Saturday, October 5, 2013



1)  Did you know Southern leaders rejected "state's rights" by 1857?  They demanded Kansas accept and respect slavery, even after Kansas whites voted to keep slavery out.

2) Did you know Southern leaders boasted of their "logic" that Kansas could not keep slavery out?  The logic?  Blacks were not human persons, they were property. As property, Kansas legislature MUST accept and respect slavery.

Blacks are INFERIOR BEINGS -- an IT.   Not human persons, but an IT. The US Supreme Court literally referred to slaves an "it" because they were not persons.  They were inferior beings.

And that was the official stated "logic" behind Southern demands to spread slavery into Kansas -- against the will and vote of the people in Kansas.

No vote was taken on slavery -- did you know that -- until Kansas. 

When Kansas white males voted against slavery,  (once by 98%-2%) Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery there anyway -- how's that for state's rights?   Wby what virtue, by what logic, and by the authority did Southern leaders demand the spread of slavery into Kansas, despite the votes against slavery?

Glad you asked -- and your text books never told you. Southern leaders shouted it from the rooftops, then - by "virtue" and authority of God and  the Dred Scott decision.  


You didn't know this either. Dred Scott decision said blacks are not persons - NOT HUMAN PERSONS - but "inferior beings"  and as inferior beings they are "property" not persons. They are exactly like any article of property, like a cow, a pig, a dog, no more, no less. 

Did you know that? I don't mean sorta like a dog or cow, I mean exactly, under the law, like a cow or dog.  They are an "article of property"  and specifically "not persons".  

That's not what I said -- that is what the US Supreme Court said, and SOuthern leaders bragged out the ass about it. Why aren't you even told what Southern leaders bragged out the ass about at the time?  Probably because Southern states edit and publish the US text books, and have since text books were published. 

Southern slave owners on the US Supreme Court just ordered it -- no reason to order it, no case before it asked that question.  There was no suit about blacks being persons or non persons.

The US Supreme Court, under control of slave owners, just made this shit up.   Really.  It's that simple, and don't let anyone tell you any bullshit otherwise. 

    Kansas white voters   rejected slavery. 

Bet you didn't know that.  And when Kansas rejected slavery, Southern leaders issued ultimatums -- Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery, because blacks were inferior beings.


According to Jefferson Davis, blacks were inferior beings punished by God, fit "only for servitude".    They were not persons -- not  human persons -- but a separate type of inferior beings ordained by God to be enslaved.   Bet you didn't know that.  They forget to teach this part of Confederate history.

According to Davis, slavery was the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy, and Southern states had the right to spread slavery by force if need be, even if Kansas rejected slavery (which it did).   See Davis'  logic for his demands to spread slavery into Kansas (hint, it had to do with blacks being inferior beings).

But no one spoke as long, as often, or as officially about black inferiority as Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, who delivered eight separate speeches just before the Civil War, where he explained to cheering Southern crowds what the Confederacy was based on.

The "great moral truth" of the Confederacy, according to Stephens was that blacks are inferior, and whites superior, and God ordained slavery for that reason.   Blacks are actually being punished per God's wishes, said Stephens, which was totally in line with slave owners self talk and justification for slavery. 

The Confederacy, bragged Stephens, was the first nation on earth to do slavery right -- perpetual enslavement of the inferior race by the superior race.   Stephens boasted that the Confederacy will lead the world in this scientific and religious fact, like others have led the world, such as Galileo and Harvey (the guy who discovered circulation system).  Read this -- and remember, he gave this speech to cheering crowds. 

It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? [Slavery of inferior race]    Confederacy is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.

God wanted blacks punished, it was the nature of religious and physical laws, a truth that the Confederacy will champion and be famous for in the future -- said their Vice President.  He pointed out ONLY the Confederacy, of all nations on earth to this point, was based on this "great moral truth".

Blacks were inferior -- the substratum, ordained by God to be laborers for the white superior race.  You didn't know that Southern leaders bragged out the ass about it, and claimed that was the reason they could demand the spread of slavery against state's rights.   God and Dred Scott decision meant slavery must spread.   Kansas voters didn't get to over turn God and Dred Scott. 




Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Cabinet not only demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas  -- they promised war if anyone tried to stop them. 
Oh -- your history book didn't mention that? Suprise, Southern newspapers books and documents bragged about it. 

    Kansas white voters   rejected slavery. 

Did you even know Kansas voters (white males) rejected slavery again, and again, and again?   Once by a vote of 98%-2% against slavery?

No, you didn't know.  

Did you know Kansas men fought a four year violent war against slavery, BESIDES voting against slavery?

No,  you didn't know.

I bet you don't even know that much.

That's basic history, but it's not taught in a clear way. When Kansas tried to keep slavery out, Southern leaders sent thugs to Kansas to terrorize and force slavery into Kansas.   Yes, they did.

When that didn't work, Southern leaders claimed Lincoln was trying to destroy the South by stopping the spread of slavery.  Bet you didn't know that either..

Just stopping the SPREAD of slavery would kill the white race. Remember, this was in Southern states OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, plus in their speeches, letters, sermons, and newspapers. But it's not discussed plainly in US schools. 

Bet you never heard this... 

All leading men say this -- according to the document!

 By all leading men, he meant the slave owners.  Lincoln was not trying to end slavery in the South -- BECAUSE HE COULD NOT DO SO.

Lincoln was trying to end slavery -- by stopping the spread, and he said so repeatedly.   Lying bastards now claim Lincoln was not anti-slavery -- bull fucking shit.   He sure as hell was.   But he was not King, and  Lincoln was not even in office, when Southern states seceded, so he did not even have the chance to order an end to slavery in the South.  

In fact, Lincoln bent over backwards to assure the South, he was not out to destroy slavery.  If the South had not attacked at 12 places (not just one place, as you heard in school) and not promised war if slavery was not spread -- Lincoln would not have been able to use the army.

But Southern men, full of hate from the year of intense hate speech by Southern leaders leading up to the election, were eager to make good on their threats.

What threats? Oh you didn't know?  The South promised war if the North elected anyone against the spread of slavery.   Yes, they did. And their newspapers boasted of it.

Because they had promised war, because the men competed to be more extreme than the others, war was inevitable.  Jefferson Davis knew it was better to avoid war -- win by not doing anything, Lincoln's hands were tied, unless the South attacked.

But the hate talk was just too much, the men had bragged to often, of what they would do if Lincoln was elected.  The war really started because Southern men had boasted they would go to war -- and when Lincoln won, they had to make good, or be seen as cowards.


Lincoln's "crime" according to Southern leaders speaking on the record officially at the time?   He would not allow the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas.   That was "intolerable" said Davis. It would kill the white race, said Robert Toombs.  It was an attempt, said Toombs, to make the South kill itself!  Yes, that's what Toombs wrote in his book.  

Stopping the spread of slavery would "surround" slave states with anti slave states, and the South would be forced, like a scorpion surrounded by fire, he wrote, to sting itself to death.

You heard that right -- this is how crazy and radical Southern leaders were, and they were proud of it. You don't hear this stuff now. 

Stopping the SPREAD of slavery  would "exterminate" the white race, said Confederate Secretary of State Toombs.  That would "be like burning us to death" said the governor of Florida at the Democratic Convention -- the one Northern Democrats had to leave, and only Southern Democrats (slave owners) were safe to walk around.

Stopping the spread of slavery was "against God." If you are against slavery you are against GOD himself, said the Texas Declaration of Secession.

Gee -- the stuff they "forget" to mention in text books published and edited in Texas.  


But without an army, Southern leaders could not spread slavery by force into Kansas, especially with Lincoln elected.  Lincoln refused to obey the "Five Ultimatums" issued by Southern leaders and shown in Southern newspaper headlines. 

Oh, you didn't know that either? Surprise, surprise.  Everyone alive, paying attention, knew then.   Newspapers North and South wrote about the Five Southern Ultimatums.  

In fact, Richmond called the spread of slavery, and  the demand for the spread of slavery into Kansas, "THE TRUE ISSUE".

They weren't admitting it, they were bragging about it.  

New York newspapers ran the Five Ultimatums the next day -- and suggested Lincoln obey them!!   Why put up a fight against the spread of slavery?   That was a Kansas issue-- but Kansas had already voted again, and again, and again, AGAINST slavery.

Lincoln was not about to obey Southern demands to spread slavery into Kansas against the will of the people there, and of course, Southern leaders knew it. 

Since you had no idea Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery as a war ultimatum --of course you don't know the "logic" of demanding the spread of slavery against states rights.  

Here is that "logic" as explained by slave owners and Southern leaders, themselves, bragging about it. Oh, your southern edited text books "forgot" to mention this little detail, and your history "teacher" was too stupid to look at Southern newspapers himself/herself...



Not only did Dred Scott decision order -- without any authority -- that blacks are not humans persons (not persons) but property.   The Court also ordered government to protect SLAVERY.  



That was the ruling -- the summation -- that blacks are "inferior beings" not persons. Remember that, literally, that is what the Dred Scott decision said. INFERIOR BEINGS -- NOT PERSONS.

You never heard that, did you?   You heard of Dred Scott, you never  heard clearly what the US Supreme Court ordered-- that blacks were NOT persons but property.

Instead, you heard nonsense about "citizenship".   Actually, the court used the words "not persons" and "inferior beings" on TOP of a mention a citizenship.    Blacks were property, by official decree, of this order of the US Supreme Court.

And no one teaches this in US schools.  No one. But Southern leaders bragged out the ass about it, at the time.   

Remember that, Southern leaders bragged out the ass, at the time, about Dred Scott decision official language, that blacks were inferior beings -- and not persons. NOT PERSONS.

Did we mention NOT persons?  


And guess who bragged of this, out the ass, and claimed this decision made states rights moot -- that Kansas CAN NOT decide for itself?

Jefferson Davis said that -- loudly and proudly.   Dred Scott decision, according to Southern leaders, speeches, books and documents at the time time, trumped states rights to decide slavery.  SO it didn't matter if Kansas whites voted 98% -2%.

Bet you didn't know that.  Jefferson Davis even wrote about it in his own book, after the Civil War.  Read it. You won't be told of it in any US text book, so read it yourself. 

So you sure as hell didn't know Jefferson Davis and Southern leaders officially demanded the spread of slavery there.  Texas book companies have had a virtual monopoly on US text books, and they were edited by Texas School Boards.  See below.  In this book.

STILL DON'T BELIEVE ME?  OKAY, HERE IS THE PAGE ITSELF. I didn't write it -- Jefferson Davis wrote this, explaining why secession was necessary.  He actually quotes the "African race are not persons" part of Dred Scott, and claims those words in that  decision made state's rights moot, for slavery issues.  

No one told you.   How do you like that for state's rights?  When Kansas rejected slavery, Southern leaders rejected state's rights.

Really -- see below.  And they were proud of rejecting state's rights about slavery, because slavery was ordained by God. 

Few people today know Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas at all, much less as a war ultimatum, before the Civil War.  

Why don't people today know that? Because it's not in any US text book. You have to read Southern newspapers and books bragging about it, at the time.

Yet everyone alive, and paying attention, knew it in 1861, because Southern leaders were very very clear, loud, and proud about it then.  

Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas.   

In fact, the resistance to the spread of slavery into KANSAS, Davis wrote, was the "intolerable grievance".   Really.  That's  the one thing Davis said could not be tolerated, the efforts to keep slavery OUT of Kansas.  

Southern newspapers
Southern speeches
Southern documents
Southern books
and Southern leaders
demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas.

Bet you didn't know that. 

But Davis demanded the spread of slavery, and so did the Confederate Constitution itself, into Kansas.


So what if they demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas?

We told you -- Kansas rejected slavery again and again, by vote and by war.   SO it's a big deal that Southern leaders, just before the start of the Civil War, bragged out the ass of their demands to spread slavery.

You never heard  -- did you  -- that Southern leaders demanded, as a war ultimatum no less, the spread of slavery into Kansas?  What Southern newspapers and leaders boasted of then, somehow got erased from our US text books.  See why, below.

Nor did you know that Kansas rejected slavery over and over again.   

Strange -- because everyone alive, paying attention to politics, knew it then.  Lincoln spoke of it -- so did Davis. In fact, both men agreed, though they used different words.  Lincoln was clear in his famous note to Confederate Vice President Stephens -- the only substantial issue, was the spread of slavery.  Stephens agreed.  



Bet you didn't know this -- Southern leaders claimed (seriously and officially) that Lincoln would kill the white race, thats right KILL THE WHITE RACE, if he stopped the SPREAD of slavery. No, not some nut job at a bar, this was Southern leaders, 

speaking collectively and officially, to future generations, in their own "Declaration of Causes"   which was supposed to be like the US "Declaration of Independence".   This is what they bragged of, officially, from the rooftops, at the time.  Remember that.

Lincoln's sole concern was to stop the SPREAD of slavery, said Lincoln himself, and this is reflected in this document.   So don't believe stupid people when they tell you Lincoln was threatening the South -- he did no such thing. Lincoln bent over backwards to say his goal was just to stop the SPREAD of slavery.

And Southern leaders were as determined to SPREAD slavery for God and white survival. That is what Southern leaders said then -- and why this is not in US text books, because Southern leaders themselves were quite emphatic about it, is a travesty itself.

South's official document, claim all leading men say stopping the spread of slavery will be a torture unto death!  Just by stopping the SPREAD of slavery. Remember that.

Remember -- the issue was the SPREAD of slavery. And Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery as a war ultimatum.  No one told you that, did they?  

Notice, the document goes out of its way to show Lincoln is not trying to end slavery in the South, just stop the SPREAD of it.  But that is enough, said the Declaration of Causes, to torture whites to death. 

This was a common refrain -- this was not some goofball drunk at a bar.   This was their own governors, and their own Confederate Secretary of State, and their own Vice President.  Jefferson Davis said the resistance to the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas was the "intolerable grievance".

And remember, -- Kansas voted against slavery again, and again, and again. And Kansas whites put up a four year bloody battle to keep slavery out.   

At crazy as all this is, why is this not mentioned in US text books?  Probably because since US public text books were published, Texas book companies printed them, and they were edited by the Texas Education Board.   So the Southern states literally wrote the history of the Civil War, for your text books, and took out all the insane stuff, like Southern demands to spread slavery for GOD. 




Blacks are not human persons.  Officially, said the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court ordered that blacks not be considered persons.

Did you know that? 

Or not.

  And Jefferson Davis boasted of it. 

Did you know that?
Or not.



Surprise surprise!  Well here it is.....

Read this -- its from Jefferson Davis own book.   Dred Scott, according to Jeff Davis, and all Confederate leaders at the time, gave them the right to demand the spread of slavery into Kansas because blacks are "so inferior" they are not persons but property.

Vice President Stephens speech, given 8 times to cheering crowds, went into great detail
about the "founding principle" of the Confederacy -- the spread of slavery for GOD,
because blacks were inferior beings, ordained to be enslaved and punished

The SPREAD of slavery was woven into the Southern constitution, itself. See this. 

Artile 1V section 3, said slavery SHALL be recognized and protected in the territories -- they meant Kansas.  This was exactly what the newspapers were talking about.  The "Montgomery" Constitution was the term used for a few weeks, for the COnfederate Constitution.

Remember, Kansas voters votes against slavery again, and again, and again.

SO why didn't it matter how Kansas voted?   Because according to Southern leaders, blacks are not persons, but property, and the United States Supreme Court emphatically said so. 

Even official documents said Lincoln was trying to "burn them slowly to death"  by stopping the SPREAD of slavery. 

Lincoln was going to burn them to death!!   That's not the rambling of a crazy man, that's the official document from the State of Florida, written by the governor of Florida, at the time.

Why are these official documents, and the books and speeches of Southern leaders at the time, even mentioned in US text books?  Probably because text books, since public education started, were printed, and edited, by Texas officials.   Texas officials never cared much for telling the ugly truth  -- even though the Southern officials were so proud and loud about it, at the time. 

Who said it did not matter how people in Kansas voted?   Jefferson Davis and the Confederate leaders, that's who. And they bragged about their "logic".,

Blacks are ordained by God to be enslaved, blacks are NOT human persons for purposes of the law, and therefore slave ownership is a fundamental right. Being free is not protected -- enslaving others is.

Free speech is not protected (because it was illegal to speak write or preach against slavery in the South)  but owning slaves was protected. 

That is the OFFICIAL ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the slave owners on the court thus ruled.    And Southern leaders boasted of it, and explained Lincoln was treasonous for trying to stop the SPREAD of slavery.

Remember -- Lincoln was not trying to stop slavery where it already existed, the was trying to stop the SPREAD of slavery. Keep that in your head, and know how wacko and violent and crazy Southern leaders went (see above) just if Lincoln tried to stop the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas, which had voted again, and again, and again, to keep slavery out.

Kansas men also fought a four year war against slavery, against the slave masters who sent thugs to Kansas to use violence and threats. But never mind that, Davis demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas.

You aren't taught that.  Remember this, SOuthern leaders bragged about things you are not taught today.  Shame on any "historian" who does not expose this, because Southern leaders were proud of it then, and explained then that is their motivation for secession and the Civil War -- they demanded the SPREAD of slavery against state's rights. SO don't believe that crap about South cared about states rights, by 1857 they changed excuses to Dred Scott.

Got that?   Not real complicated. 

So states rights excuse had to go.  Dred Scott decision that blacks were inferior beings -- NOT PERSONS -- was the new excuse. 


 First of all, men who have slave girls whipped, sell children, and burn to death slave men who fight back against slavery, do not really give a shit about rights.  Too complicated? Think a guy who pays bounties for children, has escaped slaves whipped, and burns to death men who fight back, care about rights?

Still, they did say the words "states rights" and "popular sovereignty" often enough.  But when Kansas rejected slavery over, and over, and over, and by force, Southern leaders had to change their excuses. 

Just before Southerners attacked at 12 places (not just one, as we hear in text books), Southern leaders issued Five Ultimatums, and called them Five Ultimatums.  All five were about the SPREAD of slavery, one way or another.  Not sorta, not kinda.   And they were proud of it.  

You weren't told of Southern demands to spread slavery for God and white survival, were you? Not in school, though you should have  told, because Southern leaders were bragging of them.  Southern newspapers had them as headlines!! Southern documents - officially written to explain to future generations their reasons - have the spread of slavery for God and white survival in the documents!

But no text book shows that.  Why not?  Why not tell what Southern leaders boasted of?  What's the problem?

Just stopping the SPREAD of slavery, according to the Florida declaration of causes, would be "torture you do death my a slow fire"  wrote the governor, in official documents, intended to explain their motivations to future generations.


By  1861 Southern leaders "flipped flopped" -- they repudiated States rights, and popular sovereignty.  Of course, they never gave a shit about "state's rights" anyway-- men who sell children, whip women, and burn to death men who fight back against slavery, do not care about rights.

They cared about power and getting rich, and having women to rape at will (yes, rape was common).     But they had to say SOMETHING , so they said "state's rights".

Shame on the "historians" who repeat that bullshit, especially since by 1857 Southern leaders completely flipped flopped.   Southern leaders rejected a state's right to choose slavery.  Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery.  

SLavery was a divine gift, it was ordained that slavery be spread.   That is what SOuthern leaders THEMSELVES boasted of!!!   

Since we don't teach what SOuthern leaders boasted of, unless you read the original documents, newspapers, books,  and speeches from the time, you can't know all this.   We have done Orwellian double talk so much on the Southern leaders, that we show these men, who had women whipped, sold children, etc, as "Christian heroes".

Davis explained -- at length  -- what his "new" excuse was.   Not some historian explaining, Davis explained it.  He then justified the demands to spread slavery, because Southerner on US Supreme Court wrote that blacks are "so inferior" they are not persons.

You heard right.  Southerners on US Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, wrote that blacks are "SO INFERIOR" they are not human persons, they are NOT persons, literally NOT persons.  

Blacks are NOT persons said the Dred Scott decision, they are property.

And Davis said that decision changed everything. I didn't  say it -- Jefferson Davis said it, bragging about it, in his own book!  Oh you never heard?

 States rights and popular sovereignty now did not matter,  Kansas voters now did not matter.  A state rejecting slavery now did not matter.

In fact, Southern newspaper called popular will a "trick of the devil"  .  DId you know that?  Hell no, you didn't know that.

Davis and every Southern leaders claimed God ordained slavery, in fact, Davis claimed slavery was a "Divine Gift"  and that blacks were "the most contended laborers on earth"   unless the "evil serpent" of the devil whispered the "lie of freedom" into their ear!

Oh you didn't know that either?   A repeated and popular speech, given at the time, eight times, claiming blacks are inferior beings, and ordained by god to be PUNISHED!!

Oh you didn't know that?   Well, Vice President Stephens was only saying was Southern books, speeches, and documents said before, in various ways. God was on their side, God wanted slavery -- it's not up to men to question GOD!!

That's not some nut later, that's their own vice president, repeatedly and at length saying it, again and again. Newspapers in the South carried his speech, and noted the crowds cheered.

And Stephens had just days before, helped create the Confederacy!  He was explaining the "foundation" of the Confederacy!!  On official tour to explain it!.   Years later, Stephens was interviewed and confirmed, yes, this was his speech.    Sometimes you hear Southerners claim Stephens never gave this speech, or was admonished for it, whatever excuse they can make up. 

Too bad, the speech is in Southern newspapers then, and Stephens explained later in life that he wrote it, and even helped the reporters at the time get the words right. 

Nothing in the Cornerstone speech was unusual at all -- just Stephens was emphatic, and spoke longer about it, in more detail.  But these same justifications for slavery and spread of slavery for God, was common in any speech or document by slave masters or Southern politicians.

 Davis said the same thing, in a little less bragging way.   

Stephens Cornerstone speech was not unusual at all, the same things are in Southern books, speeches and documents, just not as boldly stated at such length.   

Yeah, funny how Jeff Davis and other Southern leaders bragged out the ass about stuff then, that never seems to get in our Texas edited US text books. Wonder why?

 Slavery, by way of Dred Scott, overnight became a right!!  

Blacks became officially, by decree of the United States Supreme Court, not persons, but inferior beings, a class of "non-persons" who were property.

This is  not what I say -- this is how Jefferson Davis explained it then, and wrote to that effect, in his own book. This is exactly how Southern leaders, newspapers, books, and speeches justified the spread of slavery into Kansas at the time.

Because blacks were "non-persons" and property, it no longer mattered what Kansas voters wanted, they MUST accept and respect slavery.   The slave owners in the South would literally tell Kansas legislators what laws to pass about slavery.  

Sound like state's rights to you?  Really?

Bet no one told you.

Popular sovereignty -- let the people choose -- was the excuse, as was states rights.  Yeah, Southern leaders talked about state's right to SPREAD slavery. Southern leaders claimed that "states rights" and "popular soverienty"  were what they really cared about!

BUt no one got to choose, other than slave owners.  There was never votes on it. That changed in Kansas, Kansas voters DID vote on it, and rejected it -- once by a vote of 98% to 2%.

Bet you didn't know that.  How would you know?  It's not in a single US text book that was edited by Texas book companies. Not once, not ever.  

 When Kansas rejected slavery by overwhelming votes, Southern leaders had a problem --  so they repudiated states rights, and claimed a different excused.  
That's right -- a trick of the devil!!

Southern newspapers called popular sovereignty a trick of the Devil, but Jeff Davis was a little more sneaky.   He changed his excuse to the Dred Scott decision, that said blacks are "so inferior" they are not human persons.  

By 1861 Southern leaders were loud and proud -- Kansas could not choose to reject slavery. Yes, Kansas voters voted three times to keep slavery out!! One time by a vote of 98%!!

But did the Southern leaders go "Oh, huge votes against slavery, well, that's fine'?

Hell no -- Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, as a war ultimatum. Not as a suggestion, not as a desire, not as a preference, but as a war ultimatum. And they were so proud of it.


Slavery -- spread by violence, and threat of violence  -- is exactly what Confederate leaders bragged about, and demanded.   Did you know that?

Hell no, you didn't know that.  Not the protection of slavery, but the SPREAD of slavery for God and white survival.  You aren't taught this -- no one has been taught this since US public education started using text books.  Why?  Because most text books were published and edited in Texas.

Really.   So for 100 years, Texas school board members have "forgotten" to mention what their Southern leaders boasted of at the time.      Maybe it's a time to correct that "oversight". 

Southern demands to spread slavery were loudly and proudly stated -- for years, in fact, for decades.    As the slave masters demanded more, and more, and more land for slavery,  the abolitionist and "free soilers" demanded an end to the SPREAD of slavery.   

No one pretended otherwise.  Southern leaders through their speeches, books, and documents, (see below) made it very clear, their demand was for the SPREAD of slavery for God.  As the rhetoric heated up, words became so extreme that Southern leaders claimed just stopping the SPREAD of slavery would kill the white race in the South. 

In fact, Southern papers claimed in headlines, this was "THE TRUE ISSUE".   New York papers ran the ultimatums the next day, and suggested Lincoln obey them -- but he could not.  Lincoln could no more force slavery into Kansas than he could fly, and that was the first in the list of Ultimatums, that Kansas must accept and respect slavery.




And you never heard about it. No US text book, that we know of, bothers to mention that Kansas white males votes repeatedly to keep slavery out -- one time by a vote of 98% -2%.   

Yet Davis and the South promised war if slavery was not spread -- into KANSAS. 


No one  alive in 1861 was surprised at the Five Ultimatums,  as Richmond editor Edward Pollard essentially explained --  the South had "amply warned" the North that electing a man against the spread of slavery would be taken as a "Declaration of War."  

Oh you didn't know that either? Southern editors were boasting of their war demands, even after the war in a book by editor Pollard, he essentially said, hey, don't blame us, we warned them voting for a guy against the spread of slavery was a declaration of war.

And he was right -- they did warn that!!    They did say that over and over -- slavery must be spread.  Your history book doesn't explain it that way, but Southern editors and newspapers  were rather blunt about it.  SPread slavery, or face the consequences.

 Lincoln wrote Stephens a note -- which Stephens agreed with -- that the "only substantial difference" between the Union and Confederacy, is that the South demanded the spread of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to stop just the spread of slavery.

But stopping the SPREAD of slavery will kill us -- said Southern leaders. Bet you didn't know that.  Bet no one told you that.

This was not news to anyone at the time -- Southern leaders had been demanding the spread of slavery for years, into Kansas specifically, even though Kansas whites rejected slavery again, and again, and again.

The demands to spread slavery were -- as reported correctly in Southern papers-- in the Confederate Constitution itself.  

Language in Confederate Constitution
mandating spread of slavery into Kansas.
Kansas people, according to Davis, could  not vote otherwise


According to Jeff Davis himself, because of Dred Scott decision, no state could keep slavery out.  Oh you didn't know that?

Kansas, where even the white males voted overwhelmingly against slavery -- MUST accept and respect slavery, and MUST enact legislation to protect slavery.

Did you know that, or not?  

Does your "history" teacher know that, or not?   Probably not.  Though it's in Davis own book, in his own speeches, and in Southern newspapers and documents at the time, loudly and proudly.  It's likely your history teacher views this issue as it was written in US text books, which for over 100 years have been largely shaped by Texas text book publishers.

 BLacks were "inferior beings" according to Dred Scott, Davis said (and he was right, that is exactly what Dred Scott decision said) .

Blacks are SO inferior they are not NOT persons. They are "inferior beings"  and as such beings, do not have rights, and can not be made into persons by Congress or any legislation!!!

According to Davis, and all Confederate leaders, blacks were property, and as such, states must accept and respect slavery because slaves are property. 

Again, this is not what they said just in private, they boasted of this, at the time.  But what they boasted of at the time, in speeches, documents, books, and headlines, somehow was whitewashed from our text books.  Actually no text books were ever printed, that say such things candidly.  SOuthern leaders said them candidly THEN -- but no text book company (almost all text books were edited and printed in the South) would put such truth in the books.

Bet you didn't know that. 

Davis also claimed during a speech during the Civil War he would like to  reunite the North and South USA in one big slave nation --as God intended, according to him.  Bet you didn't know that, either.   

Everyone alive, and politically aware, knew and spoke about Southern slave owners trying to push slavery into Kansas by force.   YOU never heard of it, because our text books don't mention those and other ugly truths -- like slave rape and white looking slave girls at Arlington (Robert E Lee's slave plantation). Like 2/3 desertion rate by 1864, of Southern soldiers, the real reason the South lost.  

Like Confederate leaders torture of slave girls, use of slaves in the war, and capturing free black women in the North, and turning them into slaves, at order of Robert E Lee.

You don't hear any of that in US text books.  None.

You can't understand anything about US Civil War, or LIncoln, or slavery, unless you understand Southern leaders were spreading slavery by any means necessary, including violence, force, and war, and they were proud of it. Very proud.  In fact, the first thing the Confederacy did, was promise war if slavery was not spread into Kansas.  Not the second thing, not the third thing, but the FIRST thing, the first official act, actually written into their own Constitution, was the spread of slavery into Kansas. 

Bet you didn't know that.

Lincoln wrote a note to Confederate Vice President, the the "only" substantial difference between them was the SPREAD of slavery.    Jefferson Davis said the resistance to the SPREAD of slavery was the 'intolerable' grievance.

Davis promised to spread slavery by violence if need be -- against, remember that, against, the will and votes -- VOTES --  of the people in Kansas.   Kansas voters (white males) voted repeatedly to keep slavery out, once by a vote of 98% to 2%.

Kansas men also fought a four year war to keep slavery out.  No one alive on earth believed Kansas citizens wanted slavery.

So why did Davis and Southern leaders demand spread of slavery into Kansas?  WHy  not just leave Kansas alone?

Because SOuthern leaders had already claimed Kansas would be slave state.

Davis and the South respected state's rights, of course?   Not at all.  

State's rights and "popular sovereignty"  were the terms used to  justify the spread of slavery before -- but no one really asked the people to vote on slavery.   In Kansas, that changed.  Kansas had actually referendums on slavery -- and slavery was rejected. Over, and over and over.

So what happened to that "state's rights" thing?  Your history teacher forgot to tell you that, too.

Suddenly, state's could not choose, according to Jeff Davis.  Suddenly, popular sovereignty was a "trick of the devil" according to a Southern newspaper.    You are not told about this, so you have no clue what went on/


Vice President Stephens went on an eight city speaking tour, to cheering crowds, the newspapers said, explaining in detail, bragging, that the fundamental reason the Confederacy exists, was to spread slavery of inferior beings for GOD.

Stephens was not some crazy man -- he said nothing new.  Davis, and all Confederate leaders, had been saying this for years, if not decades.   As the South desperately tried to spread slavery more -- Southern leaders justifications for the SPREAD of slavery grew to absurd extremes.

Like the instance by Davis that blacks were "so inferior" they were not human for purposes, not human persons.  Blacks, insisted Davis in so many words, were no more persons than a dog or mule, and had no more rights.  This "gross inferiority"  meant, Davis wrote, that no one could stop slaver owners from taking their slaves where they wanted, including Kansas, which had rejected slavery by a vote of 98% -2% in one election, and by 65% in another.



This Book, South Vindicated,  reprinted, changed its title to fool modern readers.

They "forgot" the original title "The Treason and Fanaticism of Abolitionists".  Those "ungodly"   abolitionist who dared to speak openly against slavery in the North!   

   Just the fact people in the North were allowed to speak and write against slavery was proof of  fanaticism and anti God mentality.    Gee, for some reason, they "forgot" to mention that in the reprinting.

The Southern Carolina official Declaration of Causes openly admitted the very existence in the North of public writings against slavery was a cause for secession, and was "serious religious error".

Robert E Lee himself -- supposedly a moderate -- said abolitionists were "trying to destroy the American Church"  and were "against God".  See about Lee's torture of slaves here.

It was illegal to speak or write openly against slavery in the South -- punishable by whip and prison.  That's another thing your history teacher forgot, or never knew.  The South made it ILLEGAL to speak or write or own books that even questioned slavery.   You could be whipped for preaching against slavery. 

 But the Northern Abolitionist were the "fanatics" -- not the Southern men of God who enslaved, whipped, and tortured.    The book also "forgot" to mention Southern leaders demands to spread slavery of the inferior beings.   Funny how Souther apologist, and our own text books, omit a few "details".   This book sells today on Amazon. 




Let us repeat that -- BLACKS WERE NOT HUMAN PERSONS. They are
"inferior beings"  being "punished by GOD, a separate class, sub human if you will, not persons!

This is from the decision itself --blacks are "SO INFERIOR" they are "not persons"

This is  not someone else writing about the decision, this is FROM THE DRED SCOTT DECISION

SO what did the Court order?  YOu have no clue, do you? Hell no.  And this is not in any US Text book, at least not bluntly stated, so here it is.

You heard utter nonsense, about "citizenship" right?   Congress can not "bestow citizenship".  Well, that's true, but that's nothing compared to "blacks are so inferior they can not be part of the people -- but property"  part of the ruling.

SO why not tell you about blacks not being human, but property, official ruling by United States Supreme Court?   And remember, Jefferson Davis boasted of this exact point!!   Why not mention that?

Because it's too vile. It makes Davis and the United States Supreme Court sound and look like lunatics, mad raving sociopaths. 

But this was spoken of at the time loudly and proudly.   Lincoln was busy as hell, speaking up against it!!  This is exactly what Lincoln was speaking of, in every single Lincoln Douglas debate.  

Did you know that? Did you know the Lincoln Douglas debates were about blacks being infeior, and the Dred Scott decision?  Hell you you didn't know that.  It's  not taught that way in our Texas edited text books, but read the debates!!!  That's what they are about.

   And Jefferson Davis was boasting of that exact thing, while Lincoln railed against it.

Davis friends on the US Supreme Court had ruled -- ordered actually --by decree that blacks were "so inferior" they were not part of the people, not human, essentially.

And therefore, because of this ruling, slavery should spread, regardless of "state's rights".      Slavery MUST be spread into Kansas, specifically. 

Bet you had no clue.   Nor were you told that SOuthern leaders claimed the white race would be exterminated if slavery was not spread. Bet you never heard that either. 

Now see this, its from the official declaration, the order of the court.  And remember, Southern leaders bragged about this, and said this is why they could spread slavery into Kansas,  no matter how the people there voted.



Something else didn't get in US text books that Southern leaders bragged about -- the claim by Southern leaders that Lincoln was trying to kill whites by stopping the spread of slavery.

Remember, Southern leaders were loud and proud of this at the time, officially announced it, over and over.   That was their own explanation at the time. 

No one said Lincoln was trying to end slavery where it was -- the Southern leader said -- but he was trying to end the spread of slavery and that was like burning us to death slowly.

The Confederate Cabinet demanded the spread of slavery
into Kansas
In the CSA constitution, itself. 


The official declaration of causes, written by the Florida Governer, actually wrote that "all leading men"  agreed that while Lincoln was NOT trying to end slavery where it was, just by stopping the spread of slavery was like burning them to death slowly.

Did some crazy guy at a bar say this? No.  Just like it wasn't some crazy guy at a bar claiming the resistance to the SPREAD of slavery was the "intolerable grievance".    These were Southern leaders, on the record, writing themselves, to explain to the world!!

So why hasn't that been taught in US schools?  Good question.

My my.  It has been announced by all the leading men  that no more slave states means death for whites -- by slow fire.

Who said it has been announced by all leading men?  Some kook?  Their own official documents said it 

We have told this to some history teachers -- and they never heard of it before.  Why haven't they heard it, it's no secret.

The logic of their demands to spread slavery is in the most famous Supreme Court of that century -- Dred Scott.  So why on earth do history teachers not tell us what that decision said, and explain how SOuthern leaders used it as the basis of the spread of slavery?

Because THEY weren't taught that basic truth,  and Southern leaders made it very clear -- emphatically clear -- that was their logic and motivation at the time!   

Why not state clearly what Southern leaders boasted of, and explained, at the time?    Instead, we teach kids the nonsense that Southern leaders "really believed" in state's rights.   Forget the fact they did a 180 degree turn, against state's right to decide slavery issues.   Historians should be smart enough to spot an excuse.







Watch the linguistic tricks in the Dred Scott decision -- you aren't shown this in school.  Taney, according to Davis,  was "stainless" man (who got rich selling children and stayed on Supreme Court to force slavery down the throat of the United States by legal doubletalk).  

It's Taney's word Davis quotes in his own book, about the inferior nature of blacks  -- how they are NOT human, not part of the people, but property.

So you had no clue the Taney court ordered slavery to be protected -- states had no choice. You never heard that, did you? Of course not.

But Davis boasted of it. Lincoln warned against it, this was the dispute, but you never heard it put that way.

We are told in school nonsense about "a narrow ruling" that congress could not "bestow citizenship"  according to the likes of Eric Foner.  That's what Foner claimed about Dred Scott.  Never mind the decision itself is quite emphatic, it was about blacks status as non-humans, non persons, as property.

And never mind that this is how Southern leaders spoke of it, then.  This is how SOuthern leaders justified the use of violence to force slavery where people had voted against it. 


No law said blacks were inferior beings, only the decision of the United States Supreme Court, under the control of slave owners. 

And the US Supreme Court issued an ORDER to that effect!

Yes, the Supreme Court was owned, in effect, by men from slave owning families from the South. And this was their official ruling - blacks are so inferior they are not persons, but property.



The South had flipped flopped on state's rights, when the term state's rights no longer served the purpose.   Before, they claimed state's rights was their fundamental concern.

But Kansas rejected slavery -- and Southern leaders needed a new excuse.  
Inferior beings. INFERIOR BEINGS.  The US Suprme Court ruling that blacks are inferior beings -- in Dred Scott.   That is not what I say the "logic" of Southern leaders was, that is what their OWN documents and speeches said, at the time!

Read it yourself.  And read Davis own words about it.   The Court specifically said blacks are not persons -- but so inferior they were property.  

And further, ordered -- by decree -- that the "Federal Government"  will enforce the property rights of slave holders into Kansas.  Never mind that Kansas voted against slavery by huge margins, never mind that Kansas fought a four year war against slavery.

So the USSC says blacks are not persons -- officially and emphatically. That's not taught. The Southern leaders boast of this decision  -- that's not taught.

The Southern leaders books -- both President and Vice President -- brag about this "blacks are inferior" and the Dred Scott decision was what motivated them to spread slavery -- that is not taught.
That is what was going on at the time.  But that is not the story we get in US text books. 

 That's right, not only are blacks so inferior they are not human, not persons, this is exactly, precisely the excuse Davis used to spread slavery against the will of the people. 

LIncoln had to deal with the REAL issues, not the bullshit that came later from whitewashed Texas "history" text books.  Lincoln had to deal with these lunatics claiming blacks are being punished by GOD and anyone against slavery is against God, and slavery must be spread. 

In other words, Lincoln was up against a lot more than what your Texas edited bullshit text books will tell you. 


According to Davis,  people could not decide slavery issues themselves in the states, because the United States Supreme Court had thus ruled, blacks were inferior beings and not humans, not persons.


Did Jeff Davis, speaking at the time, not know what he was talking about? He said blacks were sub human, inferior beings, ordained by God to be enslaved.  Davis said the "intolerable grievance" was the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas!!

Nor was anyone surprised, at all.  The SPREAD of slavery was not just an issue that popped up in 1861,  suddenly out of the blue.  The spread of slavery was the oxygen in the air of US history from 1800-1865.  

Kansas Nebraska Act, the annexation of Texas, the admission of each new state, the Lincoln Douglas debates, the Dred Scott decision, virtually everything was about one "true issue" - the spread of slavery.

Bet you didn't know that New York newspapers ran the Southern Ultimatums in their papers, and suggested Lincoln obey them -- allow the spread of slavery into Kansas, against the will of the white people in Kansas.

This was the central issue -- the true issue -- said Southern leaders and Lincoln.  The spread of slavery.

Lincoln was willing to guarantee no interference with slavery in perpetuity -- and claimed over and over that he had no intention or means to end slavery where it existed. Lincoln was trying to stop the SPREAD of slavery, as a means to kill it off "naturally".


Davis and the entire Southern leadership took Lincoln's effort to stop the spread of slavery as an act of war, in itself!   Yes, Kansas voted against slavery, but Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, and promised war, vote or no vote.

Still sound like they wanted state's rights?  Really?

Stop the spread of slavery, is like stopping the spread of slavery -- that is the only way to end slavery, is to end the spread of it. The rapid increase in number of slaves would kill off slavery - if slavery was not allowed to spread.  

No one told you that, did they?  

States Rights?

Really?  Think Southern leaders cared about "state's rights"?


Even in official documents, written by Southern governors, Southern leaders said Lincoln stopping the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas (Kansas voted against slavery 998% to 2% in one election)  would be "like burning us slowly to death"

Remember that -- -Lincoln just wanted to stop the SPREAD of slavery -- into Kansas!!  

If the South had won the Civil War, it's likely the Cornerstone Speech by Stephens would be as famous as Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

But you don't hear of the Cornerstone speech  -- some deny it was real, because it's so vile, it claims God wants the inferior black race punished by slavery!   It claims slavery should be of blacks by whites and spread world wide, and the Confederacy is the first nation on earth to be literally founded on that great moral truth.

Remember that, their own Vice President bragged over and over, to cheering crowds, that the Confederacy was based on the great truth that blacks are being punished by God, and slavery should spread world wide.



 From 1857 on, Southern leaders functionally rejected states had the right to reject slavery.   
 In  1854 a case (the well-known "Dred Scott case") came before the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the whole question of the status of the African race and the rights of citizens of the Southern States to migrate to the Territories, temporarily or permanently, with their slave property, on a footing of equality with the citizens of other States with their property of any sort.

1. That persons of the African race were not, and could not be, acknowledged as "part of the people," or citizens, under the Constitution of the United States;.....


Lincoln spoke of this often -- in fact, much of the Lincoln Douglas debates were about this exact thing, the Dred Scott decision declaration that blacks were "property" and not human!

Lincoln spoke of it time and time again, his "House Divided" speech is about it, as were the LIncoln Douglas debates.  See this.  

CLick on this movie clip from 1939, a very accruate, and nearly verbatim compilation of Lincoln's statements about Dred Scott, and Douglas's defense of Dred Scott, exactly on the point of whether blacks were human, and had rights, or not.

Lincoln had promised to not bother slavery where it was -- but that did not mollify the South. Just because he was against slavery -- THAT was enough, Pollard said, for his or anyone's election, to be taken as a "DECLARATION OF WAR".

 Remember this -- this is NOT a  historian saying it later.  Not some bad old yankee.  This is the Southern newspapers and leaders at the time bragging of it.

Pollard claims -- correctly -- that the North was "distinctly warned" that electing anyone against slavery was, in effect, an act of WAR.