not kinda, not sorta, not in a way.

The guy who bragged the loudest was US Senator, then officially Jeff Davis "General of Law and Order in Kansas". 

Lincoln got back into politics because of   what Atchison did.   So yes, what Atchison did is important.  Shame on our history books for barely mentioning this guy.

Preview of Atchison's speech, much more below

He makes them promise they will kill ....

 Atchison was not the only one to demand the spread of slavery as life or death issue -- even though Kansas citizens were overwhelmingly against slavery...

Jefferson Davis himself wrote that the resistance of slavery into Kansas -- even though Kansas rejected slavery overwhelmingly -- was the "intolerable grievance" .

Nor would your "history" teacher have a clue about Southern War Ultimatums, in Richmond papers May 1861, to spread slavery into Kansas.  And for the same reason, this is not in US text books. 

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

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

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

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

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

What do you want him to do, drive to your house and explain it more?

And Southern War Ultimatums, in the Richmond newspaper, was emphatic too. "THE TRUE ISSUE"  was the spread of slavery. They listed that was ULTIMATUM.  And they were not kidding.

Say what you want about SOuthern leaders -- they did not bluff. They were slave owners, they tortured, whipped, they terrorized, and that's how they were raised to deal with issues.  FORCE. 

When they listed Southern war ultimatums, do you think they were kidding?  They were already at war, and said so, anyway.  

Jefferson Davis himself wrote about the spread of slavery --   see for yourself.  Davis hated state's rights, rejected it completely, and rejected popular sovereignty, when Kansas rejected slavery.

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



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

And he worked officially, (remember that, officially) for Jefferson Davis, from 1854-1858, as "General of Law and Order in Kansas" .

He is the guy Senator Charles Sumner spoke of, by name, in the speech Sumner was beaten nearly to death for.

Ironically, Sumner's speech about Atchison came about the same day Atchison gave his own speech to his Texas men, the one we quote from here.  

No one disputes this is his speech -- it's one of a dozen or more pieces of evidence of his bragging about killing and promising more killing.  This particular speech is in Kansas Memory archives, but should be in every US text book.  

This was no drunk at a bar. This was a US Senator, then Jeff Davis named him "General of Law and Order of Kansas Territory".   He was paid by, and officially worked with the approval of, Jefferson Davis.

And he was bragging out the ass he was killing not to just spread slavery-- but to kill those who dared speak against slavery.

See Atchison's full speech below.  You will learn a lot, none of it told to you in Southern edited US text books. 

No -- you never heard this. You should have, it was common knowledge then. The speech by Charles Sumner, the Senator beaten on Senate floor -- was about Atchison and his killers in Kansas.


That's right -- the famous speech, where a US Senator was beaten almost to death?  It's called "Crimes Against Kansas" speech.

It should be called "What David Atchison did to Kansas" speech.

 That speech was about things I am telling you here.  Read that speech if you want.


What happened in Kansas  (Atchison happened)  got Lincoln back into politics -- and is what Lincoln was talking about, in his House Divided Speech.

Atchison got Kansas Act passed -- and boasted of that.   But it was no secret he got it passed, Charles Sumner spoke of that at length. Besides, Atchison was proud of it.  Atchison boasted he got it passed.

Then -- immediately -- Atchison left the Senate, vanished.  He turned up weeks later in KANSAS.  There Atchison hired Missouri men to invade Kansas and set up their own government there.


SO it was  no fucking secret.   It might seem news to you -- it was not news then.  There really has been nothing like it, since.  A US Senator passes legislation, supposedly to give folks in Kansas the right to vote on slavery -- then he personally rushes to Kansas and sets up his own government.  Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.

That's exactly what he did .

And once he became his own government, he got approval from his boss -- Jeff Davis.   Atchison's report to Davis boast about killing and promised it "will soon be over".

The Atchison government (now called bogus legislature)  passed laws making it a crime to speak against slavery.

This would surprise absolutely no one alive in 1855 and 1856, in the US.  But it must sound like sophistry to you, who think there was some extremist "out in Kansas" on both sides,  Seriously, there are professors of history who are so stupid, they have no clue what Atchison did, or that Sumner was talking about Atchison, or that Atchison bragged he was killing to spread slavery, nor that Atchison wrote reports about killing, to his boss, Jeff Davis.

But Lincoln knew it. Charles Sumner knew it. Jefferson Davis knew it. Stephen Douglas knew it. And Atchison bragged out the ass about it.

But Southern cry babies have had defacto control of US text book publishing, and they never allowed this kind of material in any text book.

Though 95% of Kansas Citizens voted to reject slavery, a US  Senator goes to Kansa and kills to spread slavery there.  He worked -- officially  -- for Jefferson Davis.   We show you one of his reports to Davis about killings.


under construction,  another no bullshit Mark Curran history blog.

Atchison speech should be in every US text book.

It's not in any now.   Few people even know who he was.


Atchison worked for Jeff Davis -- officially.

Jeff Davis paid Atichson and his men -- officially.

Your "history" teacher has no clue. 

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

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



Want to see if your history teacher knows his/her ass from a banana?    (On this point, most do not).

Ask them who the US Senator  that Senator Charles Sumner was talking about -- by name -- in the speech Sumner was beaten almost to death for, on the Senator floor?

He was talking about this guy -- David Rice Atchison.  


Atchison had made it -- literally -- illegal to speak or write openly against slavery.  He created his own "legislature" -- got approval from Jefferson Davis for that, then arrested, tortured, killed anyone who got in his way.

It almost worked -- till a guy name John Brown fought back.  Bet you didn't know John Brown scared the shit out of Atchison, who thought no one was crazy enough to fight back.   Brown was crazy enough.

No, your "history"  teacher does not know that, either.


Not one word about "tariffs" 

Funny how Southern leaders themselves "forgot"  about tariff issue when posting their War Ultimatums.

Southern apologist yap about some  tariff.    Strange indeed Atchison never mentioned tariffs to his men about why they would kill.  He did mention the spread of slavery.

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

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

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

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

Why?  Because they are not told.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

Why is that not important?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



While 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.   

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

You could vote FOR slavery all you wanted. 

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

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

1200 miles-- the hard way

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

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

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

Also, publishing newspapers against slavery was also outlawed.

This may sound bizare to you - outlawing newspapers?  

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


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

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

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



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

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

If your "history" teacher tells you anything about this, they 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 

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

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

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

 He was talking about David Rice Atchison, US Senator.



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

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

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

Charles Sumner, for example, was one such man. 

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Can't read it?

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

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

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

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


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


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



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




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.

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

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.

So when LIncoln said -- in House Divided Speech -- that the South had made "machinery"  of Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision, to spread slavery in a way that would make all of US free states, or slave states, he was not kidding, not exaggerating.  

Kansas Act + Dred Scott = no state could keep slavery out, no matter if 95% of the people there were against slavery.   As Lincoln said, Dred Scott made owning slaves -- and spreading slavery -- a fundamental right.

And indeed, Jeff Davis agreed.  Davis cited Dred Scott that way, in his own book.   Davis acted as if the South was going to give up slavery, if the court ruled against them --  but because Dred Scott said blacks were not human beings (see below) and said they were property, Kansas could not keep slavery out, no matter what the vote of the people.

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